A principal in an Australian Christian school is being charged with having sex with a 16 year old student:
Frank Bailey, 44, also repeatedly acknowledged what he had done was wrong and said how sorry he was.
“Every day I just think about what I did and I feel sick,” he said in Sydney’s Downing Centre District Court.
He has admitted five counts of sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old under his care in 2007.
While being cross-examined by Crown Prosecutor Kara Shead, Bailey’s arms shook, his eyes were teary and he broke down a number of times.
He agreed he had trained other teachers about appropriate relationships with students and was fully aware of acceptable boundaries.
Bailey said that at the time of the offences he thought he was in love with the victim and that she loved him.
Hypocrite.
Lorena: We can always hope that Obama won’t be foolish enough to get on a convertible to go around the downtown area of a... 
Shawn Abbott: I have already gave several examples of why Christianity is different you just dont seem... 
Lessica: If God was really going for clarity, he would have waited for the invention of Lojban. He must have... 
Heidi: And before that we had rocks! And we were damned glad to get them! My dad went to school in a... 
1minion: That was going to be my question, Jerdog. Do some good with all that “evil” stuff for a... 
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
29 Comments
Yes, it was true love. You freak.
How much you bet, that if they discovered that he was gay, they would kick him out of school without giving him even a chance to defend himself?
He didn’t use the King David defense?
He was just hiking the Alpine Trail.
It’s Australia so its probably the blue mountains trail.
That’s what I get for skimming…I totally read it as “Austrian”. Maybe he took a personal trip to Europe.
According to the Bible, when King David was old and dying, god ordered the Israelites to find the most beautiful virgin in the country and have her share a bed with good old King David. I am surprise modern fundies don’t suggest this as a cure for old age illnesses.
Many dirty old men through history have used this story as an excuse to molest young children.
How do you think the Holy Spirit got away with nailing Mary at about 14 years old?
“She said she looooved me.”
Also, it’s tough to arrest a ghost.
Unless you have Dan Akroyd or Bill Murray’s cell number, anyway.
Of course he’s a hypocrite. He’s also a flawed human being. Yes, OK, what he did was wrong, but then it’s wrong both outside the realm of Christianity and within it. This should be less a case of “look at that Christian hypocrite, let’s get angry at Christians” as “look, there’s a paedophile, let’s get angry at paedophiles.”
Unless, of course, you think that if he was a humanist, then this would be perfectly acceptable. In which case, I’ll start backing away now.
By the way, I’m a very strong atheist – I’m not trying to divert attention for Christianity’s sake. It just seems a bit gratuitous.
Christian is only mentioned once in the post. Where it says what kind of school it is. No comment was made about his religion in relation to the crime. I think you’re just being overly sensitive, as I didn’t get the feeling of Christian-bashing from this.
I understand your point, but bear in mind this is posted on a site called unreasonablefaith.com. The clear objective is to point out that it was a Christian who did this. Sure, the article only mentions it once, but the very nature of it being reposted on this site draws attention to that fact by itself.
I’m not angry at Christians — just Christian hypocrites like this who are in a position of authority, teaching morality and religion, and then try and get away with having sex with a cute student.
It doesn’t sound like he is trying to “get away with having sex.” It sounds like he’s pretty much plead guilty and accepted that he made a horrendous error.
It doesn’t matter that that obviously doesn’t justify the action, but it DOES matter that that definitely changes the charge of hypocrisy. This man still believes that what he taught was correct, and acknowledges that he did not follow his own teachings when he should have. So there’s no reason to disregard his ideas because he did not follow them.
That said, I have no real sympathy for this guy, and I don’t think anybody really could. I just don’t think this is a matter of faith to the extent that it belongs on this blog.
I’ll be absolutely honest – I didn’t write the previous comment (it’s anonymous – the person who wrote it really should register) – but it sums up my point completely. Yes, the guy’s abhorrent, but it’s a case of being a fucked-up human, rather than an evil hypocrite. He accepted that what he did was wrong, meaning that he (probably) still holds the same values he was teaching. As we generally teach that paedophilia is wrong, regardless of faith, that part of the equation becomes more or less arbitrary. True, his moral values stem from an incredibly flawed book rather than a well-reasoned, thought-out series of principles, but as they (in this case) are the same, the reference to his faith doesn’t really matter.
