Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Texas teacher claims she couldn’t have fondled black student because she’s racist

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/texas-teacher-claims-she-couldnt-have-fondled-black-student-because-shes-racist/

A teacher in Texas has invoked her own racism in a defense against charges that she fondled an African-American student in her first grade class at Northwest Preparatory Academy Charter School in Humble.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the 7-year-old girl said that 61-year-old Esther Irene Stokes sent all of the other students out of the room on March 1 and then touched her “private part” on the outside of her clothes.

“The victim said that she was in the classroom alone with the teacher and that the teacher touched her on the outside of her clothes, on what she called her ‘private part,’ her vaginal area,” Humble Police Department Detective J. Blanchard explained on Tuesday.

Prosecutors said that after failing a polygraph test, Stokes insisted to Humble police that she had not touched the girl “on any part of her body.”

“She doesn’t like to even touch the black children on their hand, she shies away when they try to hug her — she admitted to being prejudiced,” Blanchard said.

The complaint stated that Stokes “doesn’t like black students because she was prejudiced” and “has little to no interaction” with her accuser.

The girl also told police that she asked the teacher to stop touching her and was made to stand out in the hall without any lunch — but Stokes also denied that.

Northwest Preparatory Academy Charter School Principal Paul A. Hardin told investigators that cafeteria records showed that the girl ate breakfast but not lunch on March 1.

Stokes’ attorney, Patty Maginnis, said that any racist comments made by here client were “not proof that any crime has been committed.”

“I would consider that just a personal opinion,” the lawyer noted. “The facts of the case will determine that she is innocent.”

Stokes was fired on Tuesday, according to charter holder Miracle Educational Systems, which operates the school.

“The employee involved was immediately placed on administrative leave as soon as the complaint was received, and the matter was investigated,” a statement said. “As a result of the Academy’s investigation, the staff member in question has been terminated.”

Stokes is free on $10,000 bond. She is scheduled to appear in court on May 21.

Well i must say this definitely ranks as one of the weirder defences ive heard of...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Snagprophet

It's not illegal to be a racist though, is it?

Reply 2

Three Mile Sprint

Original post by Snagprophet

It's not illegal to be a racist though, is it?

Nay, tis not.

Reply 3

slickrick666999

Loool. Bare jokes. Good on her.

Reply 4

SnoochToTheBooch

well she's got nothing to lose, might as well give it a shot

Reply 5

The_Internet

Hmmm a part of me thinks that's a good defence. She's going to lose her job regardless, and it's better to lose a job by saying you're racist than a kiddy fiddler

Reply 6

Mockery

Original post by de_monies

Hmmm a part of me thinks that's a good defence. She's going to lose her job regardless, and it's better to lose a job by saying you're racist than a kiddy fiddler

Isn't it just too transparent of a defense though?

Reply 7

drbluebox

Well it may even be true, she could be set up or the girl could just be lying or the girl could of misinterpreted things or it could be lies from the teacher.

Even if she was racist there could of been a deep rooted reason for this such as being bullied as a kid by a black girl so she could of been scarred for this and this is some way for her mind to get over it.

Whatever is true this is strange

Reply 8

The_Internet

Original post by Mockery

Isn't it just too transparent of a defense though?

True. It is a weird defence, but I'd say it's "better" to be branded a racist, than a paedophile

Reply 9

Mockery

Original post by de_monies

True. It is a weird defence, but I'd say it's "better" to be branded a racist, than a paedophile

Indeed it is, but wouldn't it be even better simply to dispute the claims of the 7 year old?

Claiming to be a racist gives her intentions away immediately, basically becoming a guilty plea.

Reply 10

JC.

Doesn't stack up as a defence.

For example, I hate crappy cars, but I did once buy a Ford KA. It was with the intention of making a few quid, granted but I still actually have to admit to owning the thing!

Reply 11

kunoichi

Awful defence

I dont understand why a 7 year old would lie about something like that either.

Of course it could have been an accidental touch? But then why not say it.

Why are people like this (ie.racist, obvs child abusers too but thats not proved) teaching anyway?

Reply 12

miser

Strange defence. She must be feeling desperate to use a tactic like that.

Reply 13

thunder_chunky

Original post by de_monies

Hmmm a part of me thinks that's a good defence. She's going to lose her job regardless, and it's better to lose a job by saying you're racist than a kiddy fiddler

I agree, it's a hell of a curveball.

Reply 14

Kiss

Lololol. I bet she won't get as long a sentence as a man either.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 15

HumanSupremacist

Original post by cl_steele

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/texas-teacher-claims-she-couldnt-have-fondled-black-student-because-shes-racist/

Well i must say this definitely ranks as one of the weirder defences ive heard of...

No, rather, it's the most ridiculous things I've heard and the teacher is certainly stupid and dim - there's no doubt about that. To hate someone, not because of their actions, but simply because of their skin tone is one of the most bizarre things I've ever come across. It's almost like hating everybody who is green-eyed simply because...they're green-eyed! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever come across! :rolleyes:

It's like hating children simply because...they're children/young!

I'm surprised - indeed, shocked and disgusted - that such a disgusting human being (if she can be called such, the filthy irrational thing) could be anywhere near children! It's disturbing!

Certainly, if she's "innocent" of sexual assault, she won't be getting her job back anyway haha! :lol:

Original post by Snagprophet

It's not illegal to be a racist though, is it?

No, but it is highly stupid.

"I don't like to touch black people" - what in the hell does that mean? It's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in my life. It's the same as saying "I don't like White people" or "I hate Chinese people" - of course, because all 4 billion are really one and the same thing, right? :rolleyes:

Reply 16

username129099

I don't think it works. If you are going to abuse a child, using the defence that you have an inherent dislike of them isn't really an defence, its a justification of your actions.

As one of the comments in the article points out, during the slave trade plenty of plantation owners slept with and had children with the black women they owned. They were certainly racist and it didn't stop them.

Reply 17

HumanSupremacist

Original post by slickrick666999

Loool. Bare jokes. Good on her.

Regardless, she's idiotic and stupid by default. No intelligent, sane or rational being could hate entire masses of people simply because of something as negligible as...their skin tone! I've never heard something so ridiculous in my life!

Stupid, silly, irrational person: "I hate green-eyed people. I'd never want to be touched by them."

Objective bystander: "Oh? Why's that, then?"

Stupid, silly, irrational person: "Because they're green-eyed - duh!"

Objective bystander: "Wait - you hate them because...simply because they're green-eyed?"

Stupid, silly, irrational person: "Yes."

Objective bystander: "Yes, because that makes perfect sense..." *Rolls eyes* *Walks off, not bothering to speak to a dim human who will probably end up winning a Darwin Award*

:rolleyes:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 18