Former BOISE Teacher Arrested For Sexual Abuse

[Stan]

Former Local Teacher Arrested For Sexual Abuse

By Thanh Tan

Nampa -

It took a 16-month investigation before Nampa police could arrest former teacher Anthony Loomer, 31, on Thursday evening. Loomer, who is now a resident of Boise, is charged with sexual abuse of a minor and enticing a child over the Internet.

"As we get more technologically advanced, the use of computers to try and solicit teenagers to engage in sexual activity is becoming much more common. At least we have the ability now to detect that." said Asst. Chief Timothy Vincent of Nampa Police Department.

Detectives say the investigation began in April 2003. They claim suggestive e-mails written to minors were found on Loomer's computer. Authorities also allege Loomer engaged in inappropriate behavior nearly two years ago with one of his 14-year-old female students at Boise Valley Seventh Day Adventist School.

A spokesman for the school declined to comment on-camera, but did tell Idaho 2 News that Loomer began working there in 1995. He was known as a popular teacher who taught 7th and 8th grades before resigning in March 2003, shortly after the incident was revealed.

All public schools in Idaho require teachers to pass a 4-point security check in order to be certified. But in Anthony Loomer's case, that rule did not apply because he taught at a private school.

"Idaho law does not address private schools. If a background check is required by the private school... that's the choice of the private school," said Allison Westphall of the Idaho Department of Education.

In order to be certified to teach in a public school, applicants must have a clean criminal history check that includes: the statewide criminal identification bureau, FBI criminal history check, national crime information center, and statewide sex offender register.

Boise Valley Seventh Day Adventist says it has and does do background checks on teachers, but did not provide Idaho 2 News with those details.

[cricket]

I don't think too many of our Adventist schools do these background checks. Also, I don't think too many of them review the teaching credentials either.

[darlene]

All teachers in our Adventist Schools in Canada are required to take a security check. It is mandatory.

[Tom Wetmore]

Increasingly, these school worker background checks do apply to private schools, even though it does vary by state. Here in Maryland all private schools are required to do the background checks.

The weak link of this requirement may be the problem in this case. A first time offender would not have shown up as a problem in any of the security checks. If someone has no record of any prior arrest, complaint or criminal conviction, normal background checking will not find a problem.

Tom

[Stan]

IN talking with a former superintendent of schools from Boise, this man had his all of his credentials removed. They did the right thing

They could not stop him from doing what he did after the employment ended could they? I believe that he is accused of enticing youth over the internet

[bonnie]

Why is the Seventh day Adventist church waiting for the state to force our schools to protect our children?

Is there a good sound reason Seventh Day Adventists are not in the forefront of this? Especially from the standpoint of what we preach and how important children are?

The article says he resigned AFTER the incident. Why doesn't it say the man was fired? This allows him to move on without a mark on his record. Future employers have nothing to show them this man engaged in illegal sexual activity with a minor.

The lack of a previous record is not proof this was a first time offense. What shows as his first time offense is when the civil authorities stepped in. His conduct with a 14 year old girl was prior to his arrest for this offense.

The weak link is when our school did not comply with the law. Inappropriate conduct with a minor is a felony, and is REQUIRED to be reported to the authorities. Did they do so? If so, he would not be a first time offender. Or did they just allow him to resign with a clean record?

The right thing was to report this to the authorities, and cooperate in every way possible with them. Did they do so?

Reporting him to the authorities as they are required to do with possible prosecution, may very well have stopped this offense by this particular man.

The school was not responsible for what he may do after provided they took the appropriate legal and moral steps required for this 14 year old victim and to protect those that would follow her. Not letting them quietly resign, going on and on, till finally caught with what looks like a first time offense. They do share a responsibility for the known and unknown victims of this man if they did nothing, but allow him to resign.

Predators do not stop until they are stopped. It does not sound like any attempt was made to stop this man, or there should be a report of a police record of his "incident" with a 14 year old girl.

