Maureen Dowd column on Landon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do expect from a school whose most famous alum is Maury Povich? They're breeding a lot of rocket scientists over there.

There are a number of exceptionally distinguished individuals who graduated from this school and are not listed in Wikipedia. A lot of us know who they are. Do you think we are going to "out" them while this witch hunt is going on?

I would totally watch a TV series that "outed" the vast universe of secret Landon luminaries who are, even as we speak, hiding their Landon diplomas and buying a lot of blue and white athletic garb to try to pass as STA grads. Nis it true that Obama went to Landon but he's hiding it? Is thismthe REAL reason there is controversy over whether he was born in Hawaii? Does anyone remember a skinny kid named Barry playing jv lax for Landon in 1976?

I think this means you are seriously in need of a life.

It kills you that the school you pay 30k to and used to brag about is now synonymous nationally with boorish behavior, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a fourteen year old son. Do you think I should tell him about the details of this article and use it as a teaching moment or should I just talk about about (once again) respecting women etc and not mention this episode at Landon?

I am a parent of a 12 year old DD. I am actually very specific with her about examples and I think it helps.

For example, some kid in their class showed them a YouTube video which was a Snookie parody performing a Ke$ha song. DD wanted to show us this "funny video" (it made my ears almost start to bleed...)

After the video, I asked DD if she had seen the Jersey Shore before (she had heard of Snookie). She said no, but I know who she is. I explained the show is not really good one for a few reasons-

1. It stereotypes people of NJ and Italians
2. Most importantly - it exploits this young woman, Snookie. It shows her going too far with guys, trying to show too much to get attention, not saying no, when it would be good to. I explained that often times girls with low self esteem think they have to do things with guys to get attention, to feel good.

Now, there is much more wrong with the show, but I was trying to keep it simple.

I then explained to DD that she is lucky - she gets attention at home, she has parents who care about her and that she does not need to look elsewhere to get confidence- she has it growing within. I told her Snookie likely does not have that good fortune, and that is why she acts out in some of those ways.

Long way of saying, I think sharing specifics with your child and giving them your interpretation of why this is wrong, why its not ok, is a good thing, even if the topics are ones you'd rather not see or deal with.

I think the liklihood that your son will hear you and learn from it is higher than the likelihood that he will try to replicate the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having raised two sons that went to Landon, all I can say that it is an excellent institution that produces many exceptional individuals. The appalling actions of George Huguely should not mar Landon's reputation as an institution.

Landon graduates excel outside of school. I've heard some schools like GDS thrown around this forum a lot, and I'll say it flat out. Landon is a better school than GDS. Most of my sons' friends from Landon are a few years out of college and many of them are making over $100,000 a year or are attending top tier graduate programs. I find it ironic that many of their Sidwell and GDS counterparts are taking 5+ years to finish college, struggling to find jobs, or are wasting their lives as bartenders and waiters.

Landon is an institution that teaches kids how to excel. It's not an easy education and will never be perfectly understood from the outside.

After all, it is not the critic who counts, but the man actually in the arena. He lives a world apart from those weak and timid souls that know neither the thrill of victory nor defeat.

So making $100,000/year determines an exceptional individual? I'd rather have my daughter date an ex-Sidwell bartender than an ex-Landon misyogynist.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a bit bothered by this. Can you clarify the policy on posting names in general? I know I have seen school personnel called out by name. I certainly recognize the problem calling out minor students by name and acknowledge that simply naming their parents amounts to the same thing. But what is the policy? Who is off limits and who is fair game?

Generally, if you are posting as anonymous, then you should not be naming names. If you don't want your name mentioned, why do you think another person wants their's mentioned? Exceptions are made for well-known public figures. For instance, how could you discuss the Obama's choice of schools if you didn't name the Obamas? Also, those who have been publicly charged with crimes such as the Sidwell teacher (once he was indicted). Children charged with crimes are not publicly named, so you can't name them. If you feel that you have a valid reason for naming someone who does not fit one of these exceptions, than simply include your name. Then you and the named person can hash it out between yourselves.

