New Sidwell Scandal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. It is a shame, because this teacher otherwise has been a beloved member of the community with to my knowledge, a spotless record. But alas, liability.

+2. There were no charges, it was not criminal so an important question is: what was the inappropriate touching? There is a huge range and not every type of "inappropriate" touching merits termination. Did he one time poke the top of her butt with one finger to get her attention when he was explaining something in class because she was leaning away from him and didn't hear him? Did he put a hand on her bare shoulder while she was wearing a tank top? These are inappropriate but not worth firing for if they happened once or twice. Did he fondle her breasts, stroke her butt, or more than that? These are all inappropriate but some are minor, insignificant, others worth firing over.

OTOH my best friend did experience inappropriate touching, by any definition, as a child and never reported it so there was never an investigation. She does say that if she hears that the man is now involved with kids she would report him but difference here is that the 14 year old did report and it was investigated but no charges.

[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.

It said in the Post article that Sidwell hired him knowing "that he had resigned from that previous teaching position because he had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a then-14-year-old female student." How does that not disqualify from you from a teaching position? That is troubling.

Read the article and Bryan's letter (excerpted below) more carefully:

A former administrator, who left our School in 2003, was aware that Michael's departure from his previous employer had been precipitated by his inappropriate conduct, but had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand. Regardless, the administrator knew that boundaries had been crossed and proceeded with the offer of employment. We are deeply troubled by this decision and apologize for this grave lapse in judgment. Knowledge of this incident should have unequivocally disqualified the candidate from being hired.

It is not easy to share this information, but honest communication is essential when it comes to protecting the safety of children. We therefore encourage all members of our community—students, faculty, staff, parents, and alumni—to report any inappropriate conduct or sexual abuse involving a Sidwell Friends employee, past or present, directly to Bryan. The Board of Trustees will be briefed confidentially on all reports, and the School administration will forward information to the appropriate authorities, including law enforcement. The School is prepared to support victims, protect their privacy, and conduct necessary internal reviews."

Our hiring practices have improved substantially over the past 20 years. We believe our current protocols would prevent a recurrence of this incident, but Sidwell Friends has retained an expert in employment law to analyze our current practices and procedures. The expert will issue a report to the Board of Trustees for comment and review and will offer recommendations, which will be implemented promptly. An independent outside counsel is in the process of reviewing all personnel files to ensure that there is no additional information about which we should be aware."

This is a difficult situation. It makes you realize how complicated hiring is with respect to employment history. If you had asked at the time of hiring whether he was fired or ever arrested, the answer would have been an honest no. It seems like the only question that would get to the matter would be "have you ever been accused of inappropriate conduct with respect to a minor?" are you even allowed to ask something like that on a job application? it seems very complicated from an employment law perspective. and what sorts of questions are allowed to be asked of references?

Lovely letter? It seems like one of the main points of the letter is try to minimize the prior knowledge of the past administrator of the school. If there have been any incidents since his teacher was hired for his current job, the school's liability will be absolutely sky high, given the actual knowledge of the administrator. Seems like one of the main goals here is to try to find a way to minimize the past administrators knowledge. Hard to call that lovely. Instead, it reads like it was written by a good insurance defense lawyer.

Holy cow! This is the kind of "plan of action" that almost bankrupted the Catholic Church.

Yeah. If your kid has been sexually abused, go tell "Bryan" and he'll brief the board on it. No, don't listen to Sidwell! If your kid has been sexually abused, call the police. Call 911. And when all is done, then let the police call Bryan. What a self-serving letter, designed to protect the school and its assets and reputation.

[Anonymous]

+1
It's all about covering your a**

[Anonymous]

That line struck me as well. How about call Bryan AND the police. Just to make sure.

The rest of the letter struck me as pretty straightforward and responsible.

[Anonymous]

The real question is - Why did Sidwell hire this guy in the first place? That calls into question all their hires. Who was the decision maker on this one and what other decisions have they made? At a school that charges $40,000 a year per child, one would hope better decisions were being made.

[Anonymous]

Read the damned letter - the person responsible for the hire is no longer at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Peterson didn't have a spotless record while at Sidwell. There is a difference.

How was his record not spotless -- until the criminal act was discovered? Our oldest was in 9th, I believe, when the story broke and, as I recall, everyone was gobsmacked.

Nope - everyone was not gobsmacked. PP would have been at the top of most people's lists if someone asked he question, "which MS teacher do you think might do something sketchy?" MH would have been near the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Check out the Washington Post article today. Seems the charges are more serious than initially came out. Slipping something in her drink, skipping town ... agree with others that a school like Sidwell with a price tag and reputation like it has has been in the news WAY too much for sketchy teacher behavior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/04/sidwell-friends-school-puts-teacher-on-leave-citing-decades-old-accusation-of-inappropriate-touching/?utm_term=.2db78961ecd4&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Peterson didn't have a spotless record while at Sidwell. There is a difference.

