A California Sunday school teacher took advantage of her authority over one of her young students to rape and murder her. This is not so, but it is precisely what the news media lead us to conclude. When the media identify an accused perpetrator by a factor unrelated to the allegation, it is incompetence, unethical, and often outright discriminatory when based on class, as this is. I strongly protest this common and popular practice.

Melissa Huckaby, 28, of Tracy, California, is accused of raping by instrument and of the first decree murder of Sandra Cantu, 8. Whether Huckaby is guilty is for a court to recognize, but I address the media offense of leading with and consistently identifying her as a “Sunday school teacher.” This has the clear effect of asserting the woman performed the crimes as a Sunday school teacher. If she should be found guilty of the crimes, it would not be that a Sunday school teacher murdered, but an individual (who happened also to be a teacher).

The facts: Huckaby’s contact with and relation to the little girl was as a neighbor. The unfair advantage she had over the girl was as an adult, one known as a neighbor, and, ironically, the mother of the girl’s good friend.

Moreover, this could be no indictment of Sunday school teachers generally. It cannot be extrapolated from this that such behavior is characteristic of Sunday school teachers. Quite the opposite is true, and as a class they are worthy of our respect.

More facts: The victim was not in Huckaby’s Sunday school class. She wasn’t even a student in the Sunday school. The media hasn’t bothered to ask if she even attended any Sunday school. They have also not reported in what sense the accused might be considered a “Sunday school teacher.”

Did she, for instance, merely fill in occasionally for a class of adult women? The media haven’t even bothered to report the basis for saying she is a Sunday school teacher.

If it should have been she was this in every sense, this would still be utterly and absolutely irrelevant to any crime of which she might be guilty. Even if she happened to be the victim’s teacher, it still wouldn’t necessarily have been relevant unless it should come to be shown she used her position.

It is a serious violation of journalistic ethics to identify a person by such as race, religion, or sexual orientation unless such factors are necessary to apprehend the suspect or in some way relevant to the alleged crime. It seems to me, radio, television, newspapers and internet media across the country are guilty of unethical practices.

In most states this is also against civil or human rights acts. To fall under such acts, of course, the basis for discrimination is required to be one of the several stipulated categories. A strong and convincing case might be built for this kind of reportage as being religious discrimination.

Although the conscious motivation of most media is likely to be typical sensationalism for commercial gain and in disregard of social responsibility, underlying this is a clear strain of bias against serious practice of religion. “Sunday school teacher” has for long been a stereotype for a goody-good.

Moreover, in the present context it has the force of hypocrite. This woman, the image projected has it, claims to be a holier-than-thou, goody-goody but, like a lot of Sunday school teachers, is a blatant hypocrite. So there.

I don’t accuse any particular media outlet of consciously intending this, but I have recognized an underlying negative bias for a long while. It becomes operative, then, when an opportunity of this sort arises. It is seized upon and exploited shamelessly.

Many readers also like this, and editors accommodate. People enjoy thinking they escape social accountability for their own moral failings by pointing to someone like “this Sunday school teacher.”

I call upon all news media — and individuals who quote them — to stick to relevant facts and not try to project their own moral failings upon media victims.