Parent says teacher said something. Teacher says I never said that. You believe parent even though parent could very well be lying. You believe that parent has no reason to lie but you really can’t know that. And that’s precisely why action is not taken based solely on uncorroborated contested statements.

This is a terrible situation but most people in this type of situation realize they really don’t know the truth. You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify your blame on the teacher.

Their child or someone else's child. She is in her right to spank her own kids. She is not in her right to spank someone else's. It does not matter what you or I think of what she does to her own kids.

Misdeeds 101: hearsay is not evidence. OSSE did not directly receive the confession, someone else did. Therefore, it's hearsay, and not admissible in absence of other evidence (such as proof of bodily injury).

They all know she did it, but they can't prove it.
Therefore, it's business as usual. What are you going to do? Ask that your children be transferred to another class? Because you think if this teacher hits her kids, she's going to hit yours? Or just as a matter of principle, are you going to leave the school? The school can't fire her based on that one confession, they have rules to follow.

You really need to make your brain work, one of these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry I am not clear.

I guess I'm asking a sort of philosophical question. I am trying to understand what would lead a person to not believe a confession.

What I'm trying to understand is if someone would ever confess something to you, what would lead you to not believe it?

I guess I'm trying to understand how people can live with their conscience. Do they honestly, deeply believe that nothing happened? Or do they just shrug it off saying there is no evidence and they just don't want to bother dealing with it?

I'm having a hard time seeing how people can trust others who know someone has confessed but then go on with business as usual. Do they actually believe the confession was false or untrue? Or do they just choose to ignore it?

Some reasons might be the person was inebriated or otherwise unable to understand what they were confessing; the person was threatened or coerced; the person is covering for someone else; the person is confessing legally to avoid going to trial and facing harsher penalties.

None of those seem to fit here, so if the teacher really confessed, then yes, I agree that if they confessed to the parent and then later recanted to the school, they were doing that to cover their ass and they probably did it. But the alternative here is the parent lied or misunderstood that they confessed. The school can't prove that. If the teacher literally told the school "yes, I did confess earlier but now I recant" I would believe the teacher did it, but if the teacher said "I did not do it and I did not tell the parent I did it," then there isn't enough proof for the school to do anything, even if you still believe the parent personally.

Thank you for the straightforward response. I am trying to find ways to reconcile what I believe happened with the outcome of the investigation and response by the school. The person who had the conversation with the teacher who confessed had no reason to lie or make something up. It is awkward that we are all supposed to go forward as if the conversation never happened. I struggle sometimes with these unsaid understandings. Like, at my workplace too. We all talk about prioritizing women's empowerment or something and then the director obviously makes patronizing, sexist remarks and no one says anything. And then at the school they talk about nurturing environment and blah blah but we are supposed to now ignore a respected parent's report of a teacher telling her, literally, "Oh yes, I hit X, but not as hard as I hit Y." I just don't understand how people can compartmentalize or move on or ignore all that.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry I am not clear.

I guess I'm asking a sort of philosophical question. I am trying to understand what would lead a person to not believe a confession.

What I'm trying to understand is if someone would ever confess something to you, what would lead you to not believe it?

I guess I'm trying to understand how people can live with their conscience. Do they honestly, deeply believe that nothing happened? Or do they just shrug it off saying there is no evidence and they just don't want to bother dealing with it?

I'm having a hard time seeing how people can trust others who know someone has confessed but then go on with business as usual. Do they actually believe the confession was false or untrue? Or do they just choose to ignore it?

Some reasons might be the person was inebriated or otherwise unable to understand what they were confessing; the person was threatened or coerced; the person is covering for someone else; the person is confessing legally to avoid going to trial and facing harsher penalties.

None of those seem to fit here, so if the teacher really confessed, then yes, I agree that if they confessed to the parent and then later recanted to the school, they were doing that to cover their ass and they probably did it. But the alternative here is the parent lied or misunderstood that they confessed. The school can't prove that. If the teacher literally told the school "yes, I did confess earlier but now I recant" I would believe the teacher did it, but if the teacher said "I did not do it and I did not tell the parent I did it," then there isn't enough proof for the school to do anything, even if you still believe the parent personally.

OP here. I'm sorry I am not clear.

I guess I'm asking a sort of philosophical question. I am trying to understand what would lead a person to not believe a confession.

What I'm trying to understand is if someone would ever confess something to you, what would lead you to not believe it?

I guess I'm trying to understand how people can live with their conscience. Do they honestly, deeply believe that nothing happened? Or do they just shrug it off saying there is no evidence and they just don't want to bother dealing with it?

I'm having a hard time seeing how people can trust others who know someone has confessed but then go on with business as usual. Do they actually believe the confession was false or untrue? Or do they just choose to ignore it?

If the teacher is saying that they didn't say what the parent reported, there are all kinds of reasons to not believe the confession. It is a big career- and life-changing deal for that teacher if the school takes negative action, and to do that on one parent's uncorroborated say so with the teacher denying it would be pretty flimsy. You can vote with your feet but it would be utterly unfair to that teacher, and a risk for the school to do anything else unless there is more evidence.

If you're asking about whether to pull your child, it seems like you've already made up your mind.

However, it sounds like there's a lot more going on than "they spanked a child so I'm pulling my child" and you are downplaying all of it.

Like all parents, you decide what you want for your child, what you will tolerate, qhat you will not tolerate, and then you decide how and where you'll get that. Then you make it happen. Including paying money and/or moving somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote:The teacher confessed to the parent? And no one else heard it? So the admin can't prove the parent isn't lying.

+1. It doesn't sound like OSSE has a confession. It has an allegation from a parent that a teacher made a confession, but absent corroboration it's he said she said.

It sounds too unlikely to believe the parent

The teacher confessed to the parent? And no one else heard it? So the admin can't prove the parent isn't lying.

Anonymous wrote:You have so many double negatives in your writing that it's almost impossible to tell what you're asking.

+1

This is an excellent exercise in perspective taking.

The authorities can't prove who is lying about which part. No one else can either. Even if the words could be verified, the action described cannot be proven, especially because of the alleged victims provided no evidence either.

You have so many double negatives in your writing that it's almost impossible to tell what you're asking.

A teacher admitted to a fellow parent to doing something wrong to two children (spanking).

OSSE investigated. Found no evidence or that the allegations against this teacher are not true.

This parent would have no motivation to lie about the teacher admitting this.

The teacher denied everything later in the day once they realized what they said was going to get them in trouble.

What I'm struggling with here is what would actually lead someone to not believe a confession? Like, how can school administrators hear what the teacher said and lead to the statement that they have "no doubt" about nothing happening.

I am really trying to understand here how someone would be okay with dismissing someone's confession. Like, what would lead to that? The person was having a bad day and didn't know what they were saying? Then they probably shouldn't be caring for young children. Since the conversation happened in another language, the words were misunderstood? The conversation happened between two native speakers of that language and there was no ambiguity.

Just wondering if there is ever any situation where you'd hear a confession from a teacher or babysitter and ever choose to not believe it.