Anonymous wrote:Can we also do this for children. In the Maret thread they mention a child's name and comment on his academic ability.

It makes me sick to hear adults pretend to know academic ability of a child. Even if the child needed a little extra help, so do many children. But, when that child is an athlete they act like that child has given up all rights to privacy.

+1 Children are off limits. Adults shouldn't have to be reminded of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, school heads are public figures. They understand that their performance is subject to critique, often through anonymous channels. The fact that school heads wield power in the community--which sometimes can be exercised improperly--is a confounding factor. Comparing people who post on this forum to someone who is a public figure seems markedly unfair.

Not for purposes of libel law, they're not.

If you post that John Smith, head of XYZ School, isn't a very good administrator in your view, that's fine. But if you allege John Smith, head of XYZ school, solicits sex from students (or something), that could be libel. No, Jeff wouldn't be liable, but it would still be a huge legal headache for him to have to provide authorities with your ISP, etc. So in some ways, the policy he articulates is protecting you from yourself.

Yes, they are limited purpose public figures to the extent the discussion relates to their performance as head of school. And also, as you indicate, opinion cannot be defamatory in any event.

But the discussion here relates to what Jeff as the moderator chooses to allow, and not what defamation law standards are. Jeff is entirely able to impose whatever standards he chooses as the moderator of a private forum.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff --

If you're going to apply this policy across the board, shouldn't you also address the thread on the GP development staff. Additionally, the Maret sports thread specifically mentions a Sidwell grad. Both are more troubling in my view than comments about a HOS who willingly participated in an interview with Washingtonian regarding his departure.

This is the first I'm hearing about those posts. You guys need to report those posts rather than expecting me to be omniscient. What you describe certainly sounds well beyond anything that would be acceptable and I'll go take a look.

Also, obviously anything said in a published interview can be discussed here.

Jeff --

If you're going to apply this policy across the board, shouldn't you also address the thread on the GP development staff. Additionally, the Maret sports thread specifically mentions a Sidwell grad. Both are more troubling in my view than comments about a HOS who willingly participated in an interview with Washingtonian regarding his departure.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, school heads are public figures. They understand that their performance is subject to critique, often through anonymous channels. The fact that school heads wield power in the community--which sometimes can be exercised improperly--is a confounding factor. Comparing people who post on this forum to someone who is a public figure seems markedly unfair.

Not for purposes of libel law, they're not.

If you post that John Smith, head of XYZ School, isn't a very good administrator in your view, that's fine. But if you allege John Smith, head of XYZ school, solicits sex from students (or something), that could be libel. No, Jeff wouldn't be liable, but it would still be a huge legal headache for him to have to provide authorities with your ISP, etc. So in some ways, the policy he articulates is protecting you from yourself.

Can we also do this for children. In the Maret thread they mention a child's name and comment on his academic ability.

It makes me sick to hear adults pretend to know academic ability of a child. Even if the child needed a little extra help, so do many children. But, when that child is an athlete they act like that child has given up all rights to privacy.

I am with Jeff on this one as well.

What does "gossip about their performance" mean? Are you going to delete posts that candidly discuss and critique a Head's performance at his/her job? Are you going to delete them if we don't mention the Head by name? Does "an individual's reason for leaving" mean that we can't discus whether a prominent Head of School was fired?

Gossiping and defamation about a person's reasons for leaving a job can have serious consequences -- even if the gossip is true. Poster, you could be outed, sued and so forth. And in the meantime the forum would be dragged into it. If you have an opinion -- open a blog and type on.

I agree with Jeff on this one.

Thanks, Jeff, for your thoughtful response.

Anonymous wrote:I am creating a new topic with regard to the post below, which was posted by the Moderator Jeff, in connection with the SFS HoS discussion. While I think this is an important issue, I did not want to bog down/divert the discussion in that thread.

Here is what Jeff posted:

jsteele wrote:While I realize that this thread is about the Sidwell Head of School and everyone either knows or can easily find out the identity of the Sidwell Head of School, I would still appreciate your not using the name of the Sidwell Head of School or any other folks. Please keep in mind that you are not having a discussion with a couple of friends over a cup of tea, but posting messages that are immediately indexed by Google and available worldwide. As such, folks deserve a modicum of privacy. Topics such as an individual's reason for leaving, gossip about their performance, and/or their religion are not appropriate for anonymous discussion. If you would like to identify yourself, provide personal details, and allow the DCUM community to publicly evaluate your job performance, perhaps allowances can be made for your posts about others. But, short of that, please use some discretion.

In response, I suppose I have the following questions, though let me preface it by expressing my appreciation to you maintaining this forum. As a private forum, I recognize that you can maintain whatever standards you wish, and hope you take my questions with that as a baseline understanding. So:

What does "gossip about their performance" mean? Are you going to delete posts that candidly discuss and critique a Head's performance at his/her job? Are you going to delete them if we don't mention the Head by name? Does "an individual's reason for leaving" mean that we can't discus whether a prominent Head of School was fired?

Recognizing, again, that you are entitled to moderate this forum however you choose, I will say that your comment seems to be imposing a rather odd and constraining standard on matters of public interest to this community. Presumably, topics about school heads and their performance are more compelling and of interest to this community than are the hundreds of posts regarding application angst, etc. Perhaps you don't want that kind of discussion here in any case, and if you don't, that's fine. But that should be clear then, and the standard should be applied consistently.

