"'We are Penn State' was their approach. 'Christ above all' is ours."

If there is a case where it might possibly be slightly rebellious to your school’s administration’s authority, it seems like this is the way to do it.

1. The editor accepted responsibility and possibly getting expelled for his actions.

2. He weighed the very reasonable possibility that other kids would be abused if he said nothing.

3. He in fact obeyed the school president by not publishing it in the newspaper, but rather published it on his own. It’s unclear whether he directly disobeyed the president in this way.

The only place I would have reservations is in telling everyone why it wasn’t published in his school paper. He could have left that detail out and still protected kids.

A Past Children’s Director Reviews
Bryan College’s Response to
Dr. Morgan’s Arrest and Resignation.

1. The FBI caught Dr. Morgan in a child protection task force sting. In order to lawfully engage a target, the FBI must have reason to believe that a target has an established proclivity to the offense; otherwise the offender has a legal defense of “entrapment.” In other words, the FBI cannot lure otherwise law abiding people into crimes, without first having a reasonable belief, based on evidence, that they are likely to commit the crime. Indeed, the FBI press release reported that Dr. Morgan’s online conduct had brought him to the attention of the task force. Therefore, Dr. Morgan’s actions that led to his arrest were probably not his first foray into inappropriate sexual actions with minors.
a. Had Bryan College Trustees and Administration previously adopted a sound written policy to address this kind of situation? Obviously not.
b. Did the Administration respond appropriately to the factual context: an arrest by a child protection task force sting? No.
c. Did the Administration seek legal counsel, who could explain Dr. Morgan’s arrest in context? It doesn’t seem likely.
d. If the Administration had understood the context of the child protection task force sting and the legal defense of “entrapment,” would they have viewed Dr. Morgan’s protestations of repentance differently? Perhaps.
2. Bryan College Administration did not discharge Dr. Morgan or suspend him pending the outcome of the criminal charges. Rather, the Administration allowed Dr. Morgan to resign. Furthermore, the College allowed him to remain employed for FOUR WEEKS after the Administration knew of the serious criminal charges. They learned of the charges July 3, but his resignation was effective July 31. This continuation of employment for four weeks falsely implies that no misconduct led to his resignation.
3. In an email to the Triangle (student newspaper), the College Administration stated that Dr. Morgan resigned “to pursue other opportunities.”
a. There were no “other opportunities.” The Administration lied to the student newspaper.
b. The email also included a statement attributed to Dr. Morgan giving glowing praise to the College for the wonderful years he had spent there, the wonderful relationships he had made, etc., confirming the lie that no misconduct had led to Dr. Morgan’s resignation.
4. The College says it was attempting to implement Christian principles and its motto: “Christ above all.”
a. Did the Administration’s lying and deception fulfill Bryan College’s motto? It would seem not.
b. Was Bryan College’s conduct consistent with the Christian teaching of loving one’s neighbor, or did the Administration focus only on the well-being of the Kingdom within the narrow confines of its campus?
c. Just as the Catholic Church transferred pedophile priests to new a parish to prey on a new flock of unsuspecting children, Bryan College sent out a sexual predator without warning, so that the next college, high school, or church youth group in which he landed would be just as unsuspecting as they were when they hired him.
d. Aren’t the shepherds called to protect the lambs from the wolf?
5. So now, what will the Board of Trustees do?