You are welcome to check out the links: these articles were both collected by the B.H. Roberts Foundation--presumably so that they could be used in exactly the manner that the Afore is using them: i.e., as Mopologetic defense of Church legal practices. The BHRF even offers up reassurances that the articles were written by "non-LDS" authors--authors who were *never* LDS, even!--apparently to reassure us that the information contained therein isn't "tainted" in some way.I glanced through the comments from readers on this article earlier this morning and they seemed to run overwhelmingly — that is to say, with very, very few exceptions — to the view, strongly stated, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is wrong on this matter, uncaring toward children, harmful, and perhaps even evil, and that clergy privilege ought to be abolished, with reports to the authorities being legally mandated: “Latter-day Saint abuse help line and clergy privilege protect children best, church attorney says: ‘This is as valuable a tool as exists in the world to protect children,’ Randy Austin says at FAIR Conference” Several commenters seemed to believe that Randy Austin was being either willfully stupid or flatly dishonest.
It seems commonsensical obvious, of course, that requiring clergy to break confidentiality and report sexual abuse to legal authorities would lead to better outcomes for children. But surprisingly, as alluded to by Brother Austin, the data seem to contradict that idea. Josh Coates has shared the two following links with me:
- “University of Michigan researchers find that mandatory reporting is correlated with lower rates of confirmed reports.” Of eighteen states studied, five required clergy to report (NE, NC, OK, RI, Texas) and six required it “sometimes” (LA, ME, MN, MO, PA, UT); the other seven had no clergy mandate (AR, DE, Florida, KS, KY, MA, Washington). The researchers found that there was a 10% lower reporting rate in the ones that mandated reporting for clergy.
- “2017 Johns Hopkins School of Nursing study concludes that universal mandatory reporting is correlated with lower confirmed reports of abuse.” “Physical abuse reports made in Universal Mandatory Reporting states and territories were less likely to be confirmed. . . . Universal Mandatory Reporting can potentially lead to poorer outcomes. For example, more reports made but without sufficient evidence can divert valuable but limited resources from endangered children who are actually in need of protection.”
But do these articles really say that the "abuse help line" and "clergy privilege protect children best"? Uh, no. Not by a long shot. Instead, both articles treat this complex topic in an appropriately objective and nuanced way, and they acknowledge the many complicated social factors that going into whether or not someone (a) actually reports an instance of suspected child abuse, or (b) whether the report turns out to be credible. But to take just the Johns Hopkins article: the summary of the report states that "Universal mandatory reporting may not be the answer for strengthening the protection of children victimized by physical abuse. Implementation of child protection policies must be exercised according to evidence to exert the fullest impact and benefit of these laws." Yes: that makes sense. But is that what "SeN" and the Church defenders are saying? No: they are saying that this Church "Bat-phone" is apparently sufficient, which flies in the face of the reports that seem to surface pretty much weekly about yet another LDS Church official engaged in some kind of horrific abuse. The Mopologetic stance is not one of, "Let's do everything we can to protect kids"; instead, it's "This church 'hotline' is sufficient, and any claims that we need to change is a hostile, anti-Mormon attack!"
The Afore's spin-doctoring of these research articles is thus very irresponsible and also pretty reprehensible. Not surprising, but still off-putting and disappointing.