How many times will we just let them keep moving on, happy with a resignation, instead of following the legal and moral to protect our children?

Did those taking the easy way out, give any consideration to the children that would follow

[Nicodema]

Are there statutes of limitations on this sort of thing? Can someone be turned in for soliciting a minor on the internet 7 or 8 years after the incident?

I don't want to go into details for obvious reasons but to make a long story short something happened to someone close to me and I essentially "chased off" the predator but I never reported him. I basically used the threat of turning him in to get rid of him. At the time, it honestly never even occurred to me to think there might be other victims -- which was really stupid and myopic of me now I realize, but that's the truth -- at the time I was so angry and hurt and upset about this, and so desperate to protect my loved-one from this disgusting slime that's as far as I could see. And until this subject came up and I read the posts here, which triggered the memory, I'd forgotten about the incident.

Reading Bonnie's post, I'm really regretting now that I didn't report this person when I had the chance, because what if he went on to harm other minors??? Of course I didn't find out about it when it happened, exactly -- in fact by the time I found out it was like a year or two later when the victim confided in me about it. Now it's like 7 or 8 years after the fact. Would it still be possible to file a report and if so, how do I go about doing this -- or would it need to be done by the person who was victimized? Also where and to whom would such a report be made? I know nothing about this stuff. Thanks.

[bonnie]

You would have to check with the civil authorities in your state. laws are changing. The ablity to go back years after an abuser is becoming more frequent.

While at the time you lacked the knowledge of future victims, our denomination can not claim that as an excuse. While you did "chase him" off, you did not change him. He was a predator then and unless stopped, in most cases remains a predator today. It is almost certain he has gone on to harm others. It is rare to find a one time predator, they go on to perfecting their filthy behavior to an art form in grooming their victims and evading prosecution.

Many more cases go unreported than reported.

When you said...." at the time I was so angry and hurt and upset about this, and so desperate to protect my loved-one from this disgusting slime that's as far as I could see"....

You have just given the reason so many keep getting by with it. It is a natural reaction of all that have dealt with sexual abuse issues. Then compound that by having it at the hands of a denomination you love and people you have faith in.

While there is no way of knowing for certain from this article, his "incident" as reported by the school that led to his resignation, avoids mention of any steps being taken that is required by law.

Resignation did nothing to hold a man that preyed on a 14 year old girl accountable.

This is frequently the way the denomination deals with this.

As for his credentials being removed, that in itself leads to some interesting questions.

Number one, are removing credentials of a teacher , the same as for a pastor?

You can prevent him from teaching in our schools in that state, but how would you prevent him from teaching in the public school system?

Number two, He has resigned, so on checking his resume what would they find? An admission by this school that they determined there was inappropriate conduct with a 14 year old and that we have not reported this to the police as required by law? We just won't let him teach in our schools and corrupt our young people?

Or would you find as you would have every right to, All appropriate legal and moral obligations were met? Not only for the crime committed against the 14 year old, but the future 14 year olds they KNOW will follow unless this predator is stopped?

A pastor can have his credentials removed in one state and prohibited from pastoring chruches in that state by a denomination. His degree and the qualifications to pastor elsewhere is not.

There is one pastor at the moment that I know personally, was stripped of his credentials in one state for "inappropriate conduct" with a babysitter. He not allowed to pastor in that state, but somehow is now a respected member of clergy within our denomination, pastoring several states away. He still is not allowed to pastor in the state where he was stripped of his credentials. Does this hold true for our teachers as well?

In MN a teacher can be barred from teaching and having contact with minors. That is only when it is reported and acted on. This takes the cooperation and inititive of those that know of his behavior. Did this school do so, or simply make it possible for him to continue? In effect "holding his coat" while he finds other victims.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

You would have to check with the civil authorities in your state. laws are changing. The ablity to go back years after an abuser is becoming more frequent.

