UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM EXETER LEADERSHIP WEEKEND - PART I: FUZZY ACCOUNTING

Missed opportunities?

Exeter Leadership Weekend (ELW) for 2019 has come and gone! Unfortunately, I was not able to be on hand this year. I live 12,500km away from Exeter. As yet, the Academy does not provide the telepresence options that have become common elsewhere. So it is challenging for me to drop in for the session.

The morning assembly is an extraordinary opportunity for alumni and parents. Typically, they can put their questions to the Principal, President of the Trustees and Chief Financial Officer in an open "town hall" setting. Often, there are more questions than the 90-minute session permits. So, until leadership deems it important to make sure to allow questions from all quarters, it's important to do your homework. Then, if you grab a front seat, you might get a chance to pierce the veil that shrouds the opaque leadership.

 Also, understanding that many become swept away in the conviviality of the festivities, often including the dinner with the senior class the night before, being properly prepared for the session may be a challenge for some.

That seems to have been the case with this year's lackluster participation. Nothing too probing or challenging, from what I've heard. That's a shame given how many problematic things are percolating. Out of sight, out of mind does not mean out of trouble.

So how can we improve this? What if we altered the format to foster better communications? One possibility: make the focus  a probling one-on-one interview before the audience, then open it to questions.

Now, cast into the role of inquisitive, informed interviewer, let's explore the questions I'd pose. In fact, some have been sent to leadership before. Inexplicably, they have gone unanswered. The importance of getting their responses, I trust, will be self-evident.

I see that Tony Downer, the President of the Trustees, wasn't on the schedule this year. Pity. So, let's start out with a question first sent last year to CFO Marijka Beauchesne (see full email exchange here).

Question 1: 

In his Deed of Gift, John Phillips stipulated full, complete financial transparency as an essential element of Academy governance. It provides one of the few checks on the Trustee's otherwise carte blanche authority. As such, it is essential for ensuring accountability.

As he states clearly and unequivocally:

...(the Clerk) shall keep a fair record of every donation, with the name of each benefactor; of the purpose, if expressed, to which it is constitutionally appropriated, and of all expenditures of them; and a true copy of the whole shall be taken and kept in the Academy, to be open for the perusal of all...

John Phillips: a visionary for financial transparency & accountability

For some time, the Trustees have abandoned this. Instead of providing access to "all expenditures," this has been restricted to broad categories of disclosure. With this, the requisite accountability is missing.

Of course, standard accounting procedures are guided by "materiality." You don't include the pencil count in a multimillion-dollar budget. That may apply to other institutions. But this is Exeter, and the Deed of Gift is specific. More important, details material to providing accountability for the school's leadership are now apparently absent.

So, please describe the process and procedure where you determine the level of "granularity" you afford for our perusal?

Question 2: 

As a follow-up for Principal Rawson or any of the Trustees present:

Is the Academy to have the transparent accounting stipulated by John Phillips in the Deed of Gift, or the fuzzy accounting that seems to be the current practice? 

***

Let me further explain why this point is so essential. The Trustees are already protected from any
personal liability by a provision in the bylaws. So their only exposure?  Embarrassment for their mismanagement. What their fuzzy accounting provides is the ability to ensure that never happens. They can grossly mismanage and when those harmed come calling? They have the Academy's money to buy silence. Since no one get to look closely at the books, there's no consequence - for the trustees, anyway. What the victims suffer, well....

His vision in the shadow 

Recently, the place of NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) in systematically enabling sexual abuse has come clear.  With Exeter, a key provision in the various settlements I've seen is that they require the recipient to NEVER disclose the amounts. They're not silenced altogether - just kept from disclosing the amount of money spent to settle it out-of-court. So why should this be the Academy's #1 concern?  I suspect that if the larger community were to know, we'd see senior administrators and trustees held to account for their mismanagement. 

In other words, it would confirm John Phillips' wisdom in stipulating complete financial transparency.

Once you read the Deed of Gift closely to understand how the dynamics of the school's governance was intended - and has been distorted - the desperate need for governance reform is unmistakable. This is just the kind of thing that an authentic, intentional Interim Principal might have accomplished. What are the possibilities for this with the current regime?

We will explore that soon - but first some more questions that would have made for a more memorable ELW!

 ###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.

OUTSTANDING IOUs - PART I: RAWSON'S REPORT

Change of season coming to campus

It seems incredible. It's three years since the scandal over faculty misconduct erupted. Now, we seem
to be moving away from, not towards, resolution. 

The school year ended with a student protest about the school's handling of sexual assault. Meanwhile, the Rawson Administration's relationship with PATH, the school's officially sanctioned alumni sexual assault survivor group, has collapsed. Why? A "betrayal of good faith."

So where does that leave us now on the eve of Opening Assembly?

