Here’s what happens when you dare to ask questions about the common narrative of the clergy sexual abuse survivor community. You get lambasted online with comments like these made against me over the weekend:
- “Mariah Kerry (not Carey) commented on your post How we’ve changed. Not marky mark revealing his true colors to be a victim/woman-hating chauvinist.”
- “donut commented on your post How we’ve changed. Let me get this straight, you have your panties in a twist because you, as the almighty Mark Wingfield, have the right to know the identities of sexual abuse victims and because you don’t, you’ve deemed the investigation invalid and a hoax? As far as who conducted the investigation at GRACE, it takes two seconds to visit GRACE’s website and see who handles the investigations. Maybe it’s time to enroll in Basics of Journalism 101 at your local community college, MaRk.”
- “Pam commented on your post How we’ve changed. One of the accusations against the professor is that he was seen at conferences drinking socially.” That’s it Mark? What’s your rationale for completely ignoring the parts where he says to a clergy abuse victim “they want to f*** you”, called her sexy, and touched her? Ignoring the part where he was asking survivors questions about their masturbation habits? Giving another survivor a backrub? People like you are half the problem.”
- “Julie commented on your post How we’ve changed. This is infuriating. Mark, I believe you suffer a profound misunderstanding of abuse and the realities survivors face. If you truly understood, you would recognize why a large institution like Baylor might dismiss or minimize allegations, while a small, survivor-centered, survivor-led nonprofit would pursue truth and accountability regardless of the cost. What especially strikes me is your questioning why RVC sought a GRACE investigation in the first place instead of engaging with the investigation’s actual findings. Since when is survivors wanting to protect other survivors and hold an abuser accountable an illegitimate reason to seek the truth? Those are exactly the reasons an independent investigation should happen.”
- “Hope commented on your post How we’ve changed. ‘My nonprofit organization would authorize spending money to hire a third party to investigate one of our volunteer board members.’ — statement by you Mark. Why did you minimize the connection of David Pooler to adult clergy abuse survivors? He counsels survivors, meets with survivors in person, collaborates with survivors on abuse related matters (getting laws passed, pairing to give public talks in academic settings etc). Survivors learn who his is, make contact with him via RVC. He was a speaker via zoom with Q&A for members of RVC. Why WOULDN’t a nonprofit organization with integrity seek an investigation after an accusation of wrongdoing, harm of a survivor reported? How else but through a third-party investigation could this be properly handled?”
- “Amy Fritz commented on your post How we’ve changed. Mark, your takes on the investigation and subsequent GRACE report are shocking to me. I’m sorry to read that, if your opinion here represents BNG, this is another organization that now seems as ignorant about abuse as many conservative leaning publications.”
All these are public responses to my Friday Roundup where I explained my regret for writing a news article about the GRACE investigation and report on Baylor University professor David Pooler.
“Why does the 30-page report contain not a single name of anyone who did the investigation, wrote the report, requested the report or contributed information to the report?”
One of my main points on Friday was this: “Why does the 30-page report contain not a single name of anyone who did the investigation, wrote the report, requested the report or contributed information to the report? The only person named is the accused. That’s not fair. And it’s not a standard we would adhere to in reporting a news story. Which is why I now have second thoughts about publishing the article that is about a report based entirely on anonymous sources.”
To be clear, I wrote and we published a news story about an investigation that itself does not meet our own standards of publishing anonymous sources. And now I am getting skewered by people who have no comprehension that BNG has been at the forefront of reporting on clergy sexual abuse. There are only a few other national news outlets that have written more consistently than we have about the details of clergy sexual abuse.
But all that credit goes away when I write one newsletter questioning the ethics of piling on a university professor with anonymous sources, anonymous investigators and anonymous report writers.
BNG, like all respectable news outlets, never would publish an article by an anonymous writer making anonymous accusations against a named person. Even in cases of alleged sexual abuse or sexual harassment, this is not fair. The accused have a right to know who is accusing them and who is writing about them.
By policy, we do not name victims of rape or sexual assault unless they identify themselves. But the accusations against David Pooler are not about rape or sexual assault. And there are differing narratives about what actually happened. I have heard over the weekend from women with firsthand knowledge who say the GRACE narrative is all wrong, and I have heard from women with firsthand knowledge who say the real situation was worse than the report portrayed.
But not all these first-person witnesses were interviewed by GRACE.
“It’s hard to sort out the truth when there is no accountability for who is making the accusations and who is doing the investigations.”
It’s hard to sort out the truth when there is no accountability for who is making the accusations and who is doing the investigations.
Everything I have written on this subject has my name on it. But even the online critics challenging me don’t use their real or full names. Everyone is hiding behind anonymity — even the GRACE staff.
I’ve generally been a fan of GRACE and its work, but the Pooler report raises serious red flags the organization ought to address. According to GRACE’s website, anonymity is the default position for its investigations. Why? There is a way to offer anonymity when it is essential without making it the norm.
This is one of the tenets of some in the survivor community that needs to be challenged. Anonymity is never a best practice.
We all know about the fundamentalism of the right, and some of us have experienced a fundamentalism of the left. There also is a fundamentalism of some people who have been hurt or abused and see everything through the lens of their own injury.
As I wrote on Friday, it is no wonder such episodes give credence to the complaints of those who deny the reality of clergy sexual abuse. When even reasonable questions like mine are met with insults and name-calling, the survivor community loses credibility.
I remain an ally of the survivor community, but I will be more skeptical than before after witnessing the abusive behavior of some who have been abused. And never again will I publish a news story about an investigation made up entirely of anonymous sources and anonymous investigators and anonymous writers.
Mark Wingfield
Mark Wingfield serves as executive director and publisher of Baptist News Global.
Related:
Restored Voices Collective gets GRACE report on former board member