Sidwell LS Principal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quaker values? Setting an example for our kids? So we shouldn't discuss our criticisms on online forums devoted to this type of discussion? Is this some kind of joke? As several PPS have pointed out, within the field of education, faculty routinely get evaluated anonymously by students and these are posted online. Nothing wrong with this at all. Nothing un-quakerly. And nothing that breaks any golden rules.

And the criticism I have seen on this thread is really mild by most professional standards.

Someone (or someones) appears to keep citing "rate my professor" type online sites by way of comparison. True, those sites are also full of anonymous attacks. They too do not allow the subject/victim of attacks to defend himself. They too often include scurrilous or defamatory posts. They too predominantly draw posters with an axe to grind and artificially negatively skew the portrayal of the subject.
And by the way (not a direct parallel but interesting) generally it is acknowledged that those who are tough graders are most often targeted--yet another factor pushing for grade inflation.

The "mild" criticism on this thread included some legally defamatory posts, some of which were removed by the site admin.

If you think there is nothing un-Quakerly about this, I would invite you to state the hypothetical at a Quaker Meeting that includes birthright Quakers and ask their views. If you don't think the Golden Rule is violated I invite you to ask a minister/pastor/priest.

This debate is interesting as a good example of how technology is changing social norms/perceptions; I would argue for the worse in this case, but others disagree I realize.

Lastly, here is a link to a NYT article on parents' rising concern about cyberbullying: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/05bully.html

[Anonymous]

The fact that a Sidwell parent is comparing a thread about a school official's poor bedside manner with CYBERBULLYING is pretty much all you need to know about the parents at that school.

LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that a Sidwell parent is comparing a thread about a school official's poor bedside manner with CYBERBULLYING is pretty much all you need to know about the parents at that school.

LOL.

Once you stop laughing out loud, note that the thread included much nastier allegations, within hours of the original post (which anonymously complained that a parent felt snubbed and that the administrator in question was "odd" and "unprofessional"). Some of those posts were removed, but not before being seen.

Moreover, if you read the article, it might give you food for thought. The behavior of the middle and high schoolers described has pretty close parallels to the dark side of DCUM. Obviously nobody can make you read it, but if you are a parent it is thought-provoking and a number of the issues raised do hit at the idea of setting examples of how in a civil society or community we can air differences, and how the technology giving the power of publishing to all of us can have some troubling consequences.

Lastly, I am not a Sidwell parent, although it appears that others on both sides of this philosophical debate are. Obviously none of us can verify if any poster is who she/he claims to be, and has the claimed knowledge or has a bias, but for what it's worth I will respond to the erroneous assumption about my status.

I feel strongly about this; you may feel strongly or just be enjoying pushing buttons, I can't tell. I don't think we will come to agreement, which of course is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that a Sidwell parent is comparing a thread about a school official's poor bedside manner with CYBERBULLYING is pretty much all you need to know about the parents at that school.

LOL.

Another inaccurate and misplaced overgeneralization about an entire community.
Like a previous poster said, defending one's school with facts just tells me that the parents like and support their school.

[Anonymous]

8.03 poster says "Once you stop laughing out loud, note that the thread included much nastier allegations, within hours of the original post (which anonymously complained that a parent felt snubbed and that the administrator in question was "odd" and "unprofessional"). Some of those posts were removed, but not before being seen."

Agreed that posting nasty and unfounded allegations is not appropriate. But does the fact that some one did this or might do something like this imply that we should stop discussion of legitimate points? C'mon people, if that was the case, we may as well shut DCUM down.

[Anonymous]

The 8:03 point goes to having a thread with the topic being one specific person. Pretty different from talking about "schools" in general or even "the administration at School X."

[Anonymous]

Saying that the guy brushes off parents - part of his constituency - is a "nasty allegation"?

[Anonymous]

Within the first 4 posts, someone posted legally defamatory comments (since removed). When you start an anonymous internet thread focusing on one person in this day and age, that is a foreseeable consequence, I am afraid.

But I will also take issue with the original post as being unfair, by airing that kind of personality-centered complaint in a forum that is anonymous and does not allow the person to defend himself.

