Anonymous wrote:Doesn't sound it a little strange that Bendann would make a teenage boy run around naked in a heavily trafficked public park and the campus of a school that neither of them were affiliated with - a campus with a security force and cameras, adjacent to high volume athletic fields where school and local rec sports are happening day and night?

This kind of lurid claim seems unlikely to me

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the same person keeps posting that the administration knew he was spending the night with students. I’m not a Gilman parent but posting this is pretty gross. You are saying the administration knew he was sexually abusing kids while he was babysitting and did nothing? There is no proof yet. Many people use teachers to babysit and housesit. Most people would never even think a teacher would do something like this. Obviously now Gilman is changing its policy. But to insinuate that the parents that hired him to babysit, and the administration all knew is gross. I believe some adults may have know and hopefully they are found and fired or punished for it.

I'm one of the PP and it seems reductive and dismissive to suggest there is only one person responsible for the posts that cast gilman in a negative light.

Anonymous wrote:Too many emotions. Too many axes to grind. Too many people with biases against prominent institutions.

I reserve all judgment in absence of any meaningful evidence. I won't judge or castigate Gilman because there's no evidence of a cover up. I remember being a teen, both middle and upper schools, back in the 1990s and I know all the things that happened that kids never told teachers and teachers were often clueless. Nice and capable people who would never have been willing to cover up something like an abuse scandal. But kids are very capable of just not telling teachers anything. Don't you remember being a kid? I find it very plausible this Gilman teacher got away with his behavior for 15 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the same person keeps posting that the administration knew he was spending the night with students. I’m not a Gilman parent but posting this is pretty gross. You are saying the administration knew he was sexually abusing kids while he was babysitting and did nothing? There is no proof yet. Many people use teachers to babysit and housesit. Most people would never even think a teacher would do something like this. Obviously now Gilman is changing its policy. But to insinuate that the parents that hired him to babysit, and the administration all knew is gross. I believe some adults may have know and hopefully they are found and fired or punished for it.

I'm one of the PP and it seems reductive and dismissive to suggest there is only one person responsible for the posts that cast gilman in a negative light.

Nah you’re probably the one that keeps posting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the same person keeps posting that the administration knew he was spending the night with students. I’m not a Gilman parent but posting this is pretty gross. You are saying the administration knew he was sexually abusing kids while he was babysitting and did nothing? There is no proof yet. Many people use teachers to babysit and housesit. Most people would never even think a teacher would do something like this. Obviously now Gilman is changing its policy. But to insinuate that the parents that hired him to babysit, and the administration all knew is gross. I believe some adults may have know and hopefully they are found and fired or punished for it.

I'm one of the PP and it seems reductive and dismissive to suggest there is only one person responsible for the posts that cast gilman in a negative light.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the same person keeps posting that the administration knew he was spending the night with students. I’m not a Gilman parent but posting this is pretty gross. You are saying the administration knew he was sexually abusing kids while he was babysitting and did nothing? There is no proof yet. Many people use teachers to babysit and housesit. Most people would never even think a teacher would do something like this. Obviously now Gilman is changing its policy. But to insinuate that the parents that hired him to babysit, and the administration all knew is gross. I believe some adults may have know and hopefully they are found and fired or punished for it.

Anonymous wrote:I acknowledge that this crap happens everywhere, literally everywhere. But I also think that schools can become so cultish and insular that reporting it, and sending a beloved member of the staff (and he was beloved and celebrated by many years of middle schoolers) to prison, becomes problematic.
Let's make schools less "cultish" and crap like this will be reported more freely. They only indoctrinate to ensure alumni donations anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To whom it may concern:
Please shut-up with the “it can happen anywhere” garbage. What has been happening at Gilman, happens only where school administration chooses to allow rumors of abuse/rape to go unreported to the police department. Schools have a LEGAL obligation to report POSSIBLE abuse of students. It’s NOT the school’s job to determine if a rumor has merit or not.

Gilman does not have trained investigators on its payroll. Gilman should have reported to police the FIRST rumor of their students getting alcohol from a teacher. They broke the law right there. Of course no one will be held accountable for their silence.

Who cares that the perpetrator was a former student, or that his father is well liked in the community? Apparently, administrators cared a lot about protecting the ongoing sexual abuse of its students. Someone (besides the rapist teacher) MUST be held accountable for this atrocity perpetrated on these young boys. Victims of sexual abuse typically need years and years of very high quality therapy. The police are begging other victims to please come forward. We all know, however, that most victims choose not to speak of their abuse. It’s just to painful and not worth the ordeal of going public with this sort of thing. May God give them strength. My heart breaks for what they endured.

There were not previous rumors of abuse/rape.

