Nysmith allegedly allowed antisemetic bullying and expelled the kids who's parents complained

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, pp.

Agree.

Anyone know if the school potentially has a defamation claim here? This is really spiraling in the press.

Unquestionably. And it's warranted, but it won't correct the public narrative and carries substantial risks. This ain't Brandeis's first rodeo. They'd welcome an opportunity to keep the story in the news cycle and frame a countersuit as retaliation that reinforces the antisemitism narrative they are spinning. It's an election year. AG Miyares already posturing on this case on Laura Ingraham yesterday. Signaled an intent to escalate symbolically, if not legally, but it struck me that he was speaking as if the allegations were true, prior to any investigation or adversarial hearing. Tread carefully, Nysmith. Miyares has close affiliations with Brandeis, with at least one alum sitting on his political baby, the Antisemitism Task Force. He's itching for a high-profile case. If you believe in the unwavering objectivity of politicians, I applaud you for your naivete. But if Nysmith isn't careful, they'll find themselves at the hands of a political apparatus that will attempt to use this case as an election year message about combating antisemitism, the facts won't matter.

Nysmith is for-profit, elite, and secular. That makes them a soft target. Destroying them makes no enemies. There are no constituencies to worry about alienating. If you think there aren't political consultants telling the AG this same thing, you're kidding yourself. Nysmith needs to operate under the assumption that the AG's office is not neutral and recognize that this case has potential to be a narrative vehicle in an election season.

I personally think the complaint is reprehensible. Doesn’t mean it’s all fabricated, but I’m absolutely not buying what they’re selling because I know what manufactured outrage looks like and this one stinks to high heck. You sheep can bleat all day and night. You’re being played. But I’d caution anyone pushing the school to go on the offensive. A countersuit against a Jewish family alleging antisemitism is narratively catastrophic. The strategy on the other side is in soliciting outrage, and the substitution effect is real. You've already seen it in action. A public referendum rejecting antisemitism based on hearsay and a narrative fiction assigned to a deliberately misleading photograph. There’s no fair and objective look at the complaint, and that’s very much intentional. The facts won't be relevant. Nuance falls on deaf ears, and bad actors will continue to behave reprehensively behind righteous covers. Nysmith ain’t gonna get a fair shake, and they need to find an offramp because the road ahead is rough. A highly partisan media with irresistable Hitler-click bait, an objective that’s politically aligned with the AG’s election, advocacy organizations with ideological missions, and very wealthy parents that are out for blood.

Perceptions, not truth, govern reputation.

But I digress. To answer your question. Yeah, real strong case for defamation.
Falsity. Publication. Damages, and actual malice with a reckless disregard for the truth. Misstatement of facts loaded value judgements resting on false factual premises.

That photograph, and the deliberate misrepresentations could eventually prove problematic for the parents. The context of that photograph was widely available to them. It's their own child's assignment. They declared "under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
The media patterns strongly suggest that the complainants or their agents deliberately amplified the claims.
Maybe even toss in some tortious interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, maybe, but that’s not what I meant. It will become a national political example that will, purely politically, serve to amplify the both real and politically expedient rise of anti-Semitism.

Do I think Anti-Semitism is terrifyingly real and on the increase: 100%

Do I think that it is also being used for political purposes and as a weapon in a pissing match with elite higher ed? 100%

One could argue that the story will receive additional attention because the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

Do tell-do you always believe allegations that present a horrifying picture with no independent confirmation? Because somehow I doubt it.

Again: the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

What is “independent confirmation”? In legal proceedings it is called evidence. Each side will have its opportunity to present evidence and make its case.

Exactly, and I am fully prepared to be horrified if they are found (indepently) to be true but I’m not inclined to be horrified now, when I have *literally* no idea if they are true or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, maybe, but that’s not what I meant. It will become a national political example that will, purely politically, serve to amplify the both real and politically expedient rise of anti-Semitism.

Do I think Anti-Semitism is terrifyingly real and on the increase: 100%

Do I think that it is also being used for political purposes and as a weapon in a pissing match with elite higher ed? 100%

One could argue that the story will receive additional attention because the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

Do tell-do you always believe allegations that present a horrifying picture with no independent confirmation? Because somehow I doubt it.

Again: the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

What is “independent confirmation”? In legal proceedings it is called evidence. Each side will have its opportunity to present evidence and make its case.

Exactly, and I am fully prepared to be horrified if they are found (indepently) to be true but I’m not inclined to be horrified now, when I have *literally* no idea if they are true or not.

Not sure what you mean by “indepently.” In legal proceedings that usually means a judge, jury, or some other kind of decision maker.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who is a Nysmith family…

Did this photo appear in a Look Ahead? And if so, from when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, maybe, but that’s not what I meant. It will become a national political example that will, purely politically, serve to amplify the both real and politically expedient rise of anti-Semitism.

Do I think Anti-Semitism is terrifyingly real and on the increase: 100%

Do I think that it is also being used for political purposes and as a weapon in a pissing match with elite higher ed? 100%

One could argue that the story will receive additional attention because the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

Do tell-do you always believe allegations that present a horrifying picture with no independent confirmation? Because somehow I doubt it.

Again: the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

What is “independent confirmation”? In legal proceedings it is called evidence. Each side will have its opportunity to present evidence and make its case.

Exactly, and I am fully prepared to be horrified if they are found (indepently) to be true but I’m not inclined to be horrified now, when I have *literally* no idea if they are true or not.

Not sure what you mean by “indepently.” In legal proceedings that usually means a judge, jury, or some other kind of decision maker.

Obviously. I would say one thing that’s clearly not independent is the dossier compiled by one party in a dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, pp.

Agree.

Anyone know if the school potentially has a defamation claim here? This is really spiraling in the press.

Unquestionably. And it's warranted, but it won't correct the public narrative and carries substantial risks. This ain't Brandeis's first rodeo. They'd welcome an opportunity to keep the story in the news cycle and frame a countersuit as retaliation that reinforces the antisemitism narrative they are spinning. It's an election year. AG Miyares already posturing on this case on Laura Ingraham yesterday. Signaled an intent to escalate symbolically, if not legally, but it struck me that he was speaking as if the allegations were true, prior to any investigation or adversarial hearing. Tread carefully, Nysmith. Miyares has close affiliations with Brandeis, with at least one alum sitting on his political baby, the Antisemitism Task Force. He's itching for a high-profile case. If you believe in the unwavering objectivity of politicians, I applaud you for your naivete. But if Nysmith isn't careful, they'll find themselves at the hands of a political apparatus that will attempt to use this case as an election year message about combating antisemitism, the facts won't matter.

Nysmith is for-profit, elite, and secular. That makes them a soft target. Destroying them makes no enemies. There are no constituencies to worry about alienating. If you think there aren't political consultants telling the AG this same thing, you're kidding yourself. Nysmith needs to operate under the assumption that the AG's office is not neutral and recognize that this case has potential to be a narrative vehicle in an election season.

I personally think the complaint is reprehensible. Doesn’t mean it’s all fabricated, but I’m absolutely not buying what they’re selling because I know what manufactured outrage looks like and this one stinks to high heck. You sheep can bleat all day and night. You’re being played. But I’d caution anyone pushing the school to go on the offensive. A countersuit against a Jewish family alleging antisemitism is narratively catastrophic. The strategy on the other side is in soliciting outrage, and the substitution effect is real. You've already seen it in action. A public referendum rejecting antisemitism based on hearsay and a narrative fiction assigned to a deliberately misleading photograph. There’s no fair and objective look at the complaint, and that’s very much intentional. The facts won't be relevant. Nuance falls on deaf ears, and bad actors will continue to behave reprehensively behind righteous covers. Nysmith ain’t gonna get a fair shake, and they need to find an offramp because the road ahead is rough. A highly partisan media with irresistable Hitler-click bait, an objective that’s politically aligned with the AG’s election, advocacy organizations with ideological missions, and very wealthy parents that are out for blood.

Perceptions, not truth, govern reputation.

But I digress. To answer your question. Yeah, real strong case for defamation.
Falsity. Publication. Damages, and actual malice with a reckless disregard for the truth. Misstatement of facts loaded value judgements resting on false factual premises.

That photograph, and the deliberate misrepresentations could eventually prove problematic for the parents. The context of that photograph was widely available to them. It's their own child's assignment. They declared "under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
The media patterns strongly suggest that the complainants or their agents deliberately amplified the claims.
Maybe even toss in some tortious interference.

Elite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, pp.

Agree.

Anyone know if the school potentially has a defamation claim here? This is really spiraling in the press.

Unquestionably. And it's warranted, but it won't correct the public narrative and carries substantial risks. This ain't Brandeis's first rodeo. They'd welcome an opportunity to keep the story in the news cycle and frame a countersuit as retaliation that reinforces the antisemitism narrative they are spinning. It's an election year. AG Miyares already posturing on this case on Laura Ingraham yesterday. Signaled an intent to escalate symbolically, if not legally, but it struck me that he was speaking as if the allegations were true, prior to any investigation or adversarial hearing. Tread carefully, Nysmith. Miyares has close affiliations with Brandeis, with at least one alum sitting on his political baby, the Antisemitism Task Force. He's itching for a high-profile case. If you believe in the unwavering objectivity of politicians, I applaud you for your naivete. But if Nysmith isn't careful, they'll find themselves at the hands of a political apparatus that will attempt to use this case as an election year message about combating antisemitism, the facts won't matter.

Nysmith is for-profit, elite, and secular. That makes them a soft target. Destroying them makes no enemies. There are no constituencies to worry about alienating. If you think there aren't political consultants telling the AG this same thing, you're kidding yourself. Nysmith needs to operate under the assumption that the AG's office is not neutral and recognize that this case has potential to be a narrative vehicle in an election season.

I personally think the complaint is reprehensible. Doesn’t mean it’s all fabricated, but I’m absolutely not buying what they’re selling because I know what manufactured outrage looks like and this one stinks to high heck. You sheep can bleat all day and night. You’re being played. But I’d caution anyone pushing the school to go on the offensive. A countersuit against a Jewish family alleging antisemitism is narratively catastrophic. The strategy on the other side is in soliciting outrage, and the substitution effect is real. You've already seen it in action. A public referendum rejecting antisemitism based on hearsay and a narrative fiction assigned to a deliberately misleading photograph. There’s no fair and objective look at the complaint, and that’s very much intentional. The facts won't be relevant. Nuance falls on deaf ears, and bad actors will continue to behave reprehensively behind righteous covers. Nysmith ain’t gonna get a fair shake, and they need to find an offramp because the road ahead is rough. A highly partisan media with irresistable Hitler-click bait, an objective that’s politically aligned with the AG’s election, advocacy organizations with ideological missions, and very wealthy parents that are out for blood.

Perceptions, not truth, govern reputation.

But I digress. To answer your question. Yeah, real strong case for defamation.
Falsity. Publication. Damages, and actual malice with a reckless disregard for the truth. Misstatement of facts loaded value judgements resting on false factual premises.

That photograph, and the deliberate misrepresentations could eventually prove problematic for the parents. The context of that photograph was widely available to them. It's their own child's assignment. They declared "under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
The media patterns strongly suggest that the complainants or their agents deliberately amplified the claims.
Maybe even toss in some tortious interference.

Elite?

DP. Bigtime. It’s maybe the best and most well-regarded school in the k-8 space in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, maybe, but that’s not what I meant. It will become a national political example that will, purely politically, serve to amplify the both real and politically expedient rise of anti-Semitism.

Do I think Anti-Semitism is terrifyingly real and on the increase: 100%

Do I think that it is also being used for political purposes and as a weapon in a pissing match with elite higher ed? 100%

One could argue that the story will receive additional attention because the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

Do tell-do you always believe allegations that present a horrifying picture with no independent confirmation? Because somehow I doubt it.

Again: the allegations paint a horrifying picture.

What is “independent confirmation”? In legal proceedings it is called evidence. Each side will have its opportunity to present evidence and make its case.

Exactly, and I am fully prepared to be horrified if they are found (indepently) to be true but I’m not inclined to be horrified now, when I have *literally* no idea if they are true or not.

Not sure what you mean by “indepently.” In legal proceedings that usually means a judge, jury, or some other kind of decision maker.

Obviously. I would say one thing that’s clearly not independent is the dossier compiled by one party in a dispute.

That’s how legal complaints work. I have a hard time believing that just as in virtually any other legal case, there would not be witnesses and other evidence to support the allegations. That evidence can be put to the test by the defendant, which can of course present its own case. And the plaintiff can challenge that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, pp.

Agree.

Anyone know if the school potentially has a defamation claim here? This is really spiraling in the press.

Unquestionably. And it's warranted, but it won't correct the public narrative and carries substantial risks. This ain't Brandeis's first rodeo. They'd welcome an opportunity to keep the story in the news cycle and frame a countersuit as retaliation that reinforces the antisemitism narrative they are spinning. It's an election year. AG Miyares already posturing on this case on Laura Ingraham yesterday. Signaled an intent to escalate symbolically, if not legally, but it struck me that he was speaking as if the allegations were true, prior to any investigation or adversarial hearing. Tread carefully, Nysmith. Miyares has close affiliations with Brandeis, with at least one alum sitting on his political baby, the Antisemitism Task Force. He's itching for a high-profile case. If you believe in the unwavering objectivity of politicians, I applaud you for your naivete. But if Nysmith isn't careful, they'll find themselves at the hands of a political apparatus that will attempt to use this case as an election year message about combating antisemitism, the facts won't matter.

Nysmith is for-profit, elite, and secular. That makes them a soft target. Destroying them makes no enemies. There are no constituencies to worry about alienating. If you think there aren't political consultants telling the AG this same thing, you're kidding yourself. Nysmith needs to operate under the assumption that the AG's office is not neutral and recognize that this case has potential to be a narrative vehicle in an election season.

I personally think the complaint is reprehensible. Doesn’t mean it’s all fabricated, but I’m absolutely not buying what they’re selling because I know what manufactured outrage looks like and this one stinks to high heck. You sheep can bleat all day and night. You’re being played. But I’d caution anyone pushing the school to go on the offensive. A countersuit against a Jewish family alleging antisemitism is narratively catastrophic. The strategy on the other side is in soliciting outrage, and the substitution effect is real. You've already seen it in action. A public referendum rejecting antisemitism based on hearsay and a narrative fiction assigned to a deliberately misleading photograph. There’s no fair and objective look at the complaint, and that’s very much intentional. The facts won't be relevant. Nuance falls on deaf ears, and bad actors will continue to behave reprehensively behind righteous covers. Nysmith ain’t gonna get a fair shake, and they need to find an offramp because the road ahead is rough. A highly partisan media with irresistable Hitler-click bait, an objective that’s politically aligned with the AG’s election, advocacy organizations with ideological missions, and very wealthy parents that are out for blood.

Perceptions, not truth, govern reputation.

But I digress. To answer your question. Yeah, real strong case for defamation.
Falsity. Publication. Damages, and actual malice with a reckless disregard for the truth. Misstatement of facts loaded value judgements resting on false factual premises.

That photograph, and the deliberate misrepresentations could eventually prove problematic for the parents. The context of that photograph was widely available to them. It's their own child's assignment. They declared "under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
The media patterns strongly suggest that the complainants or their agents deliberately amplified the claims.
Maybe even toss in some tortious interference.

Elite?

DP. Bigtime. It’s maybe the best and most well-regarded school in the k-8 space in the DC area.

By whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, pp.

Agree.

Anyone know if the school potentially has a defamation claim here? This is really spiraling in the press.

Unquestionably. And it's warranted, but it won't correct the public narrative and carries substantial risks. This ain't Brandeis's first rodeo. They'd welcome an opportunity to keep the story in the news cycle and frame a countersuit as retaliation that reinforces the antisemitism narrative they are spinning. It's an election year. AG Miyares already posturing on this case on Laura Ingraham yesterday. Signaled an intent to escalate symbolically, if not legally, but it struck me that he was speaking as if the allegations were true, prior to any investigation or adversarial hearing. Tread carefully, Nysmith. Miyares has close affiliations with Brandeis, with at least one alum sitting on his political baby, the Antisemitism Task Force. He's itching for a high-profile case. If you believe in the unwavering objectivity of politicians, I applaud you for your naivete. But if Nysmith isn't careful, they'll find themselves at the hands of a political apparatus that will attempt to use this case as an election year message about combating antisemitism, the facts won't matter.

Nysmith is for-profit, elite, and secular. That makes them a soft target. Destroying them makes no enemies. There are no constituencies to worry about alienating. If you think there aren't political consultants telling the AG this same thing, you're kidding yourself. Nysmith needs to operate under the assumption that the AG's office is not neutral and recognize that this case has potential to be a narrative vehicle in an election season.

I personally think the complaint is reprehensible. Doesn’t mean it’s all fabricated, but I’m absolutely not buying what they’re selling because I know what manufactured outrage looks like and this one stinks to high heck. You sheep can bleat all day and night. You’re being played. But I’d caution anyone pushing the school to go on the offensive. A countersuit against a Jewish family alleging antisemitism is narratively catastrophic. The strategy on the other side is in soliciting outrage, and the substitution effect is real. You've already seen it in action. A public referendum rejecting antisemitism based on hearsay and a narrative fiction assigned to a deliberately misleading photograph. There’s no fair and objective look at the complaint, and that’s very much intentional. The facts won't be relevant. Nuance falls on deaf ears, and bad actors will continue to behave reprehensively behind righteous covers. Nysmith ain’t gonna get a fair shake, and they need to find an offramp because the road ahead is rough. A highly partisan media with irresistable Hitler-click bait, an objective that’s politically aligned with the AG’s election, advocacy organizations with ideological missions, and very wealthy parents that are out for blood.

Perceptions, not truth, govern reputation.

But I digress. To answer your question. Yeah, real strong case for defamation.
Falsity. Publication. Damages, and actual malice with a reckless disregard for the truth. Misstatement of facts loaded value judgements resting on false factual premises.

That photograph, and the deliberate misrepresentations could eventually prove problematic for the parents. The context of that photograph was widely available to them. It's their own child's assignment. They declared "under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
The media patterns strongly suggest that the complainants or their agents deliberately amplified the claims.
Maybe even toss in some tortious interference.

You really need to stop throwing around legal terms that you quite obviously do not understand at all.

[Anonymous]

Um, let’s not make this a BASIS-style debated on the elitism of the school. That said, no one seriously thinks of Nysmith as anything close to elite.

As for the lawyer with the long-winded rant, you didn’t address anything remotely substantive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, pp.

Agree.

Anyone know if the school potentially has a defamation claim here? This is really spiraling in the press.

Unquestionably. And it's warranted, but it won't correct the public narrative and carries substantial risks. This ain't Brandeis's first rodeo. They'd welcome an opportunity to keep the story in the news cycle and frame a countersuit as retaliation that reinforces the antisemitism narrative they are spinning. It's an election year. AG Miyares already posturing on this case on Laura Ingraham yesterday. Signaled an intent to escalate symbolically, if not legally, but it struck me that he was speaking as if the allegations were true, prior to any investigation or adversarial hearing. Tread carefully, Nysmith. Miyares has close affiliations with Brandeis, with at least one alum sitting on his political baby, the Antisemitism Task Force. He's itching for a high-profile case. If you believe in the unwavering objectivity of politicians, I applaud you for your naivete. But if Nysmith isn't careful, they'll find themselves at the hands of a political apparatus that will attempt to use this case as an election year message about combating antisemitism, the facts won't matter.

Nysmith is for-profit, elite, and secular. That makes them a soft target. Destroying them makes no enemies. There are no constituencies to worry about alienating. If you think there aren't political consultants telling the AG this same thing, you're kidding yourself. Nysmith needs to operate under the assumption that the AG's office is not neutral and recognize that this case has potential to be a narrative vehicle in an election season.

I personally think the complaint is reprehensible. Doesn’t mean it’s all fabricated, but I’m absolutely not buying what they’re selling because I know what manufactured outrage looks like and this one stinks to high heck. You sheep can bleat all day and night. You’re being played. But I’d caution anyone pushing the school to go on the offensive. A countersuit against a Jewish family alleging antisemitism is narratively catastrophic. The strategy on the other side is in soliciting outrage, and the substitution effect is real. You've already seen it in action. A public referendum rejecting antisemitism based on hearsay and a narrative fiction assigned to a deliberately misleading photograph. There’s no fair and objective look at the complaint, and that’s very much intentional. The facts won't be relevant. Nuance falls on deaf ears, and bad actors will continue to behave reprehensively behind righteous covers. Nysmith ain’t gonna get a fair shake, and they need to find an offramp because the road ahead is rough. A highly partisan media with irresistable Hitler-click bait, an objective that’s politically aligned with the AG’s election, advocacy organizations with ideological missions, and very wealthy parents that are out for blood.

Perceptions, not truth, govern reputation.

But I digress. To answer your question. Yeah, real strong case for defamation.
Falsity. Publication. Damages, and actual malice with a reckless disregard for the truth. Misstatement of facts loaded value judgements resting on false factual premises.

That photograph, and the deliberate misrepresentations could eventually prove problematic for the parents. The context of that photograph was widely available to them. It's their own child's assignment. They declared "under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
The media patterns strongly suggest that the complainants or their agents deliberately amplified the claims.
Maybe even toss in some tortious interference.

Elite?

DP. Bigtime. It’s maybe the best and most well-regarded school in the k-8 space in the DC area.

By whom?

The private schools in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, let’s not make this a BASIS-style debated on the elitism of the school. That said, no one seriously thinks of Nysmith as anything close to elite.

As for the lawyer with the long-winded rant, you didn’t address anything remotely substantive.

It is elite not in terms of the clientele and their social standing, but in terms of their academic reputation. There’s no arguing with that - their students do extraordinarily well in high school admissions processes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As another poster said, it sounds like no adults acted well.

The Hitler drawing should not have been allowed by the teacher. There was probably some comments criticizing the state of Israel that the parents complaint about. And then it all snowballed from there, because everyone lost their tempers, including the Head.

I think we can all agree that the students who were expelled are the victims. Of all the adults.

If we are speculating I agree it’s very plausible there were comments about the state of Israel and equally plausible that there were or were also comments that the IDF is doing a bang up job and all the people they’ve killed are “bad guys.”

Do you not view Hamas as bad guys? Maybe you should stop getting your news from TikTok.

Maybe you didnt notice the word “all” in that comment. Maybe you should read more carefully.

It is unfortunate that Hamas leadership has chosen to hide behind potentially innocent civilians (some of whom were harboring the kidnapping victims from the Nova concert). Did you cry for the innocents in Dresden? The IDF has taken greater pains to avoid indiscriminate harm than any army ever. Hamas, in the meantime, is profiteering off of the aid being offered.

Wow! You are completely brainwashed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Elite?

You know, you're right. In fact compared to other schools in the region, it's pretty far from your stereotypical country-club elitism. Though I don't think that impacts the risk calculus. Nuance falls on deaf ears.