---

At the time, the victim was living on the east coast and the perpetrator was living in California. He solicited her over the internet and arranged to meet up with her when he was on business travel or somesuch in her area. So where would the jurisdiction be, where the rendezvous took place or where he lived or both? Since part of it of course included what he did on the internet beforehand from his home state.

[bonnie]

I would start with your local law enforcement. They should be able to tell you or direct you where to go

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

He solicited her over the internet and arranged to meet up with her when he was on business travel or somesuch in her area. So where would the jurisdiction be, where the rendezvous took place or where he lived or both?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The defendant's domicile is the proper jurisdiction. However, the location of the alleged crime [the rendezvous] is also appropriate.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The article says he resigned AFTER the incident. Why doesn't it say the man was fired? This allows him to move on without a mark on his record.

---

It is often MUCH harder to fire someone than to accept his resignation. Firing before the behaviour has been proven in court could subject the organization to all kinds of allegations around "innocent until proven guilty".

My experience of "record" is simply this. (1) Records don't carry between companies - what a person did or didn't do at a previous company is rarely available. Largely because the former employer does not want to risk being sued by either the person or the new employer. (2) Within an organization, you phone up the previous manager and ask.

Furthermore (1) if this person looses their case, then they will never again get a position of trust, and ( if they win the case - because the allegations are false, for example - they will always be hurt by these allegations.

Life ain't fair - for anyone.

/Bevin

[bonnie]

Reporting "inapproriate conduct" with a minor is required by law.

There is not a mention of a police report or investigation. Did they report this incident to the police? If not, why not?

As to firing before the case is proven in court, how did they remove this man's teaching credentials? On a whim, a suspicion?

The law to report abuse of a minor is not a suggestion. If proof of, or a complaint is made, they are REQUIRED to do so. That does not require the ability to prove in court, only that abuse has been reported. Even had the courts not prosecuted, or given him a slap on the fingers, or decided there was not enough to go forward, by law they are required to report.

If they had done so, there should be some mention of a previous record of complaint, not simply a resignation.

We have minors working where I work, part time students. Spelled out very clearly, without any room for doubt, "Any complaint of "inappropriate sexual conduct" involving a minor employee, will be reported to the authorities immediately. Full cooperation with law eforcement is mandatory for all upper management. It goes on to cite the law requiring them to do so.

Are our churches and schools exempt from this requirement because of fear of lawsuit?

If he is innocent till proven guilty in a court of law, why the removal of his credentials. Legally he is innocent till a court of law says he is not, so barring this, or a report of abuse of a minor, a police investigation, on what grounds did they remove his credentials without fear of a lawsuit?

[bonnie]

It may be possible they followed all moral and legal requirements, but if so, there should have been some mention in the report given by the parties investigating him now.

On paper, the denomination recognizes it's moral and legal responsibilities, do they act on those responsibilities? Or do they protect themselves first at all costs without regard to the present or future victims? Which is really not a protection at all as they continue to face lawsuits from victims

James Cress, Ministerial Sec. seemed to have a good handle on the problems concerning this issue within the denomination. How many were actually listening? Or was this feel good time to make the membership complacent, feeling it was really being addressed?

This deals primarily with clergy sexual abuse, however we do have policy on this which covers denominational employees.

This ,by James Cress tells you they do understand....."typically the situation which is reported is not the first offense, but only the first of which the administrator has become aware"

They are well aware, a predator not stopped is searching for new victims. It will always be a first offense, till acted on and reported.

A portion of his last paragraph leaves little room for doubt as to what needed to be done.......

"Absolute integrity in disclosure of misconduct and even unproved accusations should inform every transfer of employees. Otherwise, the organization participates in and perpetuates the very misconduct it purports to abhor".

Would this absolute integrity demand reporting this "alleged incident" concerning a minor,include reporting to the police?

Did they do so? If they did, along with barring him from any denominational employment, they have done what they could.

Or, are they guilty of holding the coat of a predator while he searches for new victims?

