New Sidwell Scandal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It blows my mind that people are defending this guy. But I guess when you pay that much you wear expensive blinders.

Huh? A complaint 20 years ago that didn't result in charges being brought, followed by, so far as we know, no further incidents at his new school for 20 years, and you're surprised not everyone is taking the side that he should be fired when the original complainant learns he is still teaching and renews her complaint to the new school?

I get that plenty of sexual misconduct, especially with minors, goes unreported and is often rejected by officials when there is a problem. But unless you operate under an irrefutable presumption of guilt based on any accusation then it is reasonable both to question the basis for the allegations and the result they led to 20 years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It blows my mind that people are defending this guy. But I guess when you pay that much you wear expensive blinders.

Huh? A complaint 20 years ago that didn't result in charges being brought, followed by, so far as we know, no further incidents at his new school for 20 years, and you're surprised not everyone is taking the side that he should be fired when the original complainant learns he is still teaching and renews her complaint to the new school?

I get that plenty of sexual misconduct, especially with minors, goes unreported and is often rejected by officials when there is a problem. But unless you operate under an irrefutable presumption of guilt based on any accusation then it is reasonable both to question the basis for the allegations and the result they led to 20 years later.

While not the PP I am surprised too.

According to the "lovely" email sent out by the head of school the teacher admitted to having an inappropriate physical relationship with the 14 year old.

I don't really care if charges were filed, dropped, etc. When the pedophile admits to having physical contact I conclude he is guilty -- since he admitted it. Frankly I don't care if there weren't other victims (or incidents as you called me). Once is enough for me to make sure he isn't teaching children again, ever.

[Anonymous]

I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

...because he may be gay. Get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Somewhere Whoopi Goldberg is saying this isn't rape rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It blows my mind that people are defending this guy. But I guess when you pay that much you wear expensive blinders.

Huh? A complaint 20 years ago that didn't result in charges being brought, followed by, so far as we know, no further incidents at his new school for 20 years, and you're surprised not everyone is taking the side that he should be fired when the original complainant learns he is still teaching and renews her complaint to the new school?

I get that plenty of sexual misconduct, especially with minors, goes unreported and is often rejected by officials when there is a problem. But unless you operate under an irrefutable presumption of guilt based on any accusation then it is reasonable both to question the basis for the allegations and the result they led to 20 years later.

You are an idiot. He admitted to kissing a 14 year old. I believe in 1 strike you are out. I don't care if you are arrested or not. I don't hire people that can't do their job and if you kiss a student you can't do your job, period. You are officially not qualified to teach children ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It blows my mind that people are defending this guy. But I guess when you pay that much you wear expensive blinders.

Huh? A complaint 20 years ago that didn't result in charges being brought, followed by, so far as we know, no further incidents at his new school for 20 years, and you're surprised not everyone is taking the side that he should be fired when the original complainant learns he is still teaching and renews her complaint to the new school?

I get that plenty of sexual misconduct, especially with minors, goes unreported and is often rejected by officials when there is a problem. But unless you operate under an irrefutable presumption of guilt based on any accusation then it is reasonable both to question the basis for the allegations and the result they led to 20 years later.

You are an idiot. He admitted to kissing a 14 year old. I believe in 1 strike you are out. I don't care if you are arrested or not. I don't hire people that can't do their job and if you kiss a student you can't do your job, period. You are officially not qualified to teach children ever again.

Keep in mind that she claims it was way more than kissing and that he drugged her so she doesn't remember anything. And this was 20 years after the accusations were filed - things she said to her current boyfriend, who was the one that contacted the school. If it wasn't true why would she still be talking about it? Sidwell is looking bad on this one.

And there is definitely a blinders aspect to the people who want to defend their private school at any cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do these perverts find their way to Private schools?

There's so damned many of them!!

NP.

Check out the MoCo list on this thread if you want to be really disturbed. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/633464.page#10866577

This thread can't seem to decide whether Sidwell is at fault for acting too quickly, or Sidwell is at fault for acting too slowly.

MCPS is a huge system with 25 high schools at varying levels. Sidwell is supposed to be the most elite school in the country. Three highly publicized sexual offense instances in the last few years is way way too much.

One. Only one happened at SFS. This most recent one was a poor hiring decision and there is no evidence anything happened at SFS and the reports from the original incident in CO are inconclusive at best. The 3rd was inappropriate use of work email between two consenting adults.

Inappropriate use of work email by the school psychiatrist who claimed he needed to get kids out of his office so he could get back to dirty talk with his married mistress (while he was married too).

Is anyone defending the school here NOT a Sidwell parent? You can be a fan of the school and still admit that these were major hiring issues that for a school with this price point (or any school that values the safety of its children) are unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

...because he may be gay. Get your head out of your ass.

That's right. It would definitely be a hiring red flag to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

...because he may be gay. Get your head out of your ass.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

...because he may be gay. Get your head out of your ass.

That's right. It would definitely be a hiring red flag to me.

Is this really the 1950s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

...because he may be gay. Get your head out of your ass.

That's right. It would definitely be a hiring red flag to me.

Is this really the 1950s?

No. Do you need to update your calendar datebook?

[Anonymous]

I get the impulse to defend your school but the signals here are that this young woman was sexually assaulted. In the article she said it was more than inappropriate touching and that she was too embarrassed to say more at the time. She was also so alarmed at age 35 to find out he was still teaching after he creeped on her linked-in page that she felt compelled to contact the school. This sounds like a brave victim trying to defend people from someone that at one time was a predator. If Sidwell had any indication, and they appear to have, that this guy might have had issues in the past they should not have hired him or done some more due diligence. According to the article, they did not know the extent of the allegations, which to me reads that they took his word for it. The fact that the administrator is gone doesn't mean that Sidwell, and all schools for that matter, shouldn't take a hard look at their hiring practices and background checks, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it... but hiring an unmarried male over the age of about 45 should be a red flag to any school.

Although there's nothing defensible about the particular teacher at issue here, this kind of broad-brushed intolerance is offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the impulse to defend your school but the signals here are that this young woman was sexually assaulted. In the article she said it was more than inappropriate touching and that she was too embarrassed to say more at the time. She was also so alarmed at age 35 to find out he was still teaching after he creeped on her linked-in page that she felt compelled to contact the school. This sounds like a brave victim trying to defend people from someone that at one time was a predator. If Sidwell had any indication, and they appear to have, that this guy might have had issues in the past they should not have hired him or done some more due diligence. According to the article, they did not know the extent of the allegations, which to me reads that they took his word for it. The fact that the administrator is gone doesn't mean that Sidwell, and all schools for that matter, shouldn't take a hard look at their hiring practices and background checks, etc.

I think you are reading it a little wrong. Administrator who left in 2003, was aware of something but hired anyhow. That hire, that happened 20 years ago, should not have happened. New administrator in 2017 is made aware the situation and places on leave and then dismisses after investigation. The 2017 action corrected a hire that should not have happened, but that no one apparently knew about.

Same issue today would have resulted in a non-hire.