Over the summer, Principal Rawson attempted to come to some resolution with PATH. In the process, he gave an IOU that casts a shadow over tomorrow's event, what should be an occasion of unqualified celebration. Here's his as-yet unfulfilled promise made in his letter to PATH on July 8:

We are working hard to complete our process of reviewing administrator actions in response to past cases. We expect to complete the work this summer, and when we do, we will report back to you with a further description of our work.

While we continue to wait, can we at least be clear about what it is we're waiting for? 

Unfortunately, Rawson's signature style leaves uncertainty over what, exactly, he's promised. Will senior administrators - including past Principals - be held accountable? What of trustees who may have signed off on misconduct and mismanagement? Most immediately, as a practical matter, should all the emeriti faculty who gather on stage for Opening Assembly be allowed the honor? 

That there's any question at this late date over such basic things says a great deal about the Academy's current leadership.

(Editorial note:  a bit of explanation for non-Exonian readers. Opening Assembly, marking the start of classes, is the occasion to introduce new faculty and to honor the retired. One of the responses to faculty connected to problematic conduct has been to remove their emeriti status and so to bar them from participating in Opening Assembly.)

Delays & Doubts 

Let's look more closely at what Rawson promised while putting it in the context of previous actions.

Rawson admits "... we have not moved as quickly as we had hoped to complete this important work (of reviewing administrator conduct)." But, he says, this is reasonable:

We have purposefully taken a principled and deliberate approach to this review of past actions. As we have previously stated, we believe it is appropriate to distinguish between situations where the fault, if any, lies primarily with the individual, and where the fault lies at an institutional level because of a failure to have clear policies and protocols or a failure to provide proper guidance or training.

That being said, he suggests it's best to have minimal expectations for when they "complete this important work":

We have also noted that we do not ordinarily share publicly individual employee disciplinary decisions, and so cannot commit to transparency at that level. Those disciplinary decisions, when appropriate, must be determined in light of an employee’s entire performance, including past handling of any other incidents of sexual misconduct. 

So, doing this right takes time. Rawson tries to make it seem like this task was just handed to him. But now with three years gone since the scandal broke, it's hard to believe that no one has considered this till recently.

At what point is this "principled and deliberate approach" shown to be something else? A close look at the record of my communications with senior Academy leadership is instructive.

Administrative accountability was top-of-mind in my communications with leadership in 2016. First, in private communications, then publicly in the piece I had published in the Portsmouth Herald on September 22, 2016, the eve of Exeter Leadership Weekend:

But what of dealing with past misdeeds? What of clearing the demoralizing culture that tacitly condones misconduct? What of restoring the institution’s integrity?

These require truth and reconciliation.

For truth, too often the “independent” investigations conducted at these schools are fundamentally flawed. The leadership coming under scrutiny hires the investigators. They also get to decide what findings are released. This makes it easy to get tough on a few bad apples while ignoring endemic structural problems. In this arrangement, a day of reckoning for trustees and administrators who tolerated malfeasance seems unlikely. 

I had hoped for something better from PEA. I sent this to Principal MacFarlane and other leadership. No reply.

That was nearly three years ago. And leadership is still "reviewing administrator actions"?

Let's call this strike one.

Downer: a swing and a miss

Tony Downer, the soon-to-be-departing President of the Trustees had the next go at-bat. Beginning in August, 2017, I engaged him in a lengthy email exchange on administrative accountability in general - and Principals Kendra O'Donnell and Tom Hassan in particular. Much of what seemed scandalous in 2016 was known - or should have been known - nearly 25 years earlier. Why wasn't all this  cleaned up after the last sex scandal?

Should this portrait remain on display?

Downer valiantly avoided dealing with "administrator actions in regard to past cases." Instead, he offered his excitement over recently implemented changes. So I pressed him:

It may be the position of the Academy that administrators and trustees past and present will not be held accountable for malfeasance under any circumstances. If that is the case here, please say so explicitly. If it is not so, please detail the process to determine responsibility and bring accountability for O'Donnell, Hassan and possibly others. 

I reiterated the urgency of my request. An important decision was necessary:

Once again, these former Principals may be honored at opening assembly this week. Is this appropriate at this time?

Downer failed to either admit that leadership gets a free pass, or to say that they didn't.

Strike two.

Rawson steps up to the plate 

Then, on August 21st, 2018, I gave Interim Principal Rawson a chance to establish his leadership here. With Opening Assembly two weeks away, I directed him to my previous correspondence:

I raised the issue in some detail with Tony Downer a year ago. As a practical matter, should Kendra O'Donnell and Tom Hassan be allowed to be honored as emeriti faculty at the upcoming opening assembly?

(note: this was one of three areas of concern in my communication. The other two were over Rawson's still-undisclosed actions as trustee and issues with what were the soon-to-be-forthcoming disclosures from Holland & Knight)

How did Rawson respond?

He didn't.

So I followed up, resending the email on Tuesday, September 4th, along with the documents referenced. His same-day response was - interesting:

What exactly did he say? Maybe he responded and, somehow, it got lost along the way? If so, easy enough for him to resend, right?