How was his record not spotless -- until the criminal act was discovered? Our oldest was in 9th, I believe, when the story broke and, as I recall, everyone was gobsmacked.

Nope - everyone was not gobsmacked. PP would have been at the top of most people's lists if someone asked he question, "which MS teacher do you think might do something sketchy?" MH would have been near the bottom.

I was at Sidwell when Peterson taught there. My brother was friends with his son. I totally disagree with what you're saying. It was a shock to everyone. I don't know Henderson so can't comment on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Peterson didn't have a spotless record while at Sidwell. There is a difference.

How was his record not spotless -- until the criminal act was discovered? Our oldest was in 9th, I believe, when the story broke and, as I recall, everyone was gobsmacked.

Nope - everyone was not gobsmacked. PP would have been at the top of most people's lists if someone asked he question, "which MS teacher do you think might do something sketchy?" MH would have been near the bottom.

I was at Sidwell when Peterson taught there. My brother was friends with his son. I totally disagree with what you're saying. It was a shock to everyone. I don't know Henderson so can't comment on that.

How hard is it to call a couple references from a teacher's previous school. There were directories and phones twenty years ago.
But the problem here is that Sidwell knew there was a problem when he was hired.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps there were no charges back then, because the victim had been convinced to drop the charges.

Any info about the police report back then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Peterson didn't have a spotless record while at Sidwell. There is a difference.

How was his record not spotless -- until the criminal act was discovered? Our oldest was in 9th, I believe, when the story broke and, as I recall, everyone was gobsmacked.

Nope - everyone was not gobsmacked. PP would have been at the top of most people's lists if someone asked he question, "which MS teacher do you think might do something sketchy?" MH would have been near the bottom.

I was at Sidwell when Peterson taught there. My brother was friends with his son. I totally disagree with what you're saying. It was a shock to everyone. I don't know Henderson so can't comment on that.

Were you an adult who interacted with him? Not a shock.

Re. the article: something is off about how public this is being made in the WaPo as opposed to pressing charges. Having the BF call schools but then being comfortable being interviewed by the press. It's strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Peterson didn't have a spotless record while at Sidwell. There is a difference.

How was his record not spotless -- until the criminal act was discovered? Our oldest was in 9th, I believe, when the story broke and, as I recall, everyone was gobsmacked.

Nope - everyone was not gobsmacked. PP would have been at the top of most people's lists if someone asked he question, "which MS teacher do you think might do something sketchy?" MH would have been near the bottom.

I was at Sidwell when Peterson taught there. My brother was friends with his son. I totally disagree with what you're saying. It was a shock to everyone. I don't know Henderson so can't comment on that.

How hard is it to call a couple references from a teacher's previous school. There were directories and phones twenty years ago.
But the problem here is that Sidwell knew there was a problem when he was hired.

Which could be relevant if there had been a problem with him at Sidwell. But apparently, there hasn't been. In fact, he's been quite highly thought of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Peterson didn't have a spotless record while at Sidwell. There is a difference.

How was his record not spotless -- until the criminal act was discovered? Our oldest was in 9th, I believe, when the story broke and, as I recall, everyone was gobsmacked.

Nope - everyone was not gobsmacked. PP would have been at the top of most people's lists if someone asked he question, "which MS teacher do you think might do something sketchy?" MH would have been near the bottom.

I was at Sidwell when Peterson taught there. My brother was friends with his son. I totally disagree with what you're saying. It was a shock to everyone. I don't know Henderson so can't comment on that.

How hard is it to call a couple references from a teacher's previous school. There were directories and phones twenty years ago.
But the problem here is that Sidwell knew there was a problem when he was hired.

Which could be relevant if there had been a problem with him at Sidwell. But apparently, there hasn't been. In fact, he's been quite highly thought of.

Was being the operative word considering apparently he put something in a 14-year-olds drink that made her forget the next three hours. And she said it wasn't "just inappropriate touching."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Washington Post article today. Seems the charges are more serious than initially came out. Slipping something in her drink, skipping town ... agree with others that a school like Sidwell with a price tag and reputation like it has has been in the news WAY too much for sketchy teacher behavior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/04/sidwell-friends-school-puts-teacher-on-leave-citing-decades-old-accusation-of-inappropriate-touching/?utm_term=.2db78961ecd4&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

Sorry to be all lawyerly, but those are "allegations". There were not "charges" because the prosecutor found no evidence of a crime. That could be because the allegations by the victim were overblown and/or not verifiable or because Colorado law is really loose.