Organizational Misconduct

By James A. Cress in September 2002 Ministry

Used with permission by Ministry Magazine

Sexual misconduct by clergy has dominated the headlines in recent months.

Predatory violation of children is particularly reprehensible and demands for punishment and reform have come from laity as well as fellow clergy who realize their own reputations are besmirched by the sinful behavior of a few miscreants.

As the media reports on individual clergy criminals, another level of wickedness – organizational misconduct – should be carefully evaluated by every denomination. When a clergy person is transferred from one location to another with judicatory administrators aware of sexual misconduct by, accusations against, or even suspicion surrounding the transferred pastor, then the wider group contributes to the sin of the minister and should be help accountable.

And this is not just a challenge for one religious organization. These evils cross denominational boundaries. Sexual misconduct by clergy is everyone's problem, but the particular responsibility of administrators who should faithfully serve the congregations and parishioners under their jurisdiction. Church members expect more than well-meaning empathy for perpetrators of abuse. They are increasingly unwilling to merely accept reassurances from leaders who are either cluelessly unaware or negligent in their duty.

Various factors motivate administrators who avoid dealing with guilty clergy and, subsequently, transfer them to new locations. Perhaps the greatest contributing factor is the misconception that the church's reputation must be protected at all costs, even by keeping secret the sins of the clergy. Like the proverbial ostrich head in the sand, some leaders choose to believe that if we ignore a problem, the tragic consequences cannot possibly be factual and the church's image will be preserved.

Another factor misinterprets the gospel mandate to forgive sinners. Thus, pastoral sexual misconduct is viewed more as a moral lapse than as a betrayal of professional trust. Of course, this ignores the Savior's directive that those who harm little ones should be severely, even irretrievably, punished. Remember, sexual misconduct is seldom a need for a sexual relationship as much as it is an abuse of power and position.

Denominational policies are also violated by well-intentioned leaders who believe that selective enforcement is more merciful than zero tolerance, particularly for a first offense (typically the situation which is reported is not the first offense, but only the first of which the administrator has become aware).

When organizational behavior does not match organizational policy, pastors conclude they will be disciplined on the basis of who they know more than on the basis of what they did. Consequently, if administrators set up themselves rather than policy as the final arbiters of justice, they must hide their actions or disguise their motives when their own variance with policy becomes known.

Likewise, for those denominations, my own included, whose official policies offer no rehabilitation process and anticipate that every moral fall means dismissal from ministry, leaders believe they must selectively ignore policy for some offenses while punishing others. Again, the individual administrator, not the body, becomes the judge. Such policy and procedural variances need serious evaluation and either amendment or enforcement.

Furthermore, when an organizational culture refuses to deal with reality, training in sexual ethics and professional responsibility may be woefully lacking.

Too often organizations express more concern for their employee than for the victims. Misguided empathy for the needs of the clergy often takes precedence over the needs of a victim to see justice. A rush to forgive errant clergy and to absolve them professionally from employment consequences often ignores the sever trauma experienced by the victims' unheeded need to express their pain. Victims, already violated, feel violated again by leaders who refuse to hear their cries. In fact, victims are often blamed by the organization for seducing the clergy. One victim said, "I was made to feel that a man's job was more important than a woman's virtue" (clergy sexual misconduct is almost exclusively a male problem). Because the church must not only do right, but also "appear right," laity should serve on all committees that deal with issues of misconduct and violation.

Another group of victims often are blamed for clergy sexual misconduct. Pastoral wives are viewed as contributing to their husband's sin by the assumption that they did not 'meet their spouse's need." Do not underestimate the consequential victimization of pastoral wives and families when justice does not consider their situation.

Absolute integrity in disclosure of misconduct and even unproved accusations should inform every transfer of employees. Otherwise, the organization participates in and perpetuates the very misconduct if purports to abhor.