That you know of - the point is the school may have known or suspected inappropriate conduct at the very least with the drinking and close relationships. Enough to put a stop to it.

Exactly. Why would anyone admit to knowing about rumors of “beloved” teacher criminal activities?

Because it is a business and the administration has no interest protecting him -- unless his family is paying a big chunk of the school bills. He does not look like he has millions per year for the school.

Perhaps check out his father who was a very active board member for quite a while. You do not know why the administration may have been looking the other way. Men who volunteer to babysit school children are a huge red flag. Most people know that.

I agree that school teachers should not be allowed to work for parents outside school. It is just not fair for other kids whose parents don't have the kind of money. The appearance of favoritism is damaging enough.

The bigger problem is the teacher raping students, don’t you think? That’s what this thread is about. And why it happened.

Allowing the outside babysitting, tutoring, etc. enables opportunities to target kids for grooming. It’s about further limiting the chances for inappropriate contact and illegal conduct. Schools that have such a policy prohibiting it know it’s a liability to allow that type of arrangement outside school. It’s absolutely relevant and appropriate for this conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To whom it may concern:
Please shut-up with the “it can happen anywhere” garbage. What has been happening at Gilman, happens only where school administration chooses to allow rumors of abuse/rape to go unreported to the police department. Schools have a LEGAL obligation to report POSSIBLE abuse of students. It’s NOT the school’s job to determine if a rumor has merit or not.

Gilman does not have trained investigators on its payroll. Gilman should have reported to police the FIRST rumor of their students getting alcohol from a teacher. They broke the law right there. Of course no one will be held accountable for their silence.

Who cares that the perpetrator was a former student, or that his father is well liked in the community? Apparently, administrators cared a lot about protecting the ongoing sexual abuse of its students. Someone (besides the rapist teacher) MUST be held accountable for this atrocity perpetrated on these young boys. Victims of sexual abuse typically need years and years of very high quality therapy. The police are begging other victims to please come forward. We all know, however, that most victims choose not to speak of their abuse. It’s just to painful and not worth the ordeal of going public with this sort of thing. May God give them strength. My heart breaks for what they endured.

There were not previous rumors of abuse/rape.

That you know of - the point is the school may have known or suspected inappropriate conduct at the very least with the drinking and close relationships. Enough to put a stop to it.

Exactly. Why would anyone admit to knowing about rumors of “beloved” teacher criminal activities?

Because it is a business and the administration has no interest protecting him -- unless his family is paying a big chunk of the school bills. He does not look like he has millions per year for the school.

Perhaps check out his father who was a very active board member for quite a while. You do not know why the administration may have been looking the other way. Men who volunteer to babysit school children are a huge red flag. Most people know that.

I agree that school teachers should not be allowed to work for parents outside school. It is just not fair for other kids whose parents don't have the kind of money. The appearance of favoritism is damaging enough.

The bigger problem is the teacher raping students, don’t you think? That’s what this thread is about. And why it happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To whom it may concern:
Please shut-up with the “it can happen anywhere” garbage. What has been happening at Gilman, happens only where school administration chooses to allow rumors of abuse/rape to go unreported to the police department. Schools have a LEGAL obligation to report POSSIBLE abuse of students. It’s NOT the school’s job to determine if a rumor has merit or not.

Gilman does not have trained investigators on its payroll. Gilman should have reported to police the FIRST rumor of their students getting alcohol from a teacher. They broke the law right there. Of course no one will be held accountable for their silence.

Who cares that the perpetrator was a former student, or that his father is well liked in the community? Apparently, administrators cared a lot about protecting the ongoing sexual abuse of its students. Someone (besides the rapist teacher) MUST be held accountable for this atrocity perpetrated on these young boys. Victims of sexual abuse typically need years and years of very high quality therapy. The police are begging other victims to please come forward. We all know, however, that most victims choose not to speak of their abuse. It’s just to painful and not worth the ordeal of going public with this sort of thing. May God give them strength. My heart breaks for what they endured.

There were not previous rumors of abuse/rape.

That you know of - the point is the school may have known or suspected inappropriate conduct at the very least with the drinking and close relationships. Enough to put a stop to it.

Exactly. Why would anyone admit to knowing about rumors of “beloved” teacher criminal activities?

Because it is a business and the administration has no interest protecting him -- unless his family is paying a big chunk of the school bills. He does not look like he has millions per year for the school.

Perhaps check out his father who was a very active board member for quite a while. You do not know why the administration may have been looking the other way. Men who volunteer to babysit school children are a huge red flag. Most people know that.

I agree that school teachers should not be allowed to work for parents outside school. It is just not fair for other kids whose parents don't have the kind of money. The appearance of favoritism is damaging enough.