In a sense, the first reply to my post almost hit the nail on the head. The references in the article to Christianity are pretty scarce, and you probably should have noted that when deciding to re-publish this. If the principal was found in a gay relationship with another man after preaching to students that homosexuality was wrong, maybe you’d have a case. If the principal had pressured his wife into having an abortion right after teaching that all life is sacred, you’d have a case. But here, there’s just no real point of reference. It’s just another corrupt man in authority who’s strayed from the path of common decency. Hardly a question of faith.
@Anonymous
DDM said it below – he sure as shit was trying to get away with it.
Yeah, he cried, shook, and talked about how wrong he was and apologized on the stand, in the interrogation room, in front of the school board, and on his knees begging the girl’s father for mercy.
But he certainly did not turn himself in, he wanted to manipulate a 16 year-old girl into letting him plunge his 44 year-old little coward into her and GET AWAY WITH IT. Charged on 5 counts.
His “horrendous error” will affect this girl in ways that are diverse and vast (I’d love to expand on the diversity, but will refrain for length). Perhaps their laws are different in Australia – but statutory rape is a great label for crimes like these.
If she would have kept it secret, if no one found out, and she did not find the strength, safety, or social support to expose this creep, he would have been happy to continue abusing her…putting the weight of his sweaty 44 year-old principle body on the 16 year-old pubescent girl.
The last 3 sentences of the article read:
He still cared for her and did not want her to feel he had used her, he said.
While agreeing he had urged the teenager not to tell anyone about the sex, he told the court: “I am glad she did now.” The sentencing hearing before Judge John North continues.
Maybe Judge John can arrange a series of rappings for Frank Bailey by some 72 year-old that can easily overpower him. [16+28=44 : 44+28=72] Oh no, that would be barbaric.
Oh, come on. Of course he told her not to tell anyone, because he knew it was illegal. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t suffering under the delusion that it was valid. I’m sketchy on the validity of parking fines – if I’m blocking an emergency route, then I obviously deserve it, but if it’s in a quiet rural village where only three cars pass through a day, then I probably don’t – which is why I confine myself to the latter.
I think the problem comes that we know nothing about the context of this case. Yes, OK, by doing what he did he was exploiting his position, but calling him manipulative, and saying she needed the “strength, safety or social support to expose this creep” essentially makes it a one-sided story. Essentially, it makes it rape, and that’s taking a leap too far.
Two things, I think I’d reinforce. One is the post of “Offred” below, who clearly demonstrates that this isn’t a straight-forward case, and that amorous attentions can be directed both ways (even if we can’t conceive why). True, for the principal to actually take notice and exploit these attentions was abhorrent in the extreme, but the way you’re demonstrating it is basically just textbook sexual assault – something that’s quite possibly wrong. The second is back to the age of consent. I know that when it comes to figures of authority different laws apply, but it is sixteen, as it is here in the UK, and I think that actually counts for something. In America, yes, it is basically statutory rape because the person’s still considered a child by the state; here and in Oz, that’s not the case and we can’t really ignore that. Legally, the child’s considered old and responsible enough, meaning that the problem here is a) about our views of younger adults with older partners and b) the exploitative position taken by someone in authority.
L. Jerome, this isn’t as black-and-white as you’re making it out to be. True, there’s something seriously wrong with the guy, but you’re making a couple too many assumptions that both triple the severity of this case and just add to the knee-jerk reaction that caused this to be posted on here in the first place.
@Christopher Fraser: Very interesting and thoughtful comment – gets me to thinking quite a bit. I hope to challenge your suggestion that I am making too many assumptions (by explaining why my points may not be assumptions) and perhaps suggest you have both made assumptions of your own and ignored some serious social/psychological/ethical implications.
I think you are very right about the differences of the law. I’m certain that both my familiarity with American law and, moreover, training in psychology influences my feelings on this matter. The law side biases me because I immediately see the ages and it triggers thoughts of a serious breech. However, I think the psych side pushes me a lot further.