[Michelle]

Quote:

---

I don't think too many of our Adventist schools do these background checks. Also, I don't think too many of them review the teaching credentials either.

---

In Michigan you are required to have a police record presented to the conference, and at least in that conference, they thoroughly vet references and credentials. Maybe some places are more lax (or I know they are) but at least MI is pretty strict in monitering.

(when we were elsewhere, there was a person applying for a job and when the researcher started getting evasive answers to questions, he started calling more people, until he finally discovered that this guy had a restraining order against him by his ex-wife, etc, for sexual impropriety with step-daughter--the researcher called this guy's union education super and said, look, I don't know what you guys overlook in your union, but this is what I found out about this guy and if you didn't know it, now you do, and if you did know it, shame on you for trying to pass him off on someone else's students!)

M

[Nicodema]

Bonnie, I've seen you use this phrase a few times - "holding the coat" and/or "coat holder". I really don't understand what it means, could you explain it please? Like, where does the image come from, what does the metaphor mean (since it's obvious you don't mean someone literally standing there and holding his coat). I get the feeling it's something like "enabling" but I want to know exactly what you mean by it and I just don't "get it". Kind of like Ed White with his "pliable Aaron" phrase ... I had to ask what that meant too.

Thanks.

[bonnie]

Probably more of a family thing altho I have seen it elsewhere, based on the story of the stoning of Stephen.

Acts 8:58 And they cast him out of the cityand stoned him. And the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man name Saul.

Saul did not committ the act, but was willing to make it easier for those that did.

Had he stood up and said no, what would the outcome have been? We have no way of knowing but it is obvious Saul had measure of power as a young man. Following the stoning it says in Acts9:3 ....As for Saul, he made havoc of the church,entering every house,and dragging off men and women,committing them to prison... He was not without influence. He used his influence, but not for good.

He held/guarded the coats of the abuser, while keeping his hands clean. It suited his own purpose.

It is different than enabling as far as I am concerned. Many do that in the mistaken belief they are helping. Some are ignorant of what to do and do nothing. Others are to afraid or timid to react, so they do nothing. Wrong, but done with different intent than those that hold/guard the coats like Saul.

Assuming that from the little that is actually known from the story posted this was not reported to the police as is required by law,this is holding the coat of the abuser.

This is not suppossed to be an option or a suggestion, it is LAW. Had they done so, I would think that a police report would have been mentioned. An investigation began and a determination made as to whether there was enough to proceed with trial. He might not be viewed as a first time offender now.

If in fact his credentials were removed, it would seem enough of an investigation by the school was conducted to warrant a legal complaint. If so, why the resignation, leaving him with a clean slate? The story and the reaction you related was out of fear and ignorance. The denomination cannot fall back on that. They have had far to much experience with predator/pedophile employee's to believe that resignation/removing credentials will stop them.

If this is what happened, this school/church/conference was guilty of more than enabling.

While providing a united front by circling the wagons protecting the church, they are holding the coat of the predator, giving him easier acess to his next victims. VICTIMS, they know beyond a doubt will be the result. The only unknown is how many.

If the school did not report to the police and cooperate fully, make it known throughout our system, they not only enable him to go on, but "hold his coat" They know in advance what will happen.

The denomination not only has a legal obligation, but more importantly a moral one, to care about all that will follow.

[bonnie]

A situation I know intimately along with several just like it.

Those that enabled were the ones out of ignorance/ fear/ and misguided notion that love/patience/forgivness would win out.

The coat holders were the ones that said... " We knew it was wrong, but there were good things he was doing, so we didn't know what to do"

In gaining what they wanted or avoiding responsibility was simply being willing to hold the coat of the predator. Making it possible to go on for a very long time.

Just like Saul and the church members, when the reality hits they rush to remove those that will speak out.

Some positive changes are being made. Whether for monetary reasons or all the right ones, time will tell. Still far to many "holding the coat"of a predator. Not only among the leadership, but the membership is as guilty

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Probably more of a family thing altho I have seen it elsewhere, based on the story of the stoning of Stephen.

