A Cautionary Note to Parents of Chessplaying Kids
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 11:49PM First, here's a link to a sad story about a well-known American chess teacher, recently apprehended in Belize. (HT: Brian Karen) This seems like a propitious occasion to quote some advice I offered four years ago, on the previous edition of the blog:
First of all, if you're a chess teacher, REFUSE to be the sole chaperone of ANY kids you didn't bring into the world. I have turned down several opportunities to earn some extra income by driving kid x to a tournament, and I simply won't do it. (I'm referring to driving a male child. All this gets raised exponentially if we're talking about a female student.) If the child is a minor, then even he's big enough to physically damage me, I'm not going anywhere with him in the absence of another adult, preferably one of his parents. Everyone stays out of trouble that way, and if you're a good teacher, you'll make plenty of money anyway.
Second, for parents: follow this same rule. If you can't bring your kid to a tournament, then he doesn't go. Or if he or she does go, this only happens when there are multiple adult chaperones, who do not stay in kids' rooms. In fact, I'd say that unless there's a medical emergency, no adult should ever be by him- or herself in a kid's room. Further, unless these chaperones have been investigated by the school district, forget about it. A freelance guy like me should NEVER be the chaperone, even if I'm with my wife, another chessplayer or instructor, whatever, if it involves situations where I could be out of the public eye with a child. (Part of a group, sure, as long as the group has some sort of worthy accreditation and, again, no one is ever alone with the kids.)
All this seems like common sense to me, just as (male) pastors should never counsel women behind closed doors, teachers should never be in an office with students of the opposite sex behind closed doors, etc. Instructors (or parents, if they take off work to take their kids) might lose a little money, and kids might miss out on opportunities to play every now and then, but that's life. Chess teachers won't have to worry about false rumors, and parents will have a lot less to worry about with their kids.
Reader Comments (6)
Dennis, as one who's "been there and done that," in one of your examples...
There are times and places where a Pastor does counsel a woman behind closed doors. In very rare cases, a clergyperson might counsel a child alone. (Especially if said clergy suspects the child *has* been abused by someone else.) It comes with the territory.
That said, there are things a clergyperson can do to mitigate the potential for damage in such situations. Examples... have a window installed in one's office door and set the counseling space such that the clergyperson is *always* in plain view of it but the penitient/counseled/etc. is not in sight. Have a secretary outside the space - may not bring absolute protection, but certainly does bring some mitigation. If one is fortunate enough to have both, request that the secretary physically look in the window every ten minutes to establish that the Pastor was in plain sight enough that little-if-anything could have happened. If one goes to a person's home, call into the office by cell both before and after the visit to establish a timeframe.
You have to mitigate and manage risk. You can't eliminate it - not and still serve. (And here, "risk" is also defined as risk to the clergy from a false accusation.) Boundary management is very real, but it is 'management' and not a stricture designed to choke out people's ability to seek the care of clergy in privacy.
*
Applying that to the larger context: A background check is not invincibility. Nothing truly is, sadly. Though it is a start, as is parents being very involved in discovering how the children spend their time. But again, it is all risk management.
Two adults escorting two children, for example, is not completely unsafe - for any party. Two different parents can look after a group of children - if their job is to chaperone them. In fact, I'd say one parent and one adult is sufficient up to a certain group size.
But I *absolutely applaud* your bringing up the issue, and agree that a chess teacher and a single student alone should be insufficient. Robert Synder's case does prove that. And learning chess isn't spiritual counseling, legal counseling, or a physician's visit.
Yes, all very sad... and I speak whereof I know (to a limited extent) on this one.
Back in the 1980's I used to go to chess training weekends (while aged 14-17) in the north of England, run by a certain well-known English chess master who was subsequently accused of paedophile activities. Nothing ever involved me, thankfully. I feel more for my parents, who had a sudden visit from South Yorkshire Police one Sunday morning informing them of accusations made against their son's former chess tutor (I was 19 and away at university by this point).
From what I can make out in and around the blogosphere, the guy in question had been an official British Chess Federation trainer, but was kicked out after previous similar allegations. He then was able set up shop for himself, totally unaccredited by anyone- now there's a lesson in itself.
As somebody who has thankfully no experience with child abuse, it breaks my heart whenever I hear of something like this. Having 3 children myself and having helped coach all 3 of their baseball and softball teams, I just cannot understand what goes through ones mind before they do something to scar a precious child for the rest of their life.
Just this week on the local sports talk radio show they had former NHL'er Theo Fleury on (who along with Sheldon Kennedy were sexually abused by their coach). In junior hockey they have a unique dichotomy in that they take these 15-18 year old kids away from their family's and put them with foster family's hundreds (if not thousand's) of miles from home. Anyways these two players were sexually abused by their coach, and had nobody that they could trust to tell. They in turn, turned to a life of alcohol and drugs to block out the pain.
Wow, sounds similar to the case of the famous English chess author John Walker , who has been in jail since 2002 for molesting his chess students.
Laughing Vulcan: I disagree with you about the pastor situation, though given your suggested safeguards probably less than it might at first seem. Of course there can be rare emergency situations where it's nearly impossible to set up a correct situation, but those are few and far between, and I agree with my former pastor's "never (in normal situations) counsel the opposite sex in private" policy. It's just begging for trouble.
"Absolutely never," can certainly be a defensible position, especially if there is recognition that there might be emergency exceptions for valid reasons.
I think a large chunk of it may come down to theological position on the role of clergy. Denominations with strong penitential communication privileges may lean more heavily (or explicitly permit) such activity. Some (Roman Catholicism, Anglican, e.g.) deal with the subject by actually having a separate confessional booth. There is nominal physical separation... though this too is not an absolute guarantee. My own tradition has a very strong penitential communicant privilege, and provides for individual confession & absolution or private spiritual reflection with the Pastor - few take advantage of that, though. Yet one, as clergy in that tradition, has to allow for it.
But others hold a Pastoral role that does not include the notion of Pastor-as-confessor or counselor. Or at least with any expectation of privacy. Which would allow such nominally absolute rules. (And be just as proper in that context.)
Sorry for going far afield here.... Even in my own tradition, such boundary rules as I suggested above evolved out of the tension between competing needs. (And any intelligent Pastor does think and plan for the boundaries that are well set as called for.)
And any chess coach or teacher should likewise define their boundaries well (the 'absolutely never', should be nominal in my opinion,) and then stick to that definition. Those who stick to it and have thought about it beforehand would also be able to snap it out as an answer when asked. "I'm sorry, but restrictions as a coach will not permit me to drive your child to the tournament. Perhaps you might see if another parent is going and could take little Garry Goodpawn?" "I'm sorry Mrs. Badbishop, but I cannot give in-home lessons if Billy will be alone in the house. Perhaps we could arrange for his babysitter to bring him to the B&N?" etc.