As I read your comment, I detect smacks of blaming-the-victim. As I interpret it, you are making arguments that suggest “it takes two to tango;” this has strength when coupled with the legality regarding the age of consent. It does, however, make assumptions that she was an equal aggressor which have not been established. Moreover, you conceded that using his position of authority was exploitative, yet in the same sentence suggested that it was not manipulative. This is a bit confusing, but rather than get tangled in semantics, I’ll try to clarify myself a bit.
When I spoke of him being manipulative I was referring less to his professional / community authority position (although this is serious and requires consideration) and more to the discrepancy in psychological maturity or life experience or social authority as an elder male figure or what-have-you.
You seem to allude to a hypothetical scenario where “she wanted it,” or that she approached him and seduced him. Both of these are possible in this world but your statement, “amorous attentions can be directed both ways” is conceivably the most likely (unfounded claim on my part, but it feels more relevant to the difficult details of such a complex ethical problem).
As you stated, and most of the commenters seem to agree, people with his professional position have the ‘burden’ of being responsible and accountable. If a student starts the flirting – it is the faculty member’s duty to be in control of the situation. In any way it may develop, the responsibility regarding each step of progress toward an improper relationship rests on those in power to control the situation. A 44 year-old adult cannot justifiably blame a 16 year-old for controlling a situation and allowing it to get out of hand.
Most important to my points/position – remove his professional position and replace it with any other similar level position in society that removes access to and power over children; perhaps he is a corporate sales manager. This helps to remove some of the finer legal issues.
How many partners/relationships/sexual experiences has a 44 year-old had relative to a 16 year-old?
You might agree that when a 44 year-old who has had many long term relationships, dated throughout his/her life, and has had many diverse sexual relationships begins to date another 44 year-old who has had little to no experience dating or participating in sexual behavior, there is a large discrepancy in the control of the relationship. The experienced individual knows more about what to expect, how intimate partners may react to this or that, etc., etc.
To belabor this point – thoughtfully consider the sexual encounters of the article as applied to a 12 year-old and 15 year-old; 15 and 18; 16 and 18; 16 and 25; 18 and 46; 44 and 72?
Each of these require quite different considerations legally (or no legal consideration at all), which is only a small part of the ethical dilemma I am discussing (and perhaps beating over the head – I apologize for the length, but your comment really got me thinking). His power did not exclusively exist within his professional position.
I have not touched on (an will refrain from discussing) the religious power of authority he also wields in a Christian school.
In my view, all of this influence he held does not leave room for the equal playing field you seem to be suggesting.
Certainly, they are both sexual beings and in some situations the temptation to succumb to desires and impulses can become great – I do not argue that. But this does not mitigate the responsibility of the adult. Perhaps you do not feel that there might be problems outside of the legal issue (I am not suggesting that you don’t, only offering a hypothetical); I, however, feel that the exploitation (compounded upon the publicity and many other factors) presents great potential for psychological/social problems for this young lady. This is important for the ethical consideration of his actions. You would probably agree that he fully knew it was “wrong” or, more precisely, forbidden; therefore, he also knew that the discovery of this behavior would have serious, public ramifications. His disregard for this is also a valid consideration in such an ethical analysis. (Also, I don’t quite think that ignorance would mitigate this consideration.)
These power discrepancies are typical in the many forms of sexual assault/molestation/rape that occur. Moreover, they provide the very scenario where the victim is more easily exploited. The younger/more vulnerable/more naive/less experienced individual is in a compromised position. This is why so many of us have commented on the seriousness of the trust and ethical responsibility of those honored with positions of authority over the vulnerable.
Hopefully this addresses your statement: “you’re making a couple too many assumptions that both triple the severity of this case and just add to the knee-jerk reaction that caused this to be posted on here in the first place.”
I certainly took liberties with some dark humor in my last comment and applied passion to points-of-view in order to establish the thesis to Anonymous that the accused was certainly trying to ‘get away with it’ regardless of his confession after he was discovered. Here, I’ve tried to express why I held some of my positions and hopefully challenged you to consider that I am not making frivolous assumptions.
I truly don’t feel that this is likely a black-and-white scenario – that hardly seems to be the case (although we don’t have the information either way); so I agree with you on that. It certainly does not seem that he attacked her in an alley. However, I hope my points about the power differential strike a small chord with you. Even if only when you consider this situation while completely disregarding any legal issues.