Thank you for the clarification. Does this apply to school personnel as well? On this very thread, we saw someone called out the head of the middle school. Not by name, but clearly they were indicting a specific person. On the one hand, this seems to violate the guidelines you noted. On the other hand, does that stymie dialogue too much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a fourteen year old son. Do you think I should tell him about the details of this article and use it as a teaching moment or should I just talk about about (once again) respecting women etc and not mention this episode at Landon?

I am a parent of a 12 year old DD. I am actually very specific with her about examples and I think it helps.

For example, some kid in their class showed them a YouTube video which was a Snookie parody performing a Ke$ha song. DD wanted to show us this "funny video" (it made my ears almost start to bleed...)

After the video, I asked DD if she had seen the Jersey Shore before (she had heard of Snookie). She said no, but I know who she is. I explained the show is not really good one for a few reasons-

1. It stereotypes people of NJ and Italians
2. Most importantly - it exploits this young woman, Snookie. It shows her going too far with guys, trying to show too much to get attention, not saying no, when it would be good to. I explained that often times girls with low self esteem think they have to do things with guys to get attention, to feel good.

Now, there is much more wrong with the show, but I was trying to keep it simple.

I then explained to DD that she is lucky - she gets attention at home, she has parents who care about her and that she does not need to look elsewhere to get confidence- she has it growing within. I told her Snookie likely does not have that good fortune, and that is why she acts out in some of those ways.

Long way of saying, I think sharing specifics with your child and giving them your interpretation of why this is wrong, why its not ok, is a good thing, even if the topics are ones you'd rather not see or deal with.

I think the liklihood that your son will hear you and learn from it is higher than the likelihood that he will try to replicate the idea.

Not to threadjack, but don't you think this further sends the message that girls are helpless, passive victims? If Snookie only acts the way she does because she, as you say, didn't get attention at home or didn't have parents who cared or didn't have confidence, then she is simply a victim of circumstance and is not responsible for her decisions, good or bad. What if she is just an empowered girl in control of her sexuality who likes to party and enjoys sex?

In reality, I am not attempting to defend Snookie, as I think the girl has some legitimate troubles. But in general, why do we insist on demonizing sexually empowered, confident women as neglected, attention-seeking weaklings? Certainly there are women who act in this way, just as there are men are. But I fear the message you are ultimately sending your daughter is that she can't possibly enjoy sex, flirting, or partying, as these things are only enjoyed by girls who are seeking attention. How does that promote strong, healthy women?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. Does this apply to school personnel as well? On this very thread, we saw someone called out the head of the middle school. Not by name, but clearly they were indicting a specific person. On the one hand, this seems to violate the guidelines you noted. On the other hand, does that stymie dialogue too much?

I try to remove the names of school personnel when I see them. But, this thread is 20 pages long, it's 10:30 at night, and I first started reading the forums at about 6:15 am. So, my eyes are not what I'd wish them to be at the moment. I could have missed some. Mentioning someone's position is generally okay. Even though it might be easy to figure out the name of the person in that position, it doesn't show up when the name is Googled. Also, I take into account what is being said about the person. Saying the head of school is a bad administrator is different than saying the head of school is a shop lifter who enjoys intimacy with farm animals. I'd allow the first, but not the second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a fourteen year old son. Do you think I should tell him about the details of this article and use it as a teaching moment or should I just talk about about (once again) respecting women etc and not mention this episode at Landon?

I am a parent of a 12 year old DD. I am actually very specific with her about examples and I think it helps.

For example, some kid in their class showed them a YouTube video which was a Snookie parody performing a Ke$ha song. DD wanted to show us this "funny video" (it made my ears almost start to bleed...)

After the video, I asked DD if she had seen the Jersey Shore before (she had heard of Snookie). She said no, but I know who she is. I explained the show is not really good one for a few reasons-

1. It stereotypes people of NJ and Italians
2. Most importantly - it exploits this young woman, Snookie. It shows her going too far with guys, trying to show too much to get attention, not saying no, when it would be good to. I explained that often times girls with low self esteem think they have to do things with guys to get attention, to feel good.

