Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe this....wow does this ever change my opinion of Sidwell.

I guarantee that while your opinion has changed, there is a multitude that will jump at the chance to take your place on the waiting list or your acceptance spot. While this may be an embarrassment for NOW, I guarantee it will pass, and Sidwell's application pool will not decrease and the sun will rise tomorrow.

Probably true. Only in NW Washington would parent fight to get their kids in a school with a track record of sexual predators that would make the Catholic Church blush.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the last sentence of this article. Unbelievable. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/education/13sidwell.html?_r=0

The part about "daddy's girlfriend"? Or the part in the erratum at the end, where "there" is used as the object of a preposition?

How would you correct the sentence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe this....wow does this ever change my opinion of Sidwell.

I guarantee that while your opinion has changed, there is a multitude that will jump at the chance to take your place on the waiting list or your acceptance spot. While this may be an embarrassment for NOW, I guarantee it will pass, and Sidwell's application pool will not decrease and the sun will rise tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That whole thing is like a DCUM farce thread.

Multiple houses in DC, Florida and Maine? Husband 20 years older than unfaithful wife? And this gem: "Though Newmyer was an alumnus and a financial supporter of the school, he didn’t think the school would challenge his daughter. According to court documents, he was concerned she would be bored and “lose her advanced learning abilities at a young age.”"

And the school actually sent somebody to his house to evaluate her "advanced abilities"?

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe this....wow does this ever change my opinion of Sidwell.

Anonymous wrote:Liza Himmelman went to Burke...used to be on the Board there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think that Sidwell isn't settling?

Their lawyers probably told them this would never get to trial. Lots of reasons: because of a "mandatory" arbitration clause or because the plaintiff would never subject his family to that publicity or because Sidwell doesn't want to cave to a disgruntled parent--on any grounds and set unhelpful precedent. Take your pick.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know I am torn. He is mad and has every right to be mad..his daughter was put in a very compromising position and the fact he has custody now says a lot. Sidwell owes him big time...they should pay and apologize and I am thinking they were very casual about it. Big mistake. They should have taken this seriously from start..investigated and fired the school shrink asap--what was the shrink over the home evaluating brilliance anyway..that a lone I would fire. What I think is awful is his dragging the Woodward family into this..what did they ever do to him..that was terrible. Gosh I think they may have reason to sue the school themselves. Good thing this girl is being raised elsewhere..she has a shot to not allow this to affect her. FWIW..I still think it's a great school..I do but hopefully the school fixes this asap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plaintiff seems like a vindictive bastard, whose primary goal is to trash the everyone involved, so maybe quiet settlement was not a viable option. If that's how it's going down, then as a private school parent, I'd want my school to fight rather than cave in to that kind of trash.

Yes, this seems to be more about his perception that they made a fool of him than about actual harm, given that Sidwell fired the employee (and I assume he's been sanctioned and/or lost his license).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plaintiff seems like a vindictive bastard, whose primary goal is to trash the everyone involved, so maybe quiet settlement was not a viable option. If that's how it's going down, then as a private school parent, I'd want my school to fight rather than cave in to that kind of trash.

This guy is far from trash. Vindictive - sure. But the family is very well-known, especially at Sidwell and in upper-crust DC circles, and very well-regarded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the last sentence of this article. Unbelievable. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/education/13sidwell.html?_r=0

The part about "daddy's girlfriend"? Or the part in the erratum at the end, where "there" is used as the object of a preposition?

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it:two consenting adults had sex, bad judgement and put themselves before their children. Absentee father gets pissed and sues. Girl goes from outgoing to quiet but her parents live in different places and are divorcing and her mother is having an affair. Who wouldn't? But this is not a scandal. What is scandalous is that the father is willing to drag the mother of his children and his children through the mud for revenge.

And I'm not sure that the ex wife comes out smelling like roses either. Who knows why she told the husband. She was already divorced. They are all fucked up.