Can a 16-year-old high school student really consent to having sex with his teacher?

For many – including this editor – the ethically obvious answer would be no. Yet Massachusetts general law, which sets the age of consent at 16 without exception for relationships between minors and those in positions of authority over them, says otherwise.

We share the community’s concern about the disturbing dissonance highlighted by the sexual abuse scandal at Miss Hall’s School. Several former students at the all-girls private school in Pittsfield have come forward with credible allegations of sexual abuse and abuse by Matthew Rutledge, a longtime history teacher, counselor and coach at the school.

After a month-long investigation, the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office announced last week that Mr. Rutledge will not face criminal charges in Massachusetts.

“While the alleged conduct is deeply troubling, it is not illegal,” Berkshire Attorney General Timothy Shugrue said in a statement.

As a lawyer representing one of Mr. Rutledge’s accusers emphasized to The Eagle, the DA should not be faulted for following the law. That’s his job, even in the toughest situations like this where the letter of the law unfortunately clashes with our moral intuitions.

But it is our job as concerned citizens to ask whether the state’s consent statute reasonably represents our society’s values ​​and protects its most vulnerable members. A comparison with the law one state over suggests room for improvement. While Mr. Rutledge is not facing criminal charges here, he may still be in neighboring Connecticut. (Mr Rutledge too facing a civil lawsuit with charges including assault and battery filed by one of his accusers in Berkshire Superior Court.)

An accuser alleges that in addition to his performance at Miss Hall’s in Pittsfield, he also sexually assaulted her in her hometown of Wilton, Connecticut, while visiting her and her family. While the age of consent there is 16, as in Massachusetts and 28 other states, Connecticut state law has an exception for abuse of a minor student by an adult in authority.

This seems to make sense. In our view, a 16- or 17-year-old cannot possibly consent, in any meaningful or moral sense, to a sexual relationship with an adult who has disciplinary and grading authority over them. The understandable community outrage over the legal outcome of this scandal, at least on this side of the state line, suggests that we are far from alone in holding that view. Lawmakers representing these shocked Berkshire citizens should take a closer look at the law that prevented a DA from prosecuting alleged years of sexual abuse by a trusted educator that most acknowledge is “deeply troubling.” Because right now our state’s legal system is following that kind of egregious behavior in spaces where young people are supposed to be educated and nurtured, not used and abused.

To be sure, we should be cautious about reshaping general laws over a unique scandal. But in this case, a viable alternative to a troubling status quo is right next door for thoughtful study. Connecticut’s specific severance—which raises the age of consent when one party is in a position of supervision, power, or authority over the other—doesn’t seem to have proven disruptive in building in important protections for minors. Massachusetts wouldn’t necessarily need to copy and paste Connecticut’s statute, but it’s at least worth exploring as a way to strengthen state law so it can hold accountable those who abuse positions of power over students who aren’t even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes.

Connecticut state law specifically recognizes how problematic the behavior is in itself and how harmful it is to vulnerable youth. There is no reason why the Massachusetts General Laws cannot do the same. We hope this sad scandal prompts the Berkshire delegation and Beacon Hills leadership to address this issue at the start of a new legislative session next year.