But that isn't what he said. He didn't respond - he only, mysteriously, thought he had. Somehow, he was so confused as to think that he had answered a lengthy, pointed inquiry about himself and other Academy leaders.  

Apparently, it was not possible for him to respond before Opening Assembly. There, I got what seemed to be a clear answer as to whether Principal O'Donnell would be held accountable. This short clip spells it out: 

I was set to make a special trip from my home in South Africa to attend Exeter Leadership Weekend soon after. But witnessing the spectacle of Opening Assembly, I cancelled my flights. 

The week after, Rawson finally responded to my email. 

Sort of. 

He asserted that he'd read the documentation sent (including the previous correspondence with Downer). Rather than send a written reply as he'd been under the "mistaken impression" he'd done before, he invited me in to meet with him during Exeter Leadership Weekend.

My response?

Dear Bill,

I was surprised to receive your email. Quite honestly, I thought you had already communicated a clear, concise and unequivocal response to my concerns at Opening Assembly (link to video above).

I'm not sure I can adequately express how I felt witnessing this spectacle. As to whether the Academy will be holding faculty, administrators and Trustees accountable for enabling abuse - forgive me for saying so, but you may as well have brought Bobbie Thompson on stage to give an opening prayer.

I do want to thank you for your significant investment reviewing the materials sent and for your generous offer to find an opportunity to meet during ELW. I hope you can appreciate why it is appropriate for me to decline your offer at this time. Instead, it is necessary that we have a larger discussion that engages the full board.

For that reason, I have copied them here... 

In my note to the trustees, I simply asked them to either endorse or reject the actions of previous leadership. I received no reply whatsoever from any trustee. Whatever discussion of accountability that may have happened - if any - did not include me.

I sent that email to Rawson on September 15 last year. And the current administration is still "reviewing administrator actions."

Again, at what point is Rawson's "principled and deliberate approach" shown to be something else?

 

***

Next up - another outstanding IOU from the trustee's Committee on Trustees. 

After the Choate/Hall investigation in March, 2017 revealed flawed governance as a root cause for the Schubart scandal, they were tasked with reviewing governance. Their first missive on this came out in May, 2018. Guess what? No significant problems here!

Still, they had a few things outstanding to fulfill the earlier promise. What remains? A look at "the role that the trustees play within Exeter's system of governance and the relationship between trustees, administrators, and faculty." They issued that IOU some 15 months ago.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid

THE PATH/PEA DEADLOCK: PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE

Cutting the Gordian Knot

There's a deadlock between Phillips Exeter Alumni for Truth and Healing (PATH), the alumni survivor group, and the Academy, led by Principal Bill Rawson and trustee President Tony Downer. This is a struggle over the heart and soul of the institution. How this plays out will determine the future of the school in the near-and-mid term. In the long run, PATH's philosophy and ethics will prevail. Why postpone it?

Exeter Unafraid started in May in response to two events: a campus protest over the school's handling of sexual assault cases and a breakdown in the school's relationship with PATH. (See my relationship with PATH in this link here - we operate completely separately. I support their work, but have a different focus and objective.)

Now, there's an update - additional dialogue between Exeter and PATH. It's essential to arrive at an understanding of what their differences are, and why they are likely irrevocable.

Take my view for what it is. I encourage those who recognize the importance of this standoff to explore this in-depth to form their own view based on the primary sources. For that reason, I have constructed a chronology of their communications with links to the original documents below.

Much said but little movement 

Since this exchange of letters began last September, PATH and the Academy have traded a total of eight letters (plus two ancillary emails). The amount of effort and expense invested in these, all likely put through close legal review on each side, is enormous. Just for curiosity, I tallied the word count. PATH's correspondence adds up to 3,178 words, PEA's 5,376. It's a considerable effort just to read through these attentively.

After all this, these parties are no closer than when they started. How can that be? Each operate in a fundamentally different paradigm. The Academy's perspective seems completely defined by a consumerist worldview that operates within legal and financial constructs. From that interpretive framework, PATH's interests in Truth and Reconciliation and restorative justice are incomprehensible. This accounts for why the Academy continuously revictimizes those it is supposedly trying to help. They seem to not understand the full dimensions of their actions.

If this hypothesis is correct, further dialogue will likely prove unconstructive. Then, it will collapse into a struggle of wills where one side will be forced to capitulate. Under normal circumstances, that would be PATH. They would find themselves suffering yet another experience of disempowerment. For some reason, Academy officials don't understand that disempowerment is what lies at heart of the injury here. Coercing survivors to any settlement or scheme for arriving at settlements simply doubles down on their disempowerment.

Now, the unusual situation at Exeter levels the playing field giving PATH good reason to stand its ground. Trustee President Downer is stepping down at the end of the coming school year. If Principal Bill Rawson manages to survive much longer, it will be a surprise. This afford important opportunities.