I would assume that you would not suggest that a woman’s clothing or manner of walking would mitigate circumstances in sexual assault or rape. Nor can beauty or flirtatious looks. Additionally, the severity of the temptation present inside the accused is irrelevant (to the consideration of this issue) and subjective (to the accused). However, what can change the dynamic of our ethical analysis is the power differential between the parties and the potential repercussions of the adult’s actions. Therefore, I think my “increasing the severity of the case” within the conversation is justified (if only because the considerations I have expressed had been previously ignored).
If the legal age of consent were younger (you can pick how young), would you hold this same position? In other words, and to use a few of your words, would “the severity of this case” change at all?
(Briefly, I know that the State in which I live also has 16 as the age of consent, however, the individual must be consenting to someone under 18 – if an 18+ year-old is sexually active with someone under 18 they are liable. An odd 2 years legally, but seldom is this enforced. Usually only in circumstances where parents reject the 18 year-old. I have no clue how this dynamic might work in Australia.)
Wow, I think you just beat me for comment length. Damn.
I’m not going to dispute your points when it comes to psychology – for one, you clearly know what you’re talking about, and two, it’s not really what I’m getting at (what? Yeah, I know).
I’ll be honest – remarking upon the comment of Offred (below, still) earlier was less a case of me trying to say that the two were equally responsible (or, as you so succinctly put it, “it takes two to tango). They’re obviously not. And, in addition, I’d agree that in terms of long-term psychological suffering, the girl is going to suffer the most. What I was trying (and evidently failing) to say was that just because one girl’s life is ruined, doesn’t mean the principal won’t suffer. And I’m not even talking on the basis of him losing his job, or his reputation, or any other selfish concern – I’m talking about the suggestion that the idea that he thought he was in love with her might hold some weight. Dubious weight, sure, and certainly unjustified, but weight nevertheless. Having been involved with the law before (for completely different reasons), I know what it’s like to have the threat of your life, reputation and employability being taken away from you. And yes, it’s upsetting, but it certainly didn’t cause multiple breakdowns. Now, that might just be because I’m a bit tougher than this man, but my suspicion is that along with his selfish concerns he had serious emotional issues mixed up in the case.
Now, I know what you’re going to say next. This is a grown man. Even if he was madly in love with her, he’s more likely to get past it in the coming months than she is in her lifetime. Here, I’d completely agree with you, and it’s this that makes the abuse of his power so abhorrent – regardless of whether it was with sick or misguided intentions, it’s always the victim that’s going to suffer the most. My only point was that her suffering doesn’t mean the other party can’t suffer to, albeit to a lesser degree.
My biggest point, though, is one that’s gone more or less unaddressed, and that’s the extent to which is belongs on this website. Does his faith really apply here? True, a religious school goes a bit heavier on the moral teachings, but secular schools tend to have a responsibility to instil decent values in kids too, and it’d be equally (if not more – see my point below) irresponsible and hypocritical if a teacher of a secular instruction did the same. My point, essentially, is that the principal’s faith is to a large degree irrelevant. Generally, we don’t excuse paedophiles because they’re not following a book that says it’s bad – we find it wrong as a society.
So, in a nutshell:
1) The principal was terrible for doing this, due to the massive ramifications he’s had/will most likely have on the girl’s life.
2) I believe it’s plausible that the principal is suffering – in addition to selfish concerns – because he’s fallen out of love, albeit a twisted, misguided form of it.
3) As atheists tend to share a fairly common, more solid morality as a result of thousands of years of cultural evolution, rather than what is basically a flimsy, contradictory textbook, the relevance this article has to faith – beyond the fact that the principal happened to be a Christian in a Christian school – is minimal at best.
4) As such, this article is irrelevant to the overall content of this website.
Right, now I’m giving up. This is tiring me out.
They only regret their actions when they’re caught. Fuck them.
Who knows I’ve always chased “older” men. At 15 I began a relationship that lasted 4 years with a man who was 35 years older than me…(bonus was he had a vasectomy) When I was 19 I decided to move on to guys closer to my own age.
