New Sidwell Scandal?

[Anonymous]

+1000 Is someone is the saintliest person for their whole lives and robs a bank or kills someone does chance the severity of their act or sentence? No, no it doesn't. What a creepster hurting children is just the lowest most despicable

[Anonymous]

From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

Prosecutors decline to bring charges for many reasons, not all of which would support the conclusion that no crime occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

Prosecutors decline to bring charges for many reasons, not all of which would support the conclusion that no crime occurred.

I get that. They also decline to bring charges because no crime occurred. So we really can't draw conclusions one way or the other, can we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

Those are different lines than I see - presumably he downplayed it in applying for the job, but it's not clear he admitted to anything more than the accuracy of the original allegation. If the former student has come back with a broader allegation 20 years later it's not clear he admitted to that, just that the school is aware of it and believes it must investigate that further.

He was placed on leave pending that investigation, and seems to have decided not to return anyway next year (whether for retirement, end of contract, or whatever) - note the letter doesn't say he was fired (although of course it's possible he agreed to leave in lieu of being fired).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

My question is, why did said victim wait 14 years to call Sidwell and report this? The letter to Sidwell parents clearly says that they received the call "last week."

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the honesty, openness and the sensitivity of the letter written by the head of school. It's a difficult situation. Hopefully no other students were in any way harmed.

[Anonymous]

from the article also:

"The former student and her boyfriend, who live in southern California, told Post reporter Michael Chandler that they contacted the school now because she got an update on LinkedIn that Henderson had viewed her profile recently. She said that she didn’t realize Henderson was still teaching and felt she should alert his current employer."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

OF course he should be fired. The teacher admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 14 year old student! It doesn't matter when it happened. He should not be a teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

My question is, why did said victim wait 14 years to call Sidwell and report this? The letter to Sidwell parents clearly says that they received the call "last week."

Asking this question shows that you have absolutely no understanding of child abuse and/or sexual abuse.

[Anonymous]

What are they getting rid of him for? no charges, no time in jail, hmmm yet sidwell is smearing him all over the place.. potential law suit/ Lawyers line up to the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

Prosecutors decline to bring charges for many reasons, not all of which would support the conclusion that no crime occurred.

I get that. They also decline to bring charges because no crime occurred. So we really can't draw conclusions one way or the other, can we?

We cannot, which is why it's wrong to conclude that what transpired was "in the judgment of a local prosecutor a non-criminal act".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are they getting rid of him for? no charges, no time in jail, hmmm yet sidwell is smearing him all over the place.. potential law suit/ Lawyers line up to the left.

Nah. He is on a one year contract. They will pay him the rest of it and he won't return. I am sure his contract allows the school to fire him without cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are they getting rid of him for? no charges, no time in jail, hmmm yet sidwell is smearing him all over the place.. potential law suit/ Lawyers line up to the left.

You don't need to go to jail to get fired.

[Anonymous]

Do we really think this was a one time event?