The Hancock-Henderson Quill, Inc.
Union Teacher Will Not Be Charged
by States Attorney Ray Cavanaugh
Oquawka: On October 31, 2003, the Henderson County State's Attorney requested the Illinois State Police to conduct an investigation regarding an incident which took place on October 22, 2003 at Union Elementary School.
The Illinois State Police conducted a thorough investigation and conducted numerous interviews of the school children, teacher and other school authorities. In this incident, Lisa Lox, a 6th Grade Social Studies teacher, requested a male student to take his shirt off as part of the lesson. There are differing versions of what then transpired.
Some students indicated that Ms. Lox encouraged the student to continue disrobing, while others indicated Ms. Lox gave no further instructions to disrobe. All of the witnesses have agreed that Ms. Lox never told the student to stop undressing until the student got down to his under wear. At that point, Ms Lox told the student to put his clothes back on and that he was getting a detention. The witnesses have for the most part indicated that all of the children were laughing as the incident transgressed.
Since receiving the completed investigation, I have consulted the Illinois States Attorneys Third District Appellate Prosecutors Offices, conducted research and consulted other local prosecutors. Because of the nature of the incident, three separate criminal offenses were considered: 1. Sexual Exploitation of a Child, 2. Child Endangerment, and 3. Disorderly Conduct.
In regards to the Sexual Exploitation of a Child charge, a person commits this charge when he or she knowingly entices, coerces or persuades a child to remove the child's clothing for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the person or the child, or both. There is absolutely no evidence in this investigation which reveals that this act occurred or took place for the sexual gratification of either person. Since no sexual comments were made or evidence exists of sexual arousal or gratification for either party (other than unbased supposition) there is no basis for this charge.
The charge for endangering the life or health of a child under the age of 18 occurs when a person willfully causes or permits a child to be placed in circumstances that endangers the child's life or health. Case law shows that this charge involves intentionally placing a child's life into danger of probable physical damage. It is clear from the investigation that Ms. Lox did not intend or believe that the student would actually strip as she suggested. Therefore, there is no basis for the child endangerment charge.
Lastly, and the closest possible charge that exists in this case, is Disorderly Conduct. Disorderly Conduct occurs when a person knowingly does any act in such an unreasonable manner as to disturb and alarm another and provoke a breach of the peace. I believe that the evidence does show that Ms. Lox did an act (in having the student take off his clothes) that was so unreasonable that it would disturb and alarm another (the other students). However, the last element which must be proven is that this act provoked a breach of the peace. While it is clear that this act is troubling to the community, as it is to myself, the action did not lead to a disturbance or provoke a breach of the peace in the classroom. The act provoked a breach of the peace in the community after it was learned what took place in the classroom, not in the classroom at the time the event took place.
Since I do not believe that the elements of these offenses can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I decline to prosecute Ms. Lox in this matter. I believe it would be a legal stretch to pursue these charges further and decline to do so. In so saying, I do not approve of the teaching methods employed in this situation. In fact, the callous disregard Ms. Lox has shown this student before, during and after the incident on October 22, 2003 is particularly troubling to me in this capacity and as a parent.
This decision does not preclude the family of the victim from suing Ms. Lox or anyone else they believe are liable.
Lox, a tenured teacher employed by the district for 10 years, was given a three-day suspension, which was later lengthened by the Union School Board. After a review of the incident, the board ruled Lox's actions "remediable" and not worthy of termination.
She has since returned to teaching. The sixth-grade boy has also returned to classes after he was tutored by the school district at an off-campus location.