Note: In fairness to Exodus, I have changed my references to “abuse” to “misconduct.”
Peterson Toscano, a survivor of the ex-gay live-in ministry Love In Action, announced today that Exodus International president Alan Chambers has failed to act publicly to protect youths in an Exodus member program after Chambers was informed of three confirmed cases of misconduct involving youth in the year preceding June 26, 2006.
On June 26, 2006 I initially left voice messages for Alan Chambers of Exodus International and another national ex-gay leader about inappropriate incidents that affected youth at an Exodus member ministry. I will not go into the details at this time, but I shared three specific situations that happened within the previous year. The shocking details of the third situation compelled me to contact Alan and this other national leader. In my initial messages I said that I would rather discuss this privately, but if they did not wish to talk, then I would initiate a public discussion.
Conveying a tone of apathy, Chambers told Ex-Gay Watch last month that “I imagine the list of standards will be public on our website come January.”
But they’re not.
Exodus’ inaction raises some questions that are brutally straightforward:
- Why is Exodus stalling with the safety of ex-gay youth, even after misconduct is known to have occurred?
- Why were no standards effected and publicly disclosed before Exodus programs began to admit underage youths? Were abusive practices viewed as a legitimate means of scaring youths straight?
- Why do these programs — some of them being live-in treatment facilities — remain unlicensed and staffed by persons with no professional training in psychiatry or psychotherapy?
For me, the question is Why won’t Exodus stand up for its youth?
But of course, I’ve raised that question before.
I also raised some very direct and pointed questions to Alan Chambers in the previous thread on this topic that is referenced in Mike Airhart’s article above.
Alan Chambers assured us that he would report these sorts of incidents to appropriate authorities with the following response: “Whenever a teen or a parent divulges such information and we have their name or information we report it. So often people call here and don’t give us their names, numbers or any identifiable information. ”
But now Peter has raised very serious questions about how Exodus deals with these sorts of problems. It would appear that Exodus does not deal with these issues well, and it would also appear that Alan Chambers misled us in his previous responses about how seriously he takes the safety of children in Exodus programs.
and it would also appear that Alan Chambers misled us
I’m shocked. Who would have thunk it?
This is exactly why they MUST be subject to the standards of the FTC, AMA, APA…and other peer boards and review.
There are none for churches and religious schools.
However, Exodus and any other ex gay or ‘healing’ facility, first have to be subjet that their services are NECESSARY, outside of what heterosexuals can do or suffer or ‘struggle’ with.
Sexual orientation isn’t a matter of dysfunction, competence or destructive tendencies other than the opinion within a religious context.
The religious opinion is not mandated in public life, nor the civil liberties of others.
EVEN gay people.
Exodus or any other ex gay group’s function and standards have already been proven to be uneven, misdirected, unsupervised by legitimate peer groups, or federal and state standards of operation and procedure.
They fail to produce hard evidence of efficacy and time frame for commitment by their participants.
They are a BUSINESS. The are FOR PROFIT.
And their basic commitment is to excise homosexual people from their basic identity.
And there is no law against one’s identity, or framing an entire industry around changing it for NO OTHER REASON, than lack of respect for it’s presence.
Going back to necessity for change, is the most important factor in review of the ex gay industry.
And as we all know there IS no necessity, but a good deal of risk, to being involved in their non specific and expensive interventions.
In the previous thread, Alan claimed that pro-gay organizations had incidences of abuse or threat to youths. He accused XGW of neglecting to go after those organizations. At that time I said:
Just for the record, Alan has never reported a single incident of abuse, neglect, or lack of appropriate protections either on our site or to any author individually. Had he done so, we would have held the organization to the same level of scrutiny that we hold Exodus.
I suspect that Alan Chambers did not actually have substance to back up his claim and was trying simply to deflect scrutiny. But, if I am incorrect, the offer still stands.
On the greater issue of Exodus’ reluctance to set protections in place, I can think of the following reasons why they have not done so and are showing reluctance in this area:
1. Perhaps they lack the resources to run background checks on their youth workers. However, considering Exodus’ budget, the access they have to other well funded source, and the limited number of youth based workers, it seems unlikely that they could not at least phase in such a step, starting with a questionairre and going on to the more formal background checks.
2. Perhaps those who currently are working with Exodus youth would not be able to withstand much investigation into their background. It may be that any standards that would pass public examination would also exclude a number of key staff.
3. Perhaps Exodus does not want to establish the risk of having standards. Once they are in place, you have to follow them or legal liability ensues. If Exodus thinks its ministries are unwilling or unable to live up to standards, they may not wish to set themselve up for failure or for litigation.
4. Exodus may think that as a religious ministry they should not be accountable. This was the argument that LIA/R made to the state of Tennessee. Alan may think he answers to God alone and so there is no need for man-made safeguards of children. Since he’s doing God’s work, any collateral damage is not important.
Naturally, I’m only guessing. And there may be many other possibilities as well.
But as long as Alan is unwilling to talk, to us or to Peterson, all we can do is speculate. But what we are absolutely unwilling to do is passively stand by and leave children in danger without any criticism or comment.
If Alan Chambers does not think that Exodus is accountable because Exodus is a religious ministry, he should reflect long an hard on the fact that the tenth anniversary of the Catholic sex abuse scandal in Boston just passed. Being a religious institution did not protect the Catholic Church.