Also, school heads are public figures. They understand that their performance is subject to critique, often through anonymous channels. The fact that school heads wield power in the community--which sometimes can be exercised improperly--is a confounding factor. Comparing people who post on this forum to someone who is a public figure seems markedly unfair.

OP, I understand him to be saying "make an account and then say what you were so willing to say anonymously. Don't hide behind anonymity."

Anonymous wrote:
What does "gossip about their performance" mean? Are you going to delete posts that candidly discuss and critique a Head's performance at his/her job? Are you going to delete them if we don't mention the Head by name? Does "an individual's reason for leaving" mean that we can't discus whether a prominent Head of School was fired?

I am trying to balance two conflicting goals: 1) encourage vigorous discussion; and 2) protect the privacy of individuals. I have neither the interest in nor the ability to develop 100% effective and all-ecompassing guidelines. So, while I recognize the shortcomings of the approach, this is a "I know it when I see it" situation. I have a very high tolerance for criticism of individuals, named or unnamed, that can be supported with identifiable facts. For instance, if you were to argue that a school administrator was bad because graduation rates, college attendance rates, enrollment, or so forth declined under that individual's leadership, I would probably have no issue with it. If, on the other hand, your criticism is that the individual coddles rich families, is a racist, has a preference for left-handed students with prominent ears: things that might or might not be true but are based on anecdotes rather than data, I will be very skeptical.

As has been pointed out many times in various discussions here, when an individual leaves a job, the former employer is likely to be very constrained regarding the information that can be provided about the departure. I see no value in discussions that go beyond what the employer is able to say. Speculation on the matter is likely to be prejudicial to the individual in question and could be the source of false rumors.

It is important to remember that each of us approaches these discussions with our own baggage. To fully evaluate criticisms of a named individuals, we need to understand the prejudices and agenda, if any, of those making the criticisms. Since posters here are anonymous, we have no such ability.

Anonymous wrote:Recognizing, again, that you are entitled to moderate this forum however you choose, I will say that your comment seems to be imposing a rather odd and constraining standard on matters of public interest to this community. Presumably, topics about school heads and their performance are more compelling and of interest to this community than are the hundreds of posts regarding application angst, etc. Perhaps you don't want that kind of discussion here in any case, and if you don't, that's fine. But that should be clear then, and the standard should be applied consistently.

Again, as stated previously, inconsistency should be expected. I don't read every message so there will be posts about which I know nothing. Even among the posts that I read, a lot is in the eye of the beholder. I may see a message much differently than others. If you are unsure, ask yourself how you will feel if you or your family and friends were to discover similar anonymous comments about yourself. If you would feel that it would be unfair and inappropriate, it probably is.

Anonymous wrote:Also, school heads are public figures. They understand that their performance is subject to critique, often through anonymous channels. The fact that school heads wield power in the community--which sometimes can be exercised improperly--is a confounding factor. Comparing people who post on this forum to someone who is a public figure seems markedly unfair.

I once made exactly the same argument to a head of school who was concerned about postings on this website. That individual argued that heads of schools are not public figures, but conceded the legitimacy of discussion of their performance. The result is my "I know it when I see it" standard.

If you aren't sure if you should post it, you probably shouldn't

I think he means back off. Just because we have opinions about school heads/principles etc... it is not nice to privately put up anything and everything IN YOUR OPINION, that could negatively hurt them. Saying general statements is one thing, typing out full names, events and so forth is another. They can not come on here against a bunch of private mommies who can say and do anything anonymously behind a screen on a keyboard. Show a little compassion.

I am creating a new topic with regard to the post below, which was posted by the Moderator Jeff, in connection with the SFS HoS discussion. While I think this is an important issue, I did not want to bog down/divert the discussion in that thread.

Here is what Jeff posted:

jsteele wrote:While I realize that this thread is about the Sidwell Head of School and everyone either knows or can easily find out the identity of the Sidwell Head of School, I would still appreciate your not using the name of the Sidwell Head of School or any other folks. Please keep in mind that you are not having a discussion with a couple of friends over a cup of tea, but posting messages that are immediately indexed by Google and available worldwide. As such, folks deserve a modicum of privacy. Topics such as an individual's reason for leaving, gossip about their performance, and/or their religion are not appropriate for anonymous discussion. If you would like to identify yourself, provide personal details, and allow the DCUM community to publicly evaluate your job performance, perhaps allowances can be made for your posts about others. But, short of that, please use some discretion.

In response, I suppose I have the following questions, though let me preface it by expressing my appreciation to you maintaining this forum. As a private forum, I recognize that you can maintain whatever standards you wish, and hope you take my questions with that as a baseline understanding. So:

What does "gossip about their performance" mean? Are you going to delete posts that candidly discuss and critique a Head's performance at his/her job? Are you going to delete them if we don't mention the Head by name? Does "an individual's reason for leaving" mean that we can't discus whether a prominent Head of School was fired?

Recognizing, again, that you are entitled to moderate this forum however you choose, I will say that your comment seems to be imposing a rather odd and constraining standard on matters of public interest to this community. Presumably, topics about school heads and their performance are more compelling and of interest to this community than are the hundreds of posts regarding application angst, etc. Perhaps you don't want that kind of discussion here in any case, and if you don't, that's fine. But that should be clear then, and the standard should be applied consistently.

Also, school heads are public figures. They understand that their performance is subject to critique, often through anonymous channels. The fact that school heads wield power in the community--which sometimes can be exercised improperly--is a confounding factor. Comparing people who post on this forum to someone who is a public figure seems markedly unfair.