These stories kind of make me ask more questions than the black and white issue that they usually appear to be. . I know now his actions were wrong but I really threw myself at this man and was very persistent. Plus it wasn’t a bad thing in my life, in fact dating guys my own age was a huge pain.
Fortunately I found my “right” older guy eventually who I’ve been with for 20 years and he was 18 when I was born. Plus my Grandmother was married at 13 (around 1923). It’s one of those tough issues that will probably never be figured out with the human race.
While I agree the issue can be confusing when taken on a case by case basis, the law is less confusing. This man is an adult, and it’s very simple, if someone is over 18 and the other isn’t, then the answer is just no.
Honestly, if they really wanted to be together, and were in love, they just could have waited 2 years.
As a student the girl was legally under the care of the principal, which makes a sexual relationship as unethical as a doctor having a sexual relationship with a patient even if she was the one that pursued it, and illegal in Australian law. I think (although I’m not entirely sure) that this is the case even if the student is 18 and of full legal age. Legal age may be a topic worth discussing, but in this case it’s only part of the wrongness.
It’s true, even if the student were 18, it’s still wrong in Australia because the teacher has a duty of care to ensure that no harm comes to the student. It’s still an abuse of the position of power of the teacher. There were some concerns in my Yr 12 group with students and teachers hanging out together outside of school, and a certain PE teacher was even going to their parties and everything. Legal age for sex in Australia is 16 anyway.
I agree it’s a confusing issue, but not in this situation. The guy is a principal of a Christian school and she was his pupil! It’s against his religion, his morals (which is why he’s upset) and the law.
Oh yeah, I forgot morality always works with xians… and maybe it’s not against “his” religion & as far as the law goes he’s undoubtedly not doing so well.
But God forgives him Daniel!! (^_^)
God will forgive you from any disgusting thing you do!
(As long as your “sincere” in your asking for forgiveness)
lol……….
Bailey’s arms shook, his eyes were teary and he broke down a number of times.
I’ll bet. As I was reading this, none of his histrionics rang true with me. He just comes across as a guy who realises he’s ruined his own life, and is hoping for a lenient sentence.
Regardless of the legal age of consent in Oz, or whether she came on to him or not, it’s still immoral because it’s exploitative. And I have no problem with this case being posted on here – after all, if some atheist guy did what he did, plenty of xians would be jumping up and down going, “See! It’s because atheists have no god-given morals! No (true) Christian would do such a thing.”
Yes, it’s still immoral because it’s exploitative. You’ve got that bit right. Though how you can judge whether someone’s reactions are true or not based on a piece of journalism absolutely baffles me.
In your last point, you’re using a common argumentative flaw – called tu quoque which basically tries to validate something by saying “well, you/they’d do it too.” That’s pathetic. It’s like going up to an axe murderer with a five-year-old girl, chopping off her head and saying that what you did was right because they’d do just the same.
And before you say that’s a disanalogy, bear in mind the mentality of Christians in the first place. Hardly clear-thinking, hm?
Accepting that his faith is irrelevant (it’s his authority that’s the issue here, really), for Mr. Florien to actually be completely justified in posting this would mean he’d feel perfectly comfortable about rifling through any piece of journalism ever reported about unsavoury people, finding out if they’re Christian (because, in fairness, assuming they’re not just because the article doesn’t say so isn’t exactly logically sound) and if they are, reporting it on here. In addition, the site would have to be changed to something like “The Freak Show of Misguided Christians”, rather than a site that tries to legitimately attack (words that don’t often appear together, but here it usually makes sense theism in general.
Really, I think the issue here is that Daniel Florien is approaching this from a faith-based perspective, and actually giving the morals in scripture more weight than morals based on thousands of years of cultural evolution. While I can see where this completely messed-up perspective comes from – after all, we have pretty buildings and big books that back these values up, and humanism has nothing solid and simple to go off – it is ultimately nonsensical, and it makes more sense for someone who bases their morals off something as flimsy as words on a page to deviate from their values than it does for someone who knows something’s bad because life’s taught them that’s the case.
I appreciate that that last sentence was ridiculously long, by the way.
After this, I’m giving up. If you can’t see my point after this, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I’ll be honest – I had a degree of intellectual respect for this website, but right now it’s fading a little.