I am sure that Alan Chambers does not want to become the ex-gay equivalent of Cardinal Bernard Law.
I meant to say there is no law against one’s identity.
AND there are no protections for framing an entire ‘healing’ industry around excising that identity from a person for NO OTHER REASON, than a religious opinion, misinformation and intangibles.
And BUT for that opinion, said gay individual is IN REALITY a highly functional, happy, competent and free person.
Expecting Alan Chambers to take action regarding alleged incidents of child abuse is like expecting the fox to guard the hen house. If we know of allegationbs of abuse, it is OUR responsbility to notifiy the police, not Alan’s. I hope this has already been done. The posts above make no mention of it. If they have been notified, what action did the Poice and/or Child Protective Services take?
Michael,
I think your questions are good — why not ask Peterson Toscano what he or the youths have done to notify the proper authorities, since Exodus apparently hasn’t?
Peterson has not indicated the nature of the abuse. Is it criminal abuse or just ethical abuse?
We are told that the abuse was serious enough that Exodus was worried about legal liabilities and agreed to establish standards where, previously, there were apparently no substantive protections for youth.
If we know of allegationbs of abuse, it is OUR responsbility to notifiy the police, not Alan’s.
I think the victims of the Catholic abuse scandal would beg to differ. Although, frankly, I often wondered what on earth their parents were thinking in suing the church and/or signing hush-money deals instead of going to the police. Nevertheless, if Alan knows, then yes, it most certainly is his responsibility, as much as it was the bishops’ responsibility. Right now, there is some question as to whether Alan Chambers is behaving more like a bishop instead of a responsible leader.
I didn’t mean that Alan had NO responsibility. Of course he does. What I meant is that if WE have ANY reasonable suspicion of the abuse or mistreatment of children, we must not wait for someone ELSE to take action.
I will do as you suggested and contact Mr. Tosacno immediately to clarify what he meant by “abuse” and whether or not the appropriate reports have been made. In any event, shouldn’t those questions have been raised before posting an article with a headline like “EXODUS Admits Abuse…”?
Tim, the FTC could do a lot in shutting down Exodus. Virtually, they and other anti gay organizations are more invested in anti gay practices.
They allege and make claims without substance, and apparantly without enough challenge to their activity.
The state of Tennessee is one. But Exodus TOURS, from state to state, and this WOULD involve state trade laws and standards regarding forced isolation of minors.
With NO other criteria, but that the kid is gay…the parents should be subject to abuse liability.
Given the sound science and research on homosexuality=, there is no necessity for intervention, EXCEPT on the say so of Exodus.
Even juveniles with CRIMINAL records MUST have such backgrounds to require probation and a forced period of behavioral reassessment and review of their home life, family structure and parental influence.
There are many facets and history regarding the ex gay industry that the Williams Project and the FTC can examine.
Freedom in religion only means YOUR personal and individual choice for it, not coercive and invasive tactics and unrealistic requirements that compromise another’s freedom and peace of mind.
A class action suit would at least require the FTC to review Exodus’s motives and efficacy.
They ban pills or practices or services all the time that can’t prove efficacy or need.
Their profit motive too.
And the ex basket cases who feel qualified to diagnose what someone else’s life is ‘supposed’ to be like.
It’s hard to be patient. There is so much damage that can be done while waiting for higher authority to intervene.
“Abuse” is my interpretation of what seems to have happened. Not Peterson’s wording.
Jim, you reminded me of something I was listening to, regarding several ongoing interviews and investigations by a couple of rude (but undeniably effective) talk radio guys I know, named John and Ken.
One of them was raised Catholic. They also were very interested to find out EXACTLY how parents were able to go along with the Church regarding the abuse of their children, once the abuse was revealed to them at the time.
Emotional blackmail.
Sometimes the payoffs were barters for schooling or assurances that the priest was being ‘de-programmed’ and that their methods of such programming were effective and without fail.
The parents were led to believe that the behavior of the priests was being handled by a higher authority (re God) and that the due would be in heaven…and that local police did not have to be involved.
So, the tactics of the Church were VERY similar to that of the ex gay industry.
1. That they were always correct and assured by their religious conviction to their goal.
2. That they were highly influential and had much success…without ever proving any such thing.
3. Assurances that they had the facililties and qualified professionals to handle the problem.
4. That any failures was the spiritual failure of the priest, and not the moral failure of the Church.
5. That the Church and other Church authorities would help the family in every way possible, just shy of submitting any information to the local police, even if subpoenaed (confidentiality would always exempt them and the victims from being identified).
6. And using the Church as an all powerful and bulletproof entity of security and knowledge for the victim’s needs, without regard to other liability and limitations on the actual effect of religion and NOT clinical support for a victim.
Faith in lieu of everything else to help the victims, so to speak.
The approach of these institutions is very much something to take to task.
Even if Exodus doesn’t look the other way where criminal activity is concerned, THEIR very approach, activity, mission statements, method and results…are a misdiagnosis, mischaracterizations and misinformation all the way around.
They change their tactics according to who is listening and who challenges them.
Something that is sound, has sound results and a clear mission DOESN’T and WOULDN’T do that.
Nor, would they hide or be so stingy with their avaliability.
We shall see, people.