Acts 8:58 And they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man name Saul.

Saul did not committ the act, but was willing to make it easier for those that did.

---

OK, so kind of like, someone who unspokenly agrees to politely look the other way while the offense is going on -- they are aware of what is happening but they "wash their hands of it" by refusing to get involved -- and the "coat" is like a convenience for them then, they were paying attention to the coat, so they are innocent? (Am I close?) (I'm sort of picturing Saul as saying, "Hey, I don't know, it was none of my business what they were up to, all I know is these guys asked me to watch their cloaks for a few minutes...")

Quote:

---

While providing a united front by circling the wagons protecting the church, they are holding the coat of the predator, giving him easier acess to his next victims. VICTIMS, they know beyond a doubt will be the result. The only unknown is how many.

---

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain but now that you mention it -- "circle the wagons" is another one, could you explain where that comes from & what that means too please? Thanks. These are phrases I'm not familiar with at all, is all.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The coat holders were the ones that said... " We knew it was wrong, but there were good things he was doing, so we didn't know what to do"

In gaining what they wanted or avoiding responsibility was simply being willing to hold the coat of the predator. Making it possible to go on for a very long time.

---

AHHHH, OK, thanks, that helps make it even clearer about "coat holders". They don't want to act against the perp because they think he benefits them or does "some good" for them somehow.

[bonnie]

1.Am I close?) I'm sort of picturing Saul as saying, "Hey, I don't know, it was none of my business what they were up to, all I know is these guys asked me to watch their cloaks for a few minutes..."

No, Saul knew exactly that was going on and was willing to lend/ offer his support.

Just as the denomination knows in advance what a predator that is not stopped will do. They know from many past experiences there will be other victims to follow. The difference is, the denomination has made statements regarding this, and their belief how wrong it is and the steps to be taken. One of those steps is reporting to police when it involves a minor.

Saul never claimed it wrong to persecute christians. The denomination has claimed it wrong to remain silent on a practice they claim to abhore. More precisely, they have acknowledged by those actions they perpetuate that which they claim to abhore.

They KNOW what will happen and for their own purpose do not follow the steps they claim as part of their policy

3.AHHHH, OK, thanks, that helps make it even clearer about "coat holders". They don't want to act against the perp because they think he benefits them or does "some good" for them somehow.

Many times, yes. When the denomination refuses to act against actions like this, the good they gain

comes from not having it made public. Avoiding publicity along with others coming forward. Way to often, you would find that rather than first offense this had been known by their previous employer. Resignation is the quietest way. This is changing.

According to James Cress, it seems he understands the need for the organization to change as well. Hopefully soon, more will catch on that it cannot continue to be "business as usual"

Less gain is being realized for the denomination by continuing this.

[Michelle]

Nico--Circling wagons harkens back to the "winning of the West" days in frontier America. When the wagon trains were rumbling across the flatlands, they were often in hostile Native American territory (hmm, wonder why they were hostile?). Anyway, they would pull the wagons in a circle for protection, and put the vulnerable people in the middle with the "more capable" in the wagons with guns pointed out to the angry mauraders. Circling the wagons, thus, refers to gathering around someone and protecting them, not letting anyone "get to them". Can be used in a positive or negative way (probably, most often negative--protecting someone who shouldn't be protected, for example).

Hope that helps some (and I hope I was mostly right in the explanation!).

M

[Nicodema]

That illustration helped, Michelle - thanks.

[ilovehanselandgr]

I know this post is years after the first post was posted but I am in total shock!

Mr. Loomer was my 7th and 8th grade teacher. Truthfully, he was one of my favorite teachers because he was very laid back and seemed like “one of us.” He would let us pass notes and truthfully my grades were the best they had ever been in my life when he was my teacher. He actually was an excellent teacher and with his help, it had been the first time in my life that I was able to like and understand math.

