On Monday, I got an email from HR reminding me that, as part of the school’s Harassment Prevention & Business Skills initiative, I needed to complete an online Sexual Harassment for Employees course.
I did it that same day, largely because if I don’t get to a work email almost immediately, it can slip out of my mind. And I prefer not to forget to do things that are required for my employment.
The training was basically a series of videos essentially aimed at letting us know what constitutes sexual harassment, with the dual purpose of ensuring that (1) if we’re harassed, we understand our rights and what we can and should do about it, and (2) we don’t do things that constitute sexual harassment. After watching the videos, I had to take a short multiple choice quiz to pass the course. All in all, it took something less than half an hour to complete.
This isn’t the first training like this I’ve taken. I’ve done similar courses in the past for work. Also, I coach my son’s soccer team. Before AYSO will let you coach, though, you have to do an online child abuse prevention class, and an online concussion awareness class. The classes are meant to ensure that coaches understand AYSO policies about interacting with children and AYSO policies regarding dealing with potential concussions, in hopes of eliminating (or, at least, reducing) the harms children might face. Again, the classes feature interactive videos and slides, followed by a multiple-choice test to ensure that coaches have at least a basic understanding of what the classes taught.
Coincidentally, while I was taking my class, my wife, who is a teaching artist in Chicago schools, was doing her DCSF Mandated Reporter training.[fn1] She’s also done the AYSO coach training, and the Girl Scout leader training (which is way more intense than any of the other trainings either of us have done).
As I was doing my training, it occurred to me: the church really ought to offer (and require!) this kind of training for at least a large portion of its members.
Why? At least a couple reasons. First and foremost, we do a lot of interacting with children who are not our own children. The bishop interviews new 8-year-olds for baptism, and interviews teenagers on a semi-regular basis.[fn2] Primary teachers and youth leaders and Sunday School teachers interact with our children. They hold positions of trust and authority, similar to the position of trust and authority that AYSO coaches and school volunteers hold. The church recognizes these dynamics; all children must be taught by two responsible adults.
Two-deep adults is definitely good; in fact, it’s what Girl and Boy Scouts and AYSO require. But it, standing alone, probably isn’t sufficient, or at least these other organizations don’t think it is. In addition to two-deep, they require training to help their volunteers understand what should and shouldn’t be done, how to recognize signs of abuse, and what to do if they see those signs.
Similarly, we have hierarchies of power in the church, hierarchies that can lead to what is effectively sexual harassment. A bishop insisting on hearing all of the details of a congregant’s sexual behavior, for example, is not only unnecessary, but probably harassing. And a bishop introducing the idea of masturbation to a 12-year-old, or asking prurient and unnecessary questions about a congregant’s behavior, is similarly bad. These things may not be legally actionable (unlike at a workplace), but they shouldn’t be happening. And harassment training seems like one good way to communicate that message.
And the thing is, this kind of training is easy to deliver. Like I said, every one I’ve done has been online, featuring slides, video and audio presentations, and quizzes. Roughly half an hour seems more than enough to deliver the information organizations want their employees and volunteers to receive. And the church could develop its own proprietary training (AYSO does this) or it could license training from a provider (my employer does this).[fn3]
Providing this training would almost certainly help our children and adults who would potentially face harassment or abuse. But it would also help adults who may not be at risk of abusing or being abused, so that they understand what they need to, and ought to, do. For instance, in Illinois, clergy are mandated reporters. Do bishops know they are? Do they know what it means to be a mandated reporter? Do they know what they’re obligated to do as mandated reporters? No idea; maybe they receive some sort of training about it. But I suspect they don’t, or, at least, if they do, I suspect it’s a written document they’re supposed to read, without any kind of evaluative process to make sure they actually read and understood it.[fn4] (By contrast, my wife says her DCSF training told her specifically what to look for, how she was supposed to report things she was supposed to report, and what would happen after her report.)
I’m pretty sure Primary teachers are not mandated reporters in Illinois (though they may be in a different state). But their lack of legal liability for reporting abuse doesn’t mean they don’t have responsibilities for the well-being of children. Like volunteers at AYSO, in the Girl Scouts or the Boy Scouts, it’s important that teachers not abuse children in the ward, and affirmatively know how to look out for children’s well-being.
And you know what? In wards I’ve been in, there’s a very good chance that at some point, any given member will be asked at least to substitute for a primary class or a youth class.
So here’s what I propose: every member of the church take an annual youth protection-style online certification course, complete both with instruction and a minimum number of right answers on a test to ensure they’ve got the material. (The test doesn’t need to be hard or long: the ones I’ve done are relatively short and straightforward—the point is to make sure class participants understood what they learned, not to trick them out of understanding it.) The class would probably take not more than half an hour, based on the classes I’ve done. And half an hour a year isn’t that big of an ask, but if it is, it’s totally the kind of thing that two fifth-Sunday lessons a year could be devoted to. Use half an hour to do the course, and then let ward members take the test on their phones or on a computer when they get home.
Similarly, require bishops (and maybe RS presidents and EQ presidents? and maybe some or all other ward members? but at least bishops) to take an annual sexual harassment course, with a similar test-passing requirement.
And put teeth into it. Anybody who hasn’t taken and passed the youth protection course within the last 13 months would not be permitted to teach or otherwise work with kids under the age of 19. Full stop. And a bishop who didn’t take and pass the class would be released, or would otherwise be prohibited from exercising his ecclesiastical responsibilities (with perhaps a member of the Stake Presidency, bishopric, RS presidency, or EQ presidency who was up-to-date on the training stepping in temporarily).[fn5]
These training programs wouldn’t eliminate child abuse or sexual harassment, of course. Individuals are capable of acting badly if they choose to act badly. But it would give innocent leaders and adults knowledge of what is and isn’t permissible, and would give them the tools to deal with problems in a productive manner. It seems like a significant amount of benefit, both for the institutional church and for its members, at a very small cost.
[fn1] She has also done the fingerprinting, TB test, and background check required for Chicago Public Schools Level I approval.
[fn2] Last time my bishop interviewed one of my children, he asked me if I wanted to join them. I did, of course, and was going to request it, but he surprised me by making the offer spontaneously. And note that this was prior to the recent policy change; he did it entirely of his own accord.
[fn3] Note that the training that my employer licenses isn’t 100% relevant to my job; it’s focused on, like, sales offices that have direct report relationships. But I’m a tenured academic, without subordinates or anybody who I’d call my boss. Still, it’s good enough to let me know what I need to do and not do, even if not every single example reflects the way my job works.
[fn4] And look, I realize the church has an abuse hotline for bishops to call. But to use the hotline, bishops have to know that they need to call it. In some situations, it’s presumably easy to know. But calling requires affirmative action of bishops, which requires that they know they’re confronting a circumstance that might mandate reporting. And that’s not always clear—training would help bishops in Illinois (and other places where bishops have a duty to report) to have a better idea when what they see might indicate abuse and trigger their obligation to report.
[fn5] But wouldn’t that let someone easily get out of calling he or she doesn’t want? somebody might ask. Of course it would. And that’s not a bad thing: afaik, callings aren’t meant to be punitive. If someone believes he can’t be a good primary teacher or bishop, that may well be right. Moreover, the safety of our children and the other members of our wards is far more important that getting a particular person in a particular calling. If a person’s not willing to take the training, that person shouldn’t be working with children, for the sake of the children.