Downer: on his way out

Choosing Downer's replacement should not be carried out in the board's usual opaque and unaccountable fashion. This changing of the guard is an opportune moment to press for reform: create a democratic process for selecting trustee leadership (See call for independent task force on governance submitted to Committee on Governance, February 2018). The trustees should candidate for the presidency, and the alumni would take their pick. Isn't that more in keeping with the school's "Harkness Philosophy" than the current secret society style?

Having a trustee President who champions sexual assault survivor rights would make for a very different situation.

Next, Bill Rawson's tenure as Principal is likely to be short-lived. His background as a petrochemical and pesticide attorney, the questionable way he was installed, as well as issues surrounding his as-yet undisclosed activities as trustee will prove problematic. There will be concerns, too, about his failure as Principal to properly resolve the accountability issues for sexual assault response - if he is unable to come to terms with PATH.

It seems likely that Rawson's major task this coming year is launching a major fundraising campaign. Such a campaign could be subject to alumni boycott until the above issues are appropriately resolved, perhaps forcing his resignation. Should Rawson exit early, that would make for three Principals in a row departing under a cloud. The board would find it hard to ignore the need for a genuine "intentional interim" to clean house, reform governance and to embrace an authentic Truth and Reconciliation process.

For all this, the outcome of a PATH/PEA deadlock is anyone's guess. But the future of the school may lie in the balance. 

*** 

Overview of PATH/PEA correspondence: 

Here are the latest developments.

PATH announced the collapse in the relationship on May 14th, just before the end of the school year. This was due to what they deemed "a betrayal of good faith" by the school.

Principal Rawson replied two weeks ago, on July 8. An excerpt:

Our aim in each mediation is to arrive at an agreement that is fair and reasonable. We understand that parties may disagree about what that means. Even a non-adversarial mediation can become or be experienced as contentious, but we remain committed to the mediation process and hope it will serve its intended purposes.

Now PATH has responded, essentially inviting the Academy to be part of an emerging consciousness about these issues:

Exeter has an opportunity to stand out as visionary in the cultural dialog around sexual trauma and rape culture. Exeter must demonstrate the seriousness with which it takes sexual misconduct through its action, not merely its words....Exeter’s duty to its students is not merely legal, it is moral and quasi-parental. In short, Exeter cannot be a moral institution that fulfills its responsibility to care for the children over whom it has accepted in loco parentis while relying on legal defenses to the harm it caused to some of those children.

The bottom line? Rawson has essentially doubled-down on his previous position, and PATH responded accordingly. With this, Exeter and PATH remain at loggerheads.

The Full Correspondence: 

Here's a recap of how we got to this place in a long, arduous process. What set this in motion was last year's release of the results of Holland & Knight's (H&K) "independent investigation."

H&K's work was highly unusual even before it was completed. While the typical investigation of this nature takes 7-10 months, this took nearly 30. When finally finished, the school released it online on a Friday afternoon late last August. There was no follow-up. The community never had an opportunity to ask questions of the investigation(s) authors. Despite significant sums invested in this, there were no scheduled forums for discussion at the annual alumni leadership weekend (ELW) that took place in the weeks after.

More telling, H&K's work focused almost exclusively on adult misconduct. Peer sexual assault, the cause of the current campus protests, was largely relegated to the Academy attorneys at Nixon-Peabody. Both produced limited reports on their work. Actually, what the Academy released was an "overview" of H&K's findings (see my in-depth analysis published soon after its release, "Where the Phillips Exeter Report Fell Short," Portsmouth Herald, 9/22/2018).

The PATH/PEA dialogue begins with PATH's critique of H&K's work, "Petition for Renewed Investigation of Sexual Misconduct at PEA." It was more than a request for additions or emendations. It called for a complete do-over: 

Exeter’s stated values, including that of non sibi, mandate that PEA finally acknowledge its history of both sexual misconduct and the mishandling of student allegations. A truly independent, transparent and accountable report is essential to not only reconcile past failures, but also to assure current and future parents that PEA deserves their in loco parentis trust.

This was released on the eve of the annual ELW gathering. Some 400 alumni quickly signed on (an additional 200 students added their signatures in the wake of the recent campus protest). This was a significant break with PEA - and made the news.

Immediately after, Rawson sent an email to Academy employees dismissing PATH's critique:

We believe PATH’s letter reflects some misunderstandings regarding the investigations
that were conducted, and the Academy’s response to what it learned from those
investigations.

 A few days later, he responded to PATH directly. He issued a lengthy promissory note that said he would soon be responding to the criticisms in detail. Core to this is what is essentially a direct refutation of PATH's most strident claim - that the Academy has acted in bad faith:

At no point during my tenure as interim principal will the school take action designed to protect the reputation of the school at the expense of victims, survivors or anyone else, even accused. I don’t think that way. Nor do my colleagues. We will engage in principled decision-making, consistent with the values of our school, and endeavor always to act with compassion and understanding.

That message, along with his promise for a full response, came on September 30th. Rawson demonstrated his priorities by his response time. His detailed reply arrived some four-and-a-half months later, on February 13. It was detailed, running some 2,800 words - more than twice PATH's original petition. In it, he essentially reiterates much of what he said before, adding particular responses to PATH criticisms. The upshot? 

We believe many of our disagreements with the PATH recommendations, which we explain in this letter, are due largely to misunderstandings of fact, which perhaps we could have avoided through clearer communication...we do not believe it is necessary or would be appropriate to repeat any portion of the Holland & Knight investigation.

On March 4th, PATH answered with a new concern via email. Because of the extraordinary length of the "independent investigation" and now Rawson's slow reply, the statute of limitations on legal claims was running out for some. These time constraints would have to be set aside before anything else could be discussed. They also repeated their good will - with qualifications.

We hope to reengage with collaboration directly with the decision makers of Exeter, but we are not willing to have disconnected discussions that lead to no substantial outcomes. Many survivor groups are looking to our work, and we hear other school administrations have contacted Exeter as well to hear more about our collaborative effort.

On March 23rd, Rawson responded to the email saying that concerns over the statute of limitations were "individual issues that need to be addressed in each confidential mediation." That being said, he offered general assurances:

...no claim will be rejected from this process solely because the statute of limitations has expired. This does not mean that the statute of limitations is not relevant. We are not waiving the defense of the statute of limitations. We will consider the statute of limitations as a factor while we work to achieve a fair and reasonable resolution to any claim.

In actuality, this suggests that PEA reserves the right to veto any settlement past the statute of limitations. That creates an uneven playing field for mediation.

With this, the gloves came off. On May 14th, PATH said this was "a betrayal of good faith." The statute of limitations issue loomed large in their reasoning:

...Exeter seemingly abandoned the Mediation Process and backtracked on the spirit behind it. Whereas there was once an expressed mutual understanding that sexual harm does not have an expiration date, that has fallen by the wayside.

This break was newsworthy - and the Associated Press took notice.

That brings us back to where we started - Rawson's response earlier this month and its rejection. His letter largely restates his position. What's troubling is what seems to be his misread of the situation. This isn't simply a disagreement over sums and settlements.

One interesting addition he makes is a time frame to fulfill a longstanding promise:

We are working hard to complete our process of reviewing administrator actions in response to past cases. We expect to complete the work this summer, and when we do, we will report back to you with a further description of our work.

Rawson closes by denying PATH's most damning allegation. "We have approached our work with you in the utmost good faith, and we commit to continuing to do so."

PATH's response takes Rawson to task:

Exeter cannot make public pronouncements about its purported understanding of the long term nature of sexual trauma while using this technical legal defense to diminish the claims of survivors. In pursuing mediations actively using the SOL (Statute of Limitations) defense to diminish survivors, Exeter compounds the trauma that its failings in the past caused.

Beyond this specific issue, they reiterate the larger issues. What does this say about the school's integrity?

PATH also urges Exeter to make more concrete movement towards a process that embodies truth and reconciliation.... This would serve not only those who have experienced harm, but the entire Exeter community. The way in which Exeter treats survivors of harm- both past and present- directly informs current culture. We cannot move forward together until we fully address the past.

At this point, it's hard to see how PATH and PEA can amicably move past such an impasse.

CLOSING NOTE: 

An opportunities for PEA to show good faith 

There is one obvious opportunity for Rawson to demonstrate good faith. This will be in how he fulfills his promise of providing a full report of his "reviewing administrator actions in response to past cases." 

It may be this will be handled like last year's investigations - sketchy details dumped into the memory hole late on a Friday in late August. That will prove problematic for his pledge for "principled decision-making, consistent with the values of our school, and endeavor(ing) always to act with compassion and understanding."

What would it look like for him to be forthright, acting in good faith?

Any reasonable "process of reviewing administrator actions in response to past cases" will have to address the investigations H&K performed into:

..two matters (that) involved allegations that PEA and certain of its employees failed to respond properly to certain events on campus, some involving sexual assault, and some involving other student health and safety issues. (see H&K overview, page 1)

The findings?

Holland & Knight determined that in a number of situations PEA employees failed in their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner. (See H&K overview, page 3)

This would, of necessity, require the release of H&K's full, unredacted findings detailing where "PEA employees failed."

That, and accepting PATH's request for PEA to drop any claim to the statute of limitations would make Rawson's claims to be operating in good faith credible.

BONUS: My opinion piece "Moral model needed to heal prep school sex assault" published almost three years ago for ELW 2016. So much of this was laid at the Academy's doorstep then.Why was it ignored?

### 

Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.

FLAWED GOVERNANCE EXPOSED - AND SUPPRESSED - IN 1994

Disgruntled malcontents attacking the administration

Apropos the 4th of July, what to do when the duly designated authorities don't do the right thing?

Recap:

During 1993-1994, I'd been trying to bring attention a colleague's conduct. I trusted the Dean of Faculty to do a thorough investigation. As I explained to him:

..if there is any basis to my charges, then this sorrowful episode demonstrates - at the very least - the Academy's inability to respond adequately to perpetrators of sexual misconduct and/or violence. Because of this, I suspect that the institution is unable to guarantee a safe environment for both faculty and students alike. What have we learned from this experience to prevent it occurring again?

After many months, the Dean had only done what seemed to be a cursory examination of the situation. This did not match the gravity of my allegations. After pressing him repeatedly, I finally sought to hold him accountable for dereliction of duty. The Principal's response?

I appreciate your loyalty to the Academy, and I take your expressed concerns very seriously...You will need to take my word on faith that after my review of the situations of concern to you, I believe that appropriate actions were taken.

Then, my final appeal to the President of the Board went unanswered:

...Are my charges legitimate or not? Don't I have a right to a direct answer? If not, why not? Don't you agree that leaving this unsettled settles nothing? 

At the same time, I'd sent a call for a code of conduct to the entire faculty. After that was ignored, I took a parting shot that proved prescient. An article in The Bulletin, the school's alumni quarterly magazine, described the school's governance. I submitted a letter to the editor revealing a structural flaw. As one senior colleague had explained to me, "All the Trustees know is what they get from the principal's reports. It's too bad that the school they think they work for is not the school they work for."

Where we left off:

So, I submitted a letter to the editor. It was rejected. What can be gleaned from that? As it happened, it created a paper trail through a series of communications from September 1994 to January 1995. An internal document connects this to a central figure in the recent scandal. 

The upshot?

This governance flaw, unaddressed, continued to hamper trustee oversight for more than two decades. It seems to have been a root cause of the recent failures as revealed in the Choate/Hall investigation in 2017. This, I would later argue with the current board president, raises questions of accountability. Should those responsible continue to be honored as emeriti faculty?

At what point are those who engage in neglect or acts of omission (or commission) subject to formal sanction by the Academy? In this case, their active efforts to suppress knowledge of the problem should demand a higher degree of accountability. 

The Documentary Evidence:

The Principal's in-house copy

There's more than just my letter to the editor. It set in motion an exchange of letters and phone calls between myself and David Johnson, the Academy's Communications Director. Then, Harold Brown in Alumni Relations inadvertently fueled the fire. Finally, Principal Kendra O'Donnell closes it out.  

I received my rejection via a phone conversation with Johnson. He told me the editorial board had arrived at this decision independent of him. Of course, I could understand the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the editorial board. 

All else being equal, this would have been the end of it. Except, soon after, I happened to have a conversation with Brown on another subject. As it turned out, he knew something about my letter. He told me that "others outside the editorial board" were part of the decision to reject it. This contradicted what I had been told. So I wrote Johnson, asking for the details in writing. On reflection, I had a fresh question about the wholesale rejection. "You said that the professional writer/editor on the board, Ms. Gotschall, had corrected my text for publication. Am I to understand that despite her able efforts, it was beyond reprieve?" 

When I wrote Johnson, I copied the trustees, too, enclosing the rejected letter. Now, all senior leadership knew or should have known about the governance problem. 

Brown apparently sought out Johnson after our conversation. Johnson soon wrote me about this. Our letters crossed. His contains no mention of outside intervention. Instead, he offers fresh explanations. He said "...the BULLETIN was not an appropriate medium to discuss internal management issues.." which is odd because the cover feature I was responding to was on internal management issues. Also, my submission was incomprehensible for lack of necessary context. "...Your prior history of letters attacking the administration would be unknown to readers of the BULLETIN."

There's two points to consider about this last assertion. First, had I been "attacking the administration"?

As I've suggested before, this could be a misread typical to the Academy's culture. Even innocuous criticism - pointing out minor matters addressed in day-to-day operations - seemed to be categorized as hostile. Now, at this remove, my call for a code of conduct - finally answered 22 years later - was obviously something other than "attacking the administration." 

The other issue here is - was it impossible to rework my letter to alert the Academy community about a critical issue? That seems absurd. So why would anyone want to suppress awareness of a governance problem? 

Johnson's letter ignores the issue of outside intervention in the editorial board's decision. But for some reason, my employee file includes an alternate version. It's an in-house draft that shows the internal paper trail:

"T. Hassan," the future Principal of the Academy, is perhaps THE central figure in the Choate/Hall investigation in 2016-2017. Under his leadership, the school lacked "...sufficiently robust governance processes..." from at least 2011. What this reveals is that Hassan seems to have been copied on the issue in 1994! 

There's two final letters closing my exchange with the school. It seemed to me there was no point responding to Johnson. Instead, I wrote the Principal. I would not allow his mischaracterization of my efforts go unchallenged. 

If there is concern over my "prior history", know that it demonstrates service, sacrifice and commitment to the highest ideals of the institution. I defy any insinuation that suggests otherwise.

Her reply? 

I see no reason to question the process that produced that decision....I do not agree with your characterization of the letter, and, therefore, I cannot respond in any of the ways you recommend.

Access the set of documents here.

Aftermath:

In 2017, this matter became the subject of extensive communications with Tony Downer, the current President of the Trustees. I asked him who's responsible?

Former Principals O'Donnell and Hassan were fully aware of these problems. How did they respond? ...Once (they) had been made aware of the situation, they had a duty to appropriately address it. Their failure to do so is troubling....At what point are those who engage in neglect or acts of omission (or commission) subject to formal sanction by the Academy? In this case, their active efforts to suppress knowledge of the problem should demand a higher degree of accountability.

A rare outside, independent perspective

How did Downer respond? We will get to that soon enough. Principal Rawson, too, has had an opportunity to show leadership here as well. That is another story.

One final note. 

O'Donnell's letter is dated January 4, 1995. On January 15, a teenage visitor on campus for the Martin Luther King Jr. celebration went on a rampage. He assaulted at least five female students, as reported weeks after in the Exeter News-Letter. 

According to this published report, neither the police nor campus security were notified till after the assailant had been driven out of state, presumably by an Academy employee. 

How did it serve the O'Donnell Administration to be able to address these assaults in the absence of a code of conduct for faculty and administrators? Did operating under a fundamentally flawed governance provide some benefit?

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid

STEAMPUNK AHAB'S PARTING SHOT

The revolutionist manifesto

One day during my "Upper" year at Exeter, I somehow managed to arrive early for a class in the Academy building. Amazingly and unexpectedly, I had a moment's respite amidst the otherwise unending busyness. As I sat down, I wondered about the pile of old books in the middle of the Harkness table. They looked like they could have been there since the table was installed in the 1930's. I picked up one well-thumbed volume to check it out. It was Walden. I had never heard of it or Thoreau before. I opened it at random to discover this passage:

If one listens to the faintest but constant suggestions of his genius, which are certainly true, he sees not to what extremes, or even insanity, it may lead him; and yet that way, as he grows more resolute and faithful, his road lies. The faintest assured objection which one healthy man feels will at length prevail over the arguments and customs of mankind. No man ever followed his genius till it misled him.... 

This was the beginning of a lifelong romance with Thoreau. It is also, perhaps, the ultimate starting point for my 25+ year mission to restore the Academy's integrity.

 *** 

In 2016, as the campus sexual assault scandal gathered momentum, some fellow Exeter alumni noted my dogged persistence in my quest. I had been at this, off-and-on, since my actions as a whistleblower in 1993-1994. "Ahab would have given up long ago," I joked.

Steampunk Ahab by Josh Guglielmo

But soon, quite unexpectedly, I experienced two extraordinary vindications. Sadly, these weren't recognized by the school. In a fair world, I might have been awarded the institution's Founders Day Award for extraordinary service. Instead, no one had the decency to even tell me what had happened. I had to put the pieces of the puzzle together for myself. To what end?

Though officially ignored, perhaps I could put this distinction to good use. As I explained to trustee Claudine Gay in my attempt to assist her "interim principal advisory committee," I "have a demonstrable track record for being significantly ahead of the curve when it comes to Academy governance." How's that? It came as the result of my pair of parting shots in 1994. As mentioned before, the penultimate one was a call for a code of conduct for faculty and administrators. That was finally instituted in August, 2016.

The final and ultimate vindication didn't start out that way. It was my last attempt to alert the Academy community to problems, an effort that went nowhere at the time. The vindication came twenty-three years later, in 2017, when I discovered that a letter I'd submitted to The Bulletin, PEA's quarterly magazine, had "...anticipated the findings of the Choate/Hall report detailing structural problems in the Admin/Trustee reporting relationships..."

The letter wasn't even published. But how it was received and rejected reveals realities that have yet to be acknowledged, much less addressed.

After the parting shot - what's left?  

Back in 1994, former colleagues told me about the tense opening moments in the faculty meeting following the arrival of my call for a code of conduct. I'd dropped a letter containing this along with documents from the Principal and President of the trustees. I sent these to all the faculty, trustees and administrators. Well over 100 went out. They arrived the day before the regular faculty meeting. Principal O'Donnell started the session with some joke to dissipate the tension. Then, it was immediately back to business-as-usual. There was no discussion about the culture of concealment and the failure to create policy for faculty misconduct. My call to address a fundamental, structural issue - one already identified in a trustee study - seemed to have disappeared down the Memory Hole.

But not entirely.

It raised questions about the O'Donnell Administration's integrity. Could they be trusted to deal with the issue of faculty misconduct? I heard that, after, some bypassed the administration and brought such issues to the trustees directly. I have no way of confirming this. If the trustees received such requests, maybe they had a conversation about it at one of their meetings. They might have wondered why the normal channels weren't sufficient? If this happened, there might be records of it in the archives. When the 75-year gag on Trustee meeting minutes is up in 50 years, be sure to let me know.

Better to have focused on the present
Used courtesy PEA

Regardless, at this point it looked like I was done. Then, the Fall 1994 Bulletin came out a few months after. I was intrigued by the cover story, "Facing the Future Together: A Team Approach Brings Exeter's Trustees Closer to the School and to Each Other" (used here courtesy PEA). Written by former Bennett Fellow Katherine K. Towler, I expected it to be an annoying puff-piece. So I read it first with low expectations. Soon, I found myself going through it with pen-in-hand. It actually contained a detailed snapshot of the information flow between the trustees and administration.

Trustees gather on campus three times a year while school's in session. My students taught me a new term to describe their perceptions of these visits. The Academy, they said, became a "Potemkin Village." I asked them to please explain - I was unfamiliar with this. They did so with great joy - instructing an instructor!

It refers to Grigori Potemkin, Catherine the Great's minister and lover. After Russia annexed the Crimea, he was put in charge of pulling the place together for Russian settlers. The Empress trekked out to check his progress. As the story goes, he pulled together a faux village with a traveling troupe of happy people. They'd set up shop for her inspection. Then, as her entourage rested for the night, the village would leapfrog them. The next day, traveling down the road, she found - another happy village! By this contrivance, the Empress got a mistaken impression of her minister's accomplishments.

I only recall one encounter with a trustee while I served on the faculty. Towards the end of my tenure, I briefly engaged one passing near my classroom. I tried to communicate how difficult it was for them to get a good sense of the place - how challenging for any faculty to give them the actual low-down. She brushed me off with some pleasantries. Apparently, this was too much reality to deal with. Besides, the next merriment in our Potemkin Village was about to get underway! So she was off...

Now, about that article...

From "Facing the Future Together"
Courtesy of Phillips Exeter

Facing the Future Together had some of the usual fluff. But if you read through it attentively (this digital copy used by permission of the Academy), it revealed the actual inner workings of our Potemkin Village. It explained how the trustee's oversight could be so blind.

Suddenly, it provided me the occasion to take another parting shot!

In those pre-Social Media days, the only way to reach out to fellow classmates and alums was the Bulletin. This seemed like an ideal opportunity to communicate the problems I'd experienced. The wider Exeter community needed to know about what seemed to be a structural problem with governance. So I wrote an extended letter responding to the piece. Perhaps I was being entirely too honest. This was sure to burst a few bubbles. There was no acrimony in it, but the reality I was exposing would be hard to accept. But I had to try to get the word out. Here's the heart of it:

As currently constituted, The Administration controls the flow of information at the Academy....the principal "functions as a liaison between the trustees and the faculty and administration." Her reports serve as a keynote to trustee meetings. Her overview frames their "topics for debate"...she plays the role of "'interpreter' (in) helping the Trustees understand." This is appropriate as long as there are outside checks and balances to the Principal's interpretation.

Now, compare this with the findings in the Choate/Hall report (see page 3-5 here) on the problems that allowed the mismanagement in 2011 and 2015:

...PEA did not have sufficiently robust governance processes in place to ensure that sexual misconduct, like the Schubart matter, would always be addressed appropriately. For example, there was no procedure to ensure that allegations relating to sexual misconduct that came to the attention of PEA’s administration would be conveyed to the Trustees in a timely, complete and transparent manner.

Taken together with my call for a code of conduct, these parting shots addressed the core causes of the malaise. How could these go unchallenged for decades? I don't claim any great prescience in terms of my organizational analysis. The issues were as obvious then as they are now in retrospect. Anyone reading that Bulletin piece critically could have seen it.

So, the structural problems driving the mismanagement under Principal Tom Hassan's leadership should have been obvious long before. He was part of the O'Donnell Administration. Was he aware of these structural issues when he headed College Counseling some two decades earlier?

This raises other questions. Why didn't anyone do anything about these issues?  How is it that a generation of Exeter students and faculty had to operate under these conditions?  What was the price they had to pay? What scars remain? What should our response be now to past leadership's mismanagement?

Next, we'll have a look at what happened when I tried, unsuccessfully, to get that letter published.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid

THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF EXONIENSIS NARCISSISSIMA

Tarnished image

In the Pantheon of Prep School Perps, the adult Exeter crew, it would seem, are a pathetic lot. They may be mere shadows of the luminaries elsewhere, ambulatory malignancies who systematically abused children, some for decades.

At PEA, those who violated the sacred trust parents put in them to care for their children are/were forlorn figures. Sadly, bumbling lechers, dirty old men and drunks who can't keep their hands to themselves are commonplace. This does not forgive their transgressions. Nor does it make what they did any less harmful to those they afflicted. But it does make it all the more mysterious as to why the school had had such a hard time giving them up for so very long.

In the wake of the Drama Department child pornography scandal in