Now, there is much more wrong with the show, but I was trying to keep it simple.

I then explained to DD that she is lucky - she gets attention at home, she has parents who care about her and that she does not need to look elsewhere to get confidence- she has it growing within. I told her Snookie likely does not have that good fortune, and that is why she acts out in some of those ways.

Long way of saying, I think sharing specifics with your child and giving them your interpretation of why this is wrong, why its not ok, is a good thing, even if the topics are ones you'd rather not see or deal with.

I think the liklihood that your son will hear you and learn from it is higher than the likelihood that he will try to replicate the idea.

Not to threadjack, but don't you think this further sends the message that girls are helpless, passive victims? If Snookie only acts the way she does because she, as you say, didn't get attention at home or didn't have parents who cared or didn't have confidence, then she is simply a victim of circumstance and is not responsible for her decisions, good or bad. What if she is just an empowered girl in control of her sexuality who likes to party and enjoys sex?

In reality, I am not attempting to defend Snookie, as I think the girl has some legitimate troubles. But in general, why do we insist on demonizing sexually empowered, confident women as neglected, attention-seeking weaklings? Certainly there are women who act in this way, just as there are men are. But I fear the message you are ultimately sending your daughter is that she can't possibly enjoy sex, flirting, or partying, as these things are only enjoyed by girls who are seeking attention. How does that promote strong, healthy women?

Snookie poster back. My explanation was tailored for my DD - if I had a DS, I would have come from a different angle. I actually do think my daughter can enjoy those things (and some of them hopefully when she is MUCH older) and I acknowledged that when we talked - I said the attention feels good, and its ok, it should, but your feeling of how "good" you feel as a person shouldn't be dependent on attention from guys.

I didn't post whole convo (you guys would probably be bored) but I tried to cover some of those things. I think your point is well taken though- there is a balance, and you can't totally demonize it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. Does this apply to school personnel as well? On this very thread, we saw someone called out the head of the middle school. Not by name, but clearly they were indicting a specific person. On the one hand, this seems to violate the guidelines you noted. On the other hand, does that stymie dialogue too much?

I try to remove the names of school personnel when I see them. But, this thread is 20 pages long, it's 10:30 at night, and I first started reading the forums at about 6:15 am. So, my eyes are not what I'd wish them to be at the moment. I could have missed some. Mentioning someone's position is generally okay. Even though it might be easy to figure out the name of the person in that position, it doesn't show up when the name is Googled. Also, I take into account what is being said about the person. Saying the head of school is a bad administrator is different than saying the head of school is a shop lifter who enjoys intimacy with farm animals. I'd allow the first, but not the second.

Thanks. Sorry if my questioning came off as criticism. I was just trying to better understand the situation. There are a lot of fine lines to walk and the reporting option allows readers/commenters to file formal complaints if something seems off. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a fourteen year old son. Do you think I should tell him about the details of this article and use it as a teaching moment or should I just talk about about (once again) respecting women etc and not mention this episode at Landon?

I am a parent of a 12 year old DD. I am actually very specific with her about examples and I think it helps.

For example, some kid in their class showed them a YouTube video which was a Snookie parody performing a Ke$ha song. DD wanted to show us this "funny video" (it made my ears almost start to bleed...)

After the video, I asked DD if she had seen the Jersey Shore before (she had heard of Snookie). She said no, but I know who she is. I explained the show is not really good one for a few reasons-

1. It stereotypes people of NJ and Italians
2. Most importantly - it exploits this young woman, Snookie. It shows her going too far with guys, trying to show too much to get attention, not saying no, when it would be good to. I explained that often times girls with low self esteem think they have to do things with guys to get attention, to feel good.

Now, there is much more wrong with the show, but I was trying to keep it simple.

I then explained to DD that she is lucky - she gets attention at home, she has parents who care about her and that she does not need to look elsewhere to get confidence- she has it growing within. I told her Snookie likely does not have that good fortune, and that is why she acts out in some of those ways.

