Sidwell LS Principal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Public and elected officials who are open to scrutiny? Are you serious? We're talking about a private school leader. Do you want to share your position and see if any of us have reason to post a thread of complaints about your performance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

18:17 here. I apologize. I misread your post.

[Anonymous]

NP here. As it turns out, I actually do hold a position (non-elected) where people post comments about my performance anonymously. And this is not unique. The internet has made this true for doctors, lawyers, professors, authors, artists and a whole host of other professions and spheres. I am starting to agree with earlier posters. Some of you need to get out there in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. HOW DARE anyone talk about a principal at their child's school? Such activity should be BANNED in this country! Banned, I tell you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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".

LOL indeed. Actually, even the People's Court may toss out a daft lawyers intent on quoting first year maxims in latin. Back to the unemployment line..

[Anonymous]

I hope that people realize that these forums are not meant as platforms to advertise the virtues of the school(s) attended by ones DCs. Lets not worry so much about censoring ourselves.

[Anonymous]

If you think the Sidwell LS head is taking it on the chin, check out this current thread about the head of Alexandria Academy:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/130725.page

Of course, the sock-puppeting poster is crazy. But if her conspiracy theories about a named individual and his wife are tolerated on DCUM, then this thread on Sidwell's LS head looks like a walk in the park by comparison.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If you think the Sidwell LS head is taking it on the chin, check out this current thread about the head of Alexandria Academy:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/130725.page

Of course, the sock-puppeting poster is crazy. But if her conspiracy theories about a named individual and his wife are tolerated on DCUM, then this thread on Sidwell's LS head looks like a walk in the park by comparison.

For the record, I didn't know about that thread until just now. I am about to read it. Based on your description, I suspect many messages will be removed. I do wish people would let me know about this sort of thing before the thread reaches 19 pages.

Edit: I read enough of the first couple of pages. That entire thread is now gone.

[Anonymous]

Good effort to those taking the time to try to explain the objection to singling out one person as the subject of a critical thread. You didn't convince everyone but you came across as the more reasonable group. See

[Anonymous]

Was going to say, seems like the opposing camps will not agree, so perhaps it is time to let this thread drift downwards knowing that the viewpoints have been expressed.

[Anonymous]

There is no debate that this guy is rude to a number of his constituents. Regardless if you think that's allowed to be discussed on a public forum, the guy is not doing his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:every division head sucks up to big donors. thats how private school works.

I hate the term "sucks up" to donors. The reality is that many big donors need to be coddled and made to feel that their donation is appreciated. I don't have a problem with that. Most division and school heads view this as part of their job. They are networking in the same way that any salesman or CEO would in order to insure future investment. Most definitely look at it as "working" not "recreating". That said, if any donor wants to pay my share they can have my share of face time with the division head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no debate that this guy is rude to a number of his constituents. Regardless if you think that's allowed to be discussed on a public forum, the guy is not doing his job.

Exactly. And let it be noted that no one is asking to be sucked up to or coddled, as some posters are suggesting. I trust that all DCUM posters can agree on what constitutes basic courtesy.