Unfortunately there were some underlying issues that we had experienced and had actually brought forth to the principal. We had a 14 year old class mate who was constantly telling us that she and Mr. Loomer were “dating.” At the time I thought it was just her little crush as I knew Mr. Loomer was married. She started telling us that they went to the store together and were holding hands and some lady asked if they were boyfriend and girlfriend. She said that Mr. Loomer had just smiled and that she was truly in love with him. I still at the time thought she was lying and felt bad for her as I knew she really liked Mr. Loomer. I also was confused why she would tell such an obvious lie? My friends and I would joke back and forth about it in our notes and actually caught Mr. Loomer taking them from the trash and addressing issues brought up in them in the class. We thought that was weird and felt like our privacy had been invaded and since then took all our notes home with us. One such issue was that he discussed his vasectomy with the class and we wrote in the notes how grossed out we were. He then brought it up a second time as we had gotten a few facts wrong. We were embarrassed he read our notes complaining about it. At the time I didn’t realize how inappropriate it was to discuss such things with 12-14 year old children.

When my two friends and I saw him come by and touch the bra strap that was poking out of the shirt of the girl who claimed they were dating and then wink at her in a very flirty manner, we went to the principal and told him what we saw. He seemed really upset and told us if it was true, Mr. Loomer was in a lot of trouble. I immediately felt guilty and ran back to the classroom and told Mr. Loomer about us telling on him. I was actually crying while I told him as I didn’t want to lose him as our teacher. He seemed very calm and let me know he was upset we didn’t come to him first but assured us that everything was ok. Later the next day, Mr. Loomer and the principal had a meeting with the girl and her parents, and then soon after the Mom’s of my friends and I. Everything was chalked up to a bunch of girls being jealous of another girl which was not true at all and bothered me, but I dealt with it as I didn’t want Mr. Loomer to leave. Mr. Loomer was ordered not to be alone with any girls in the future (for his own protection.) I actually felt guilty for years over it as the girl was hurt and embarrassed someone came forth over it, and I also felt like I had betrayed my beloved teacher. This all happened in 1998. So this was years before the situation that Mr. Loomer resigned over.

Since I moved to Texas with my family when I was 16, I never knew about all of this until a few years ago while I was catching up with one of my best friends from BVAS. I mentioned how much fun I had while I was in Mr. Loomer’s class and that he was one of the reasons why I was going to pursue teaching. She told me that he had actually been implicated in some kind of sexual misconduct with a student and had been let go. It was weird as I got back to thinking about all the weird stuff that had happened with the girl we were friends and classmates with. I asked her if she thought everything our friend had said about them dating and holding hands was true? She was just silent. It was a question we really didn’t want to think about. Plus all the weird sexual discussions we would have together as a class started coming back to mind. Would this have taken place if the principal had taken action about it when we brought up Mr. Loomer’s weird behavior?

I searched for years looking for any articles about it and found nothing. So I had assumed for years that it was another rumor as I was sure something like that would be online. I was relieved because I really liked Mr. Loomer and I really hoped me and my friends were immature and looking too into stuff that wasn’t there. It wasn’t until tonight when I was searching for him on Face book and kept coming back blank that I decided that maybe his real name was Anthony (not Tony like we all knew him as.) All of a sudden, all this stuff popped up about him.

I am truthfully shocked, but most of all disappointed. Mr. Loomer was (and still is) my favorite teacher and actually someone who helped me a lot in class. I always felt stupid before Mr. Loomer. He helped me on subjects that no one else would and actually encouraged me and made me feel like I had great potential. I really felt as if he believed I was intelligent. Those two years are actually the happiest years I’ve ever had in school. I’ve kept several of the notes that my friends and I passed while in that class, along with tons of pictures as they always make me smile when I am feeling sad. Mr. Loomer had a lot to offer the world and God had given him an amazing gift of teaching. This has been a very sad turn of events indeed.