Let’s deconstruct the statement. First the praise: “Kevin Clash has helped us achieve that mission for 28 years.” Really? What will PBS do when we learn that Clash’s access to children through Sesame Workshop may have resulted in abuse the same way Jerry Sandusky’s access to kids at Penn State did? Will PBS stand by Clash the same way the statement does?
Pedophiles notoriously enter professions that give them access to children. Like a fisherman with a lure, they rely on puppets, football tickets, candy, balloons, toys and worse to attract victims. Did Clash’s “achievement” of the PBS “mission for 28 years” have a darker side? It seems strange that his employers would tout his good work.
Next: “none of us, especially Kevin, want anything to divert our attention.” So nice to see that Sesame Workshop is doing Clash’s bidding. If Kevin wouldn’t want it, neither would we.
I held off posting about the first accusation against Clash. And that accuser has retracted his accusation and retracted the retraction. Wherever the truth lies in that situation, that accuser has pretty much destroyed his credibility. But now there’s a second accuser, and Clash has resigned. He may yet prove to be not guilty of sexual relationships with minors, but his resignation demonstrates that the charges at least have enough substance to be taken seriously.
I’m going to be a bit less harsh than Adams. PBS has to walk a tightrope on Clash’s situation. Clash has not been convicted of anything - not sure if he’s being investigated, let alone criminally charged. So PBS cannot speak as if Clash has been convicted of pedophilia (technically, ephebophilia). I’m not even sure I could go so far as saying it’s a “white wash”, though PBS hardly even pays lip-service to the seriousness of the charge.
Assume Clash and his boy-toys didn’t become intimate until the latter were past their 18th birthdays - i.e. the “relationships” were legal - how creepy is it for a 50-something to be having a sexual relationship with some one 1/3 their age?!