Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsFriday, September 14, 2007 11:24 PM CDT
Comments Comments (62) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Teacher charged in porn case worked at Olympia
By Phyllis Coulter
pcoulter@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

STANFORD — A Bloomington man charged with possessing child pornography was briefly a full-time teacher in the Olympia school district in addition to teaching as a substitute in five other area districts.

Scott W. Southerland, 48, of the 1400 block of South Oak Street, was charged Thursday with four counts of possessing child pornography. A housekeeper allegedly found about 100 sheets of paper that contained images of young boys in sexual acts with adult males and reported it to police.

Southerland was a full-time fourth-grade teacher at Atlanta Elementary School in 2000, Olympia Superintendent Brad Hutchison said Friday.

“My records show he worked for about a month and resigned for personal reasons on Sept. 22,” Hutchison said, adding there were no other details about why he left.

Holds standard certificate

Southerland holds a standard elementary teaching certificate issued in November 2000, said Andrea Preston, spokeswoman for the Illinois State Board of Education. He is endorsed in languages and social science at middle schools, she said.

Southerland was registered as a substitute teacher through the DeWitt, Livingston and McLean Regional Office of Education and five other regional offices, according to the state board.

Earlier, officials confirmed Southerland had been a substitute teacher in the following districts since 2003: Farmer City-based Blue Ridge; Bloomington District 87; Normal-based Unit 5; Colfax-based Ridgeview; and Pontiac elementary. His name has been removed from all lists of available substitute teachers.

He never was a substitute teacher in Olympia schools, Hutchison said.

Southerland posted $2,500 and was released Thursday evening from McLean County Jail.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 62 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Sandra wrote on Sep 17, 2007 3:21 PM:

" like the Nazis hunted the jews, pedophiles and their young lovers are being persecuted at a horrendous rate (the average age for a sex offender is 13). Adult/child sexuality will be the next big civil rights battle. "

Julius wrote on Sep 17, 2007 1:50 PM:

" If this man wanted to resign, wouldn't there be a record of the board receiving his resignation? "

Wondering wrote on Sep 17, 2007 1:48 PM:

" How long has this man been teaching? "

To Re: To To Answer a serious question wrote on Sep 15, 2007 9:50 PM:

" Why is it that you think that women who have abortions have sex "without any major consequences"? Isn't deciding to abort a preganancy a major enough consequence for you? Maybe if you got off your high horse you could see the world from a more complicated and sophisticated point of view. "

TO: "Re: To To Answer a serious question" wrote on Sep 15, 2007 4:36 PM:

" I admit that even STILL I'm having tremendous difficulty w/ what in the world it is you're attemtping to communicate here. First, I STILL basically only get from your post that you feel kids married and had sex in their teens years ago because they ate ice cream and hung out at restuarants. Plus you go on to say that kids then did not make out in the back seats of cars at movies. Well- ahhhh... I think I beg to differ. Afterall, kids certainly don't hang-out at movies TODAY having sex in the back-seats of cars... unless you know of a bounty of drive-in theaters that the rest of us are completely unaware of. One could also argue that there were no abortion clinics- so abortions took place in filthy alley-ways with coat-hangers and such, but that clinics DO exist today because human life is revered and respected more then then. Of course that goes against the religious consitioning you've been fed- and I understand that concept- wrong as it is. Your answers STILL leave me wanting for BETTER explanation... U can stop trying tho- I don't think it's in you. "

Olympia Parents wrote on Sep 15, 2007 10:06 AM:

" The individual reading between the lines surmizing an incident/accusation occurred in the Olympia district is absolutely correct. Parents of Olympia students (one in Mr. Sutherland's 4th grade class when he was in Atlanta). "

To: Why is Brad. . . wrote on Sep 15, 2007 9:22 AM:

" To the poster who wanted to know why the Oly superintendent released the information that this guy taught there - no, that wouldn't be confidential information - his resignation would have been announced and acted on in a public board meeting. Nothing confidential about that! "

Re: To To Answer a serious question wrote on Sep 15, 2007 4:20 AM:

" since you had trouble comprehending what I said let me break it down for you. The value system of the pre 60s sexual revolution was much different than it has been since. Teenagers used to go get ice cream, hang out at drive in restaurants; not movies in the back seat of cars and teen pregnancy was not an epidemic as it is today. Secondly abortion clinics were none existent and there was a higher value placed on human life than there is today. Abortions show a blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life. It also condones sexual frivolity especially in teens without any major consequences. Now I noticed that your post ended in WTF, which tells me you might be easily confused. If you are still having trouble undestanding what I said, perhaps you might consider going back to school. "

to "T" wrote on Sep 14, 2007 5:49 PM:

" You're wrong. Otherwise, the authorities could be charged with possession of child porn simply by having it as evidence. I worked with (not FOR) the FBI for years tracking and convicting child porn creators, traders and possessors. Through my duties, I viewed child porn now and again. Doing so was not illegal. It's gathering evidence to convict the criminals who support the creation of child pornography and who violate these children. So, T, you're wrong...once again. Do us all a favor and STOP POSTING. "

The Happy Cynic wrote on Sep 14, 2007 5:02 PM:

" No guilt here. And it was an extremely sick joke. "

TO: to May I Ask wrote on Sep 14, 2007 4:48 PM:

" I'm wa tching this closly because this initial question has peeked my interest. And I don't think anyone's answerring it very well at all. Now this writer is saying teens having sex and marrying and having kids in the 50's & 60's was cool because it was often a part of going for ice-cream? WTF??? "

TO: "Woodford Pundit" wrote on Sep 14, 2007 4:45 PM:

" So... someone merely possessing photos of toddlers being raped isn't nearly as guilty as those manifesting the physical rape and taking the disgusting photos, IF he's just home enjoying viewing them in the privacy of his own home, bothering no one? Wow dude- I couldn't disagree more. "

TO: "To Answer to a Serious Question" wrote on Sep 14, 2007 4:43 PM:

" So your answer to the writer who asked about when society changed it's view on teens commonly getting married and having kids as recently as the 60's is that there were not very many abortion clinics back then? What? "

To: Happy Cynic wrote on Sep 14, 2007 4:37 PM:

" Do you feel guilty about something? Or do you just think everything is about you? It was an obvious joke so growup. "

The Happy Cynic wrote on Sep 14, 2007 3:36 PM:

" To the Hoppy Cynic. Nice jab. Using a moniker similar to mine to express support for a (allegedly) child porn collector. You must really hate me for some reason in order to make such an ugly accusation. Care to share it with us? Thank you, Pantagraph, for allowing such brutal slander and defamation of character through your censorship filter. As for the subject itself...I don't believe for a minute that this guy resigned from Olympia for personal reasons. It sounds much more like there was an incident/accusation and Olympia just wanted to move him along without controversy. It's a central problem in getting these sickos out of our school systems and needs to be handled differently in the future. "

Silly Billy wrote on Sep 14, 2007 3:29 PM:

" he was my sub once but i never suspected anything "

YOumight be a redneck if: wrote on Sep 14, 2007 2:13 PM:

" -You post on here using the name Tsk Tsk. -You think it is wrong to alert authorities that a substitute teacher of children has child porn in his home. -you don't know if the photos were taken of local children or perhaps his students yet you second guess the judgement of the reporter. "

why is Brad wrote on Sep 14, 2007 2:11 PM:

" Hutchinson telling the world why he left the Oly district? Isn't that confidential information? And what does his reason leaving leaving have to do with this situation? Is the Pantagraph calling all the schools in the area so all the parents and kids can be upset at the thought they crossed paths with him? I agree it is a concern, but no one has said he harmed anybody. "

To: Schoolz wrote on Sep 14, 2007 2:01 PM:

" Too Lateto avoid media circus. Who needs due process or innocent until proven guilty. I don't know him or if he is guilty or not. I do know that even if he is innocent this kind of news story will ensure that he will never be able to work in the schools or around kids again. That is a good thing if he is guilty. If he is not, he had better have a different job in mind. To those of you who don't think someone who comes across child pornography should not report it to the police, I would hope next time you would consider that reporting it could save a child. "

Former Student wrote on Sep 14, 2007 1:26 PM:

" Oh man he subbed for so many teachers at my school. Well if it's any consolation we made fun of him alot "

I don't get it wrote on Sep 14, 2007 1:18 PM:

" How does a substitute teacher afford a housekeeper? "

Hoppy Cynic wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:32 PM:

" I told him not to get a housekeeper! "

To: To: Bigger Picture wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:22 PM:

" Of course I realize that would be an incredible task for BPD to take on, I didn't mean that they weren't doing enough. I was just curious about what happens to the children in the pictures. They can't ALL be in other countries. It breaks my heart to know there are so many children out there being taken advantage of, and their childhood stolen away. "

Darwin.... wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

" was right! Some of you people have definitely evolved from something with your idiot comments! "

Calm Down wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:28 AM:

" Calm down people. Let this man have his day in court. Maybe what he is accused of turns out to be not such a big deal after all. He may be a nice guy. "

To: Bigger Picture wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:57 AM:

" I'm guessing most of the pictures are taken in other countries of kids in other countries, and put onto web pages in other countries. What can the BPD do about that? "

I guess i need wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:42 AM:

" to post this again. Why is this mans picture not included with the article? Dont we as parents get the right to know who has been teaching our children? Not saying he did anything to the kids in the schools, but come on, I would like to know what this man looks like. "

dwarf wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:17 AM:

" It's not more common nowadays. It's *reported* more nowadays. Folks who think child molestation wasn't going on in decades past have blinders on - it's comforting to think that the past was a kinder, gentler place... Aside from, you know, racism and mccarthyism... "

Bigger "Picture" wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:54 AM:

" While child porn is so completely despicable, it is more sad and tragic to think of the children that were forced to do such things, all in front of a camera. You hear about these things, but nobody ever says what ended up happening to the kids that were in these pictures. Do the police ever follow up on that? At least track down the children to make sure their parents aren't the ones forcing their kids to pose for porn? Surely some of these kids are missing children, so wouldn't there be some sort of clue imprinted in the computer or cd that could lead police to their captor? Do they (police) even bother to look further into this to ensure the children's safety? "

to Tsk Tsk wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:51 AM:

" What is wrong with you? You think it was wrong for her to "tattle" on him?! Of course it was her duty, it's everyone's duty. Made even more necessary by the fact that he's a substitute teacher. Most child molesters started out just looking at child porn, until it became not enough for them anymore. It's all of our duty to watch for this stuff and report it to try to stop a horrible situation BEFORE it happens. All too often our system lets pedaphiles get away with disgusting acts, only finally putting them away when they kill a child. So I commend the housekeeper. As a mother, I thank anyone who is courageous enough to stand up for what is right and wrong when it comes to children. Tell me, when WOULD it have been okay for her to "tattle"? When the housekeeper found a child's body in the closet instead? "

To “Tsk Tsk” wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:47 AM:

" You would rather the Housekeeper find this and do nothing? Especially with this man’s profession, I would say she would be remiss in not alerting the authorities! I say congratulations to her for stepping in and doing something! This is not the Brady Bunch where Cindy is tattling on her bothers and sisters. This is a serious situation that needs to be addressed! "

question wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:21 AM:

" Is looking @ porn (kiddie or adult) on the internet illegal? If it is, why not go after all those who create the websites. "

Tsk Tsk wrote on Sep 14, 2007 8:50 AM:

" While I understand child pornography is wrong and illegal, I don't feel it was her duty to take pictures of it and taddle. Is that all this world (well country) is about anymore. It seems no one is satisfied until they taddle on others. I remember as a child I was taught not to by the same adults who are taddling. This is sad. "

T wrote on Sep 14, 2007 8:13 AM:

" Legally she is just as guilty for having pictures of child porn. She would have been better off just telling the authorities "

whatever... wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:46 AM:

" this sounds like a set up to me... how pathetic... "

Robert wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:45 AM:

" Whats going on here, a lot of this has been going on it seems like. Is it that more people are doing it? Or are just more people being caught? "

Penny wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:31 AM:

" Kiddy porn, pedophilia, molesting...all more rampant that what one would think. For ever person that is caught engaging in this behavior, there are probably 30 more that haven't been caught. Like AIDS, it knows no socio-economic boundaries: teachers, cops, judges, lawyers, pediatricians...the list goes on. People who engage in this behavior are the minority, yet here we are - the majority - with strong voices and tons of influence over lawmakers - scratching our heads and asking why this is happening? Together, our voices become a very loud roar, and if each of us contact representative and demand much tougher laws, we must might accomplish something. "

Internet wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:13 AM:

" as long as is legal, you will have this stuff....all should be illegal "

to May I Ask wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:03 AM:

" when it became creepy as you put it was when teenage couples stopped going for ice cream and started going for condoms. It became creepy when the 60 plus year old man down the street at Halloween instead of inviting you in and giving you a popcorn ball, started showing kids HIS ..... The times were so different due to the fact that there was an understanding in society as to what was and was not approprtate behavior. Remember that word appropriate? It is one we don't hear often anymore because of the people who want everyone to believe that it is OK to cater to your own whims. That is the difference between now and then. "

Woodford Pundit wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:01 AM:

" First, let me get the disclaimer out of the way. I'd kill anyone that hurt my kids. I say put that type away for life, first time. HOWEVER, there are several classes in child pornography. There is the production involving children - life in prison. There is the reproduction of the material for profit - life in prison. Then there is the reproduction for personal use and the possession of personal use. No one is harmed except the person possessing. You could argue, I suppose, that if there were not the demand there would not be the production - fine. What I question is if a person is just looking at images in his own home and not hurting anyone should that person be sent to prison as a "sex offender" with all that that implies? Surely there are other ways. Any way you look at it this guy's life is over. You send him to prison it may literally be over. "

To Answer to a Serious Question wrote on Sep 14, 2007 6:58 AM:

" well said and thank you so much for confirming so many great points in one brief post. I find it hard to understand the mindset of some of these people who refuse to acknowlege despicable acts against children as anything else but. I suppose it is the PC rhetoric that perhaps makes them think there is some degree of normalcy in these adult child sexual relations. One point I would like to add to the person who posed you that question is that during the years he is referring too society did not have abortion clinics in every town; and you did not see exposed flesh from both sexes everytime you walked down the street; or picked up a magazine. Pedophelia is a crime that has certainly risen since the sexual revolution of the 60s. People need to be constantly reminded that it is a crime, and one that in my opinion is not punished harsh enough. "

To Serious Question wrote on Sep 14, 2007 6:48 AM:

" Another answer is longer life spans plus we no longer have to marry younger to raise 9 children to help on the farm. Technology has provided the need help. "

Hey "Answer 2 a Serious Question" wrote on Sep 14, 2007 6:29 AM:

" I don't think you really answer this question well at all. In fact, your answer's not really worth the "ink" it's written with. Afterall, this person's old maid aunt is forced to marry someone she doesn't really love and she's miserable for many decades in an awful arranged marriage- and you claim it's a "hetrosexual pairing of consenting parties, in keeping with local mores and cultrual bounderies"? Sounds to me like possibly this Aunt may not have been hetero at all, and pushed into something she never wanted... I have to admit though- I have the same curiosity as he (or she) does- so I'll be interested in seeing if anyone else gives a truly decent try to answering the question. "

Innocent? wrote on Sep 14, 2007 5:37 AM:

" I agree with innocent until proved guilty, but the article says Southerland admitted viewing child pornography on his computer and visiting Web sites where he discussed his sexual interest in little boys with others, a prosecutor said. "

Answer 2 a Serious Question wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:17 PM:

" The answer is : Because all those relationships you mentioned were between hetrosexual consenting parties, in keeping with local mores cultrual bounderies of the time and place that that those relationships took place. Also, none of these people were in a position of trust and authority of societies most precious asset ; our childrens education. "

schoolz wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:41 PM:

" I do not know him personally, but I saw Mr. Southerland in the classroom when he was substituting last year at my school. I commended him for a job well done after dealing with what had to be a rough substitute teaching assignment. He handled a notoriously unruly class with fairness and discipline. Believe me, I've seen a lot of substitute teachers come and go, but he was one of the best I've seen in a long time. Here's to hoping that no matter what, Mr. Southerland's is treated fairly and this doesn't turn out to be a media circus for all involved. Please remember that he is innocent until proven guilty! "

a friend wrote on Sep 13, 2007 9:51 PM:

" Johnny, thank you...... I do know this man, and he has never once shown anything of the sort. My boys have been around him and so has our whole family. We have known him for about 10 years. I am not saying he is innocent, only the court can decide, but I wish people would not make them automatically guilty. There are people who have been wrongly accused that it has ruined their lives even when charges are dropped. "

Johnny wrote on Sep 13, 2007 7:08 PM:

" If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Don't be to quick to skip by due process. He may be a nice guy. "

May I ask a serious question? wrote on Sep 13, 2007 6:57 PM:

" Contact w/ young children is utter abuse- a clear crime. But, my parents married in '63 when Mom was 15 and Dad was 16- they had me when Mom was 17. My grandparents married when they were both 14- Grandpa was a minister and a milk-man for 60 years, Grandma raised 9 kids. My aunt Lois was "forced" by family to marry at 22 because she was thought to be "an old maid"- her marriage became abusive and she lived in it for 50 miserable years. Country music legend Loretta Lynn married a 26 year old man when she was just 13- was a grandma at 30. English pop-stud Tom Jones married when he was 15. At what point in our history did it become a social no-no for a teen to be sexually active and marry and have a child? In states today the age of consent ranges from 14 to 18... That's quite a variance. I know- I know... today it's almost creepy to even consider the thought of anyone under 30 giving consent. But at what point and why did it become "creepy"? Any thoughts at all? "

Dave wrote on Sep 13, 2007 5:19 PM:

" Good work guy !!! Please keep it up, don't listen to the other side of the coin.. We love you guys. "

To Legal Child Porn wrote on Sep 13, 2007 4:05 PM:

" WOW what a breath of fresh air your post was. If I had your outlook I think I would just stay in bed and never go outside. I was abused as a child too but you know what, I am OK. I do not harbor any ill feelings toward anyone, and I am not shrouded in depression. As a matter of fact i hope every pedophile under the sun ends up being Bubbas cell mate in Stateville prison everyday of their miserable life. I have two grown sons, I have never molested anyone and I am not gay. I also don't harbor any ill feelings toward mankind. Get over your self pity and live, it beats hell out of the alternative. "

Legal Child Porn, wrote on Sep 13, 2007 12:25 PM:

" it wasn't even illegal until they passed the laws for it to be. in some societies it was/is ok to have sex with underaged people. The internet just made it easier to find, arrest, and convict the pedofilers. When I was a kid, my uncle had lots of kiddie porn, (not hidden). When I told about him molesting me, nobody believed it, because I am a male. The world is spiraling down, hopefully for the last time. Mankind deserves to be extinct more than any other animal. "

To: Why wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:35 AM:

" They can't give out names until the suspect has appeared before a judge. "

to already judged wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:28 AM:

" People do react strongly when they see a 49 yo man arrested in child porn case, that is a natural reaction. Would you rather have people be so used to it that no one is outraged any more??? I believe that society needs to continue to protect children!! Arresting persons involved in this is how we keep OUR CHILDREN INNOCENT! "

there is no reason for haste wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:26 AM:

" .. on judgement for this guy. or perhaps you would like pedophiles running the streets "already judged'? "

to Experts needed wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:23 AM:

" My guess would be that possession was lower, but I'm really not sure about production. Sickos have been molesting kids since well before the internet. The only question is if someone getting their fix online is more or less likely to commit more serious crimes offline. "

To already judged wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:15 AM:

" Did you happen to see what they seized from his home???? I agree with you on innocent until proven guilty but when it is stated like this what else are people to suspect? I am sure they found more than just some innocent family pictures. Why else would they arrect him unless they had good proof? "

to why wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:58 AM:

" I don't know why the they did not name him here since on news 25 last night they named him. "

already judged wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:52 AM:

" i see from these posts that they have already convicted the person how sad what happened to innocent till proven guilty "

Experts needed wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:50 AM:

" Was child porn as widespread before the Internet? "

why wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:18 AM:

" Is this person not named??? "

Put him away wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:01 AM:

" for life! "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy