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

[Anonymous]

Two things can be true:

1) Ken’s email was inexcusable in its brusqueness and condescension

2) For him to have written an email like that, something truly over the line must have happened in that “emotional” meeting

There are security cameras in his office and I promise you that the school will use that footage in his and the school’s defense.

[Anonymous]

The AG was careful to emphasize that THE ALLEGATIONS are "deeply disturbing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two things can be true:

1) Ken’s email was inexcusable in its brusqueness and condescension

2) For him to have written an email like that, something truly over the line must have happened in that “emotional” meeting

There are security cameras in his office and I promise you that the school will use that footage in his and the school’s defense.

Sure, if you say so.

[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.

Are you referring to the PP as the one claiming there is a defamation claim here? No way that PP is a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

It has been a very rough few years for this general part of northern VA (allegedly).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things can be true:

1) Ken’s email was inexcusable in its brusqueness and condescension

2) For him to have written an email like that, something truly over the line must have happened in that “emotional” meeting

There are security cameras in his office and I promise you that the school will use that footage in his and the school’s defense.

Sure, if you say so.

I do and they will.

It is also VERY suspicious that we are hearing about all of this weeks after the end of school when the central item that people are rallying around is a theoretical image of Hitler that was posted somewhere publicly.

That is a HUGE red flag in this story. Nysmith isn’t a closed community and someone would have blasted that out a LONG time ago if there wasn’t some sort of context at play.

[Anonymous]

WJLA and FOX have reported on the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well then I guess we agree that more rigorous evaluation will paint a clearer picture and it’s reasonable to withhold horror and outrage until the specifics are known?

[Anonymous]

How was it theoretically you fu**ng anti-Semite? You think it was like, abstract? Please be specific.

[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.

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

This. Top legal professionals turn away many cases. They take on cases they feel strongly they can win.

It doesn't sound like the leader of the school is a seasoned professional. From other people's reports, he spent a lot of time working for mommy. Is there even a Board of Directors there?

[Anonymous]

The factual truth is that someone’s kid got the assignment and said “I think Hitler is a great example!”

If that was your kid, shame on you.

If that was your student and you let it go, shame on you.

If you are Ken Nysmith and you chose to expel the parents rather than to accept culpability for something that perhaps was unintended, shame on you.

Your mom would be proud, Ken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WJLA and FOX have reported on the story.

Sinclair-owned stations are not to be trusted under any circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How was it theoretically you fu**ng anti-Semite? You think it was like, abstract? Please be specific.

I mean, I’d like to know what the words are that are written on the poster, that are conveniently too blurry to be read.

Again, it’s weird to me that we in NoVa are just now hearing about this. Can someone provide a reasonable explanation for the fact that weeks have passed since the end of school and something as egregious as this didn’t find its way to this cesspool?

[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.

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

This. Top legal professionals turn away many cases. They take on cases they feel strongly they can win.

It doesn't sound like the leader of the school is a seasoned professional. From other people's reports, he spent a lot of time working for mommy. Is there even a Board of Directors there?

Nope, Nysmith does not have a Board or accept donations. Ken has been the Head of School for a long time now, even before his mother passed away.

[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.

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

This. Top legal professionals turn away many cases. They take on cases they feel strongly they can win.

It doesn't sound like the leader of the school is a seasoned professional. From other people's reports, he spent a lot of time working for mommy. Is there even a Board of Directors there?

I’m no fan of Ken, but he’s been closely involved with the school in a number of administrative capacities since his mother founded it in the early/mid-80s, and he’s been head of school since 2012. He is a seasoned professional. He’s also a jerk.