I just finished reading through the Panama Historical Investigation Summary Report again.
http://www.ihart.care/panama-summary-report.htmlThe strategy here is very obvious, at least to those of us who had certain expectations of what the conclusion of the investigation into child abuse in Panama should look like.
A surface skim through the report might give the reader a sense that IHART is sympathetic to the victims of the abuse that was confirmed by their investigators/interviewers.
However: Take another look, and you will see that the deplorable abuse uncovered by the team is softened by a lot of "yabbuts", as my Dad used to call them. Excuses and rationalizations. "Yeah, but ..."
ABUSES MENTIONED IN THE REPORTProfessional Investigators International reported that there were 103 credible child abuse allegations that they investigated. 63 of the allegations rose to at least the level of "preponderance of the evidence". Ten people were found to have been offenders (abusers). In addition, IHART's leadership investigation found various degrees of culpability on nine mission leaders. pg 28, 29
Children were spanked for not finishing their food, for not eating enough, for not eating fast enough. Some were forced to eat when they were sick, or to eat food they could not tolerate, to the point of vomiting. pg 34
Punishment and humiliation for bed wetters, including spanking, and requiring children to change their own sheets. pg 26
A staff person put a heavy cement cast on the broken foot of a child. pg 26
Children were beaten with the end of a fishing rod with a weight on it. These beatings or whippings were so severe that victims report bleeding, bruising, stripes, welts, and so much pain they could not sit down.
pg 28, 30
Survivors report vicious spankings that left marks. They report that dorm parents seemed to enjoy spanking children. pg 31
Reports of "spankings" consisting of ten, fifteen, or even more "swats". pg 31
There was a belief that spanking was not effective unless the child cried, and if a child attempted to resist crying, the beating became even more brutal. pg 31
Some children were spanked daily, or even more than once a day. Some recall their skin was chronically irritated from the punishments they were regularly receiving. pg 31
Two boys were severely beaten by two adults taking turns hitting them with a 2.5 foot wooden paddle. One of the boys sustained severe bruising. The other had to have his blood-soaked pants soaked off him in warm water. pg 32
Some children were even tied up and gagged during beatings! pg 32
Corporal punishment was dealt out not only to small children ages 6-7, but was also a form of punishment used on teenaged MKs in high school, both boys and girls. pg 31
A dorm father gave girls back rubs that "may have" been under the shirt on the lower back, or have come too far around the side. pg 35
"YEAH, BUTS ..." FROM THERESA SIDEBOTHAM"In the time frame of the Panama allegations, which went up to the mid 1990s,
NTM did not have specific definitions of abuse. Given that our cultural understandings of child abuse and appropriate child discipline have changed over the years, it is not appropriate for the investigative teams to use current definitions to evaluate events from decades ago as child abuse.... it is not appropriate to hold people accountable under standards that did not exist at the time." pg 3
"In the decades before the 1990s, child abuse was poorly understood by government institutions, mission agencies, and others. Society as a whole, including mission organizations, failed previous generations of children by not understanding the prevalence of child abuse or its damaging effects. NTM, like other organizations, had a limited understanding of child abuse at that time." pg 14
"Unfortunately, in a historical investigation, it is not always possible to establish facts definitively.... While it is natural that MKs would support
each other through these difficult experiences, discussing events affects an investigation. Research shows that
such discussion creates significant social contamination that affects the credibility of the testimony." pg 15
"...there may have been a preference for NTM training over having advanced degrees, particularly those from secular institutions.... A disadvantage of this approach is that
NTM in the early days had less access to contemporaneous scholarship on psychology, child development, education, or
leadership than those groups with more rigorous academic standards." pg 16
The political situation in Panama in the 1980s was volatile and dangerous. This is given as a rationalization for some of the harsh treatment of children at EHM. And also is supposed to explain why NTM leaders did not reports crimes to Panamanian authorities, such as the rape of a teenaged MK by a Panamanian. "It was dangerous for Americans to come to the attention of Panamanian authorities. As a result, they were unlikely to make reports to the local authorities, whom they did not trust." pg 20
The incident of an NTM missionary putting a heavy cement cast on a child's broken foot is shrugged off as an example of "lack of training". pg 26 MKs who were at the school at the time recall this incident and its motivation quite differently.
"There were also MKs who said that, though the atmosphere was strict, it was fair. They denied that spankings were generally harsh. They describe the same dorm parents in very different terms. This second group of MKs state that the retrospective memory of their fellow MKs is unfair, exaggerated, and even inaccurate." pg 32
In regard to the dorm father who gave back rubs under girls' shirts, running his hand around their sides, or a dorm father who put his hand on a young girl's thigh, these too were shrugged off, and the dorm parent excused because of some supposed failure of training. "While neither memories nor allegations were very clear after so much time, and
the definition of boundary violations has changed through the years, certainly dorm parents should have been given more carefully defined boundaries for interaction and physical affection with children." pg 35
"The IHART process is not a legal action or part of the criminal justice system, and so personal information about offenders and leaders will not be
shared broadly." pg 7