Long way of saying, I think sharing specifics with your child and giving them your interpretation of why this is wrong, why its not ok, is a good thing, even if the topics are ones you'd rather not see or deal with.

I think the liklihood that your son will hear you and learn from it is higher than the likelihood that he will try to replicate the idea.

Not to threadjack, but don't you think this further sends the message that girls are helpless, passive victims? If Snookie only acts the way she does because she, as you say, didn't get attention at home or didn't have parents who cared or didn't have confidence, then she is simply a victim of circumstance and is not responsible for her decisions, good or bad. What if she is just an empowered girl in control of her sexuality who likes to party and enjoys sex?

In reality, I am not attempting to defend Snookie, as I think the girl has some legitimate troubles. But in general, why do we insist on demonizing sexually empowered, confident women as neglected, attention-seeking weaklings? Certainly there are women who act in this way, just as there are men are. But I fear the message you are ultimately sending your daughter is that she can't possibly enjoy sex, flirting, or partying, as these things are only enjoyed by girls who are seeking attention. How does that promote strong, healthy women?

Snookie poster back. My explanation was tailored for my DD - if I had a DS, I would have come from a different angle. I actually do think my daughter can enjoy those things (and some of them hopefully when she is MUCH older) and I acknowledged that when we talked - I said the attention feels good, and its ok, it should, but your feeling of how "good" you feel as a person shouldn't be dependent on attention from guys.

I didn't post whole convo (you guys would probably be bored) but I tried to cover some of those things. I think your point is well taken though- there is a balance, and you can't totally demonize it.

Duly noted. It's why I'm thankful I can still talk about these issues academically and in the abstract. I'm not yet a parent. Kudos to you.

[Anonymous]

Has Landon had any response to either the NYT article or the WashPost article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having raised two sons that went to Landon, all I can say that it is an excellent institution that produces many exceptional individuals. The appalling actions of George Huguely should not mar Landon's reputation as an institution.

Landon graduates excel outside of school. I've heard some schools like GDS thrown around this forum a lot, and I'll say it flat out. Landon is a better school than GDS. Most of my sons' friends from Landon are a few years out of college and many of them are making over $100,000 a year or are attending top tier graduate programs. I find it ironic that many of their Sidwell and GDS counterparts are taking 5+ years to finish college, struggling to find jobs, or are wasting their lives as bartenders and waiters.

Landon is an institution that teaches kids how to excel. It's not an easy education and will never be perfectly understood from the outside.

I have to call bullshit. I have tons of friends who went to Landon. I know tons of really fine young men who are friends of my sons who go to Landon.

Most of us in community or business leadership positions think of middle aged Landon guys as not too bright, and not too ethical. They are supurb salesman, and developers (read salesman), and (mostly), they can hold their drink and are fun to be around. They can lower your team score on a golf couse. My wife went to Holton (I am a public school boy) and when we had our first of multiple sons, she told me 'they are not gentleman', I want our sons to go to....(the school that most Landon parents didnt get their sons into).

Landon has motivatated parents, and motivated kids. As a general rule, they do believe they are as good as anyone. But as a rule, they are not as smart as the kids or parents at Potomac, or Sidwell, or STA. They have made up for it by being 'a little more aggressive', and letting their alum run the show.

It has ended badly.

The board should be fired. (0 percent of these kids are good. 90 percent of these parents are good.

The 10% run the show, as my wife saw as a 16 year girl at Holton decades ago.

The board should resign. These boys, and these parents, have been disserved by the 10% FOR DECADES.




Lets all cut the crap here

There is no such thing as a '16 year girl' at Holton Arms. Holton starts at 3rd grade through 12 and if you stay for the entire academic career, you are called a '10 year girl.'

[Anonymous]

Landon has responded to the article with an email sent to the Landon community from the head of the school.

[Anonymous]

I think the poster was trying to say "16 year old girl" and omitted the word "old"--maybe typing on phone.

[Anonymous]

Landon said they had done the right thing. They will have meetings to talk about how they did the right thing.

[Anonymous]

If you got the email from the headmaster, that is not what it said. Thanks for the honest posting.