Again, imagine a neighborhood email listserv or forum where someone started a thread "I think the Jones family is weird/snobby/unfriendly"--do you think that thread would go good places?

I just don't understand the lack of empathy in many responses here, but maybe it is all the same one person? Or people feel school heads/principals aren't deserving of empathy because schools cost so much? Or people don't actually think it would be hurtful to read this stuff? Dunno.

[Anonymous]

> Within the first 4 posts, someone posted legally defamatory comments (since removed). When you start an anonymous internet thread focusing on one person in this day and age, that is a foreseeable consequence, I am afraid.

Enough already with the defamatory posts. One obviously "off" comment does not invalidate a whole thread.

> But I will also take issue with the original post as being unfair, by airing that kind of personality-centered complaint in a forum that is anonymous and does not allow the person to defend himself.

In that case, every comment on the web on any one (elected officials/teachers/celebrities/admissions directors/school administrators and whoever else is commented on) is unfair.

> Again, imagine a neighborhood email listserv or forum where someone started a thread "I think the Jones family is weird/snobby/unfriendly"--do you think that thread would go good places?

Bad analogy I am afraid. This is an individual/institution with responsibilities. Comes with the territory, I am afraid.

> I just don't understand the lack of empathy in many responses here, but maybe it is all the same one person? Or people feel school heads/principals aren't deserving of empathy because schools cost so much? Or people don't actually think it would be hurtful to read this stuff? Dunno.

If you seen mildly negative feedback is seen as hurtful, all I can say is "grow up"!

[Anonymous]

Different poster here, but I would submit that public and elected officials are just that and are open to scrutiny. Personally, I think it is pretty cowardly to post anonymous criticism of a named, relatively private individual on an open and public forum.

Just one person's opinion.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. You bitches need a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:> Within the first 4 posts, someone posted legally defamatory comments (since removed). When you start an anonymous internet thread focusing on one person in this day and age, that is a foreseeable consequence, I am afraid.

Enough already with the defamatory posts. One obviously "off" comment does not invalidate a whole thread.

> But I will also take issue with the original post as being unfair, by airing that kind of personality-centered complaint in a forum that is anonymous and does not allow the person to defend himself.

If you seen mildly negative feedback is seen as hurtful, all I can say is "grow up"!

I take it you are not one of the many lawyers who supposedly flock to DCUM. One false statement damaging to reputation is enough to be actionable under the law, and has consequences in the real world too. A reputation can be damaged very quickly. As to the inquiry about empathy, your two word rejoinder aptly illustrates the first year law school maxim Res ipsa loquiter.

[Anonymous]

Agree with 15.49 poster. And y'all probably need to get jobs as well. Especially the "Res Ipsa Loquiter" lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:> Within the first 4 posts, someone posted legally defamatory comments (since removed). When you start an anonymous internet thread focusing on one person in this day and age, that is a foreseeable consequence, I am afraid.

Enough already with the defamatory posts. One obviously "off" comment does not invalidate a whole thread.

> But I will also take issue with the original post as being unfair, by airing that kind of personality-centered complaint in a forum that is anonymous and does not allow the person to defend himself.

If you seen mildly negative feedback is seen as hurtful, all I can say is "grow up"!

I take it you are not one of the many lawyers who supposedly flock to DCUM. One false statement damaging to reputation is enough to be actionable under the law, and has consequences in the real world too. A reputation can be damaged very quickly. As to the inquiry about empathy, your two word rejoinder aptly illustrates the first year law school maxim Res ipsa loquiter.

LOL at the pathetic post above. Maybe you can represent the principal on "The People's Court".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8.03 poster says "Once you stop laughing out loud, note that the thread included much nastier allegations, within hours of the original post (which anonymously complained that a parent felt snubbed and that the administrator in question was "odd" and "unprofessional"). Some of those posts were removed, but not before being seen."

Agreed that posting nasty and unfounded allegations is not appropriate. But does the fact that some one did this or might do something like this imply that we should stop discussion of legitimate points? C'mon people, if that was the case, we may as well shut DCUM down.

The problem here is that it's not a "discussion of legitimate points." It's critical comments about a specific person who can be identified. Vastly different. C'mon! Can't you see a difference?