The Bishops’ High Sexual Saga – The Principal or the Principle?

Nov 28, 2017 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Although teaching is a fulfilling occupation that has its rewards and challenges, in schools today teachers face more than educational challenges .Teachers are in an exclusive position of trust, care, authority and influence with their students which means that there is an implicit power imbalance between teacher and students.
When a teacher misuses this power imbalance in a manner that compromises the welfare of a student then professional boundaries have been breached. As most teachers will recognize, some conduct will clearly breach those boundaries, and their actions will be measured against a higher standard than that of other individuals.
Now that Guyana is facing her own homemade Weinbergesque-type saga, in the form of accusations of grooming and inappropriate sexual behaviour against Bishops’ High School teacher Coen Jackson, it is blatantly apparent that both the school principal Winifred Ellis and the school principles are not in synch.
How aware was she of his professional comportment, especially his manner of interaction with the students? Who was responsible for evaluating the teacher? Were there any previous complaints made against him? Of what nature and how were they handled?
Accusations state that over the last ten years, the said teacher has been grooming female students who were in his classes, and then moving in for the sexual kill once they had attained the age of 18 years, which is the age of consent in Guyana.
The Sexual Offences Act 2010 of Guyana states that “any person who is in a position of trust in an educational institution (Section 19, 1(c)) and engages in penetrative sex with a child under the age of 18 (Section 18, 1) is liable under 18, 3 (a) to “on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.”
This Act amended by Act 2 of 2013 strengthened the Sexual Offences Act Chapter 8:03 by including the act of grooming of children for sexual activity.
The teacher is accused of converting the hallowed halls of one of the most prestigious secondary institutions into his base of operations, and carrying out a decade of unhindered, undisturbed and unnoticed wreaking of sexual havoc.
As if to add further insult to injury, and with flagrant disregard for existing emotions in possible victims of sex crime, the Headmistress in a diatribe during assembly, is quoted as calling the female students slack and loose. She has also reportedly castigated female students for not defending the teacher against the sex accusations, even in the face of current institutional understaffing.
Such an approach not only smacks of insensitivity and utter complicity, but also promotes the type of culture that is so prevalent today, where the majority of victims of sex crimes are reluctant to come forward to seek justice against the perpetrators. The Principal should be held equally responsible in this situation as she failed to protect those in her care.
On a somewhat dissimilar note, but nevertheless pertinent to the welfare of minors, a now- retired Queens College Principal on October 29, 2010 received a letter from the then Permanent Secretary informing her of the results of the Neesa Gopaul inquiry.
The mangled body of 16-year-old Neesa Gopaul, student of Queens College was found stuffed in a suitcase at the now abandoned resort on the Soesdyke/ Linden Highway.
The letter read thus: “…it is concluded that (in) your conduct as Headmistress of the Queen’s College, you failed to take the necessary actions expected of a Senior Manager with the responsibility for children’s welfare. As such, you are guilty of dereliction of duty and your tenure as Head of a Senior Secondary School comes to an end with immediate effect, Friday, October 29, 2010.”
In the letter which formed part of her affidavit, she was also advised that under the PC Act of 1990 she was demoted to Graduate Deputy Headmistress Grade (A).
According to Dr. Melissa Ifill, the former President of the University of Guyana Senior Staff Association (UGSSA) the predatory behaviour and inappropriate mannerisms of the embattled Bishops’ High teacher was also brought to her attention, via a concerned mother. She even advised that the School Administration be made immediately aware, but further stated that no action was ever taken against the teacher. Seemingly no one was interested in ensuring a follow-up? Was the crime not worth the time? Or the fact did not support the act?
The teacher had previously taught at The Business School, School of the Nations, Government Technical Institute, Leonora Technical Institute, and Mae’s.” Could the behaviour for which he now stands accused be corroborated by either Staff or pupils at these schools?
I remain a firm believer in sitting back and allowing justice to run its course, and that in the eyes of the law an individual is innocent until proven otherwise. Nevertheless, along the way, certain issues beggar careful scrutiny, as in this case principles were trampled on and disregarded, by principled people in principal positions. If the accusations are eventually proven to be true, then the teacher had his way, the principal had her say, and the females were made to pay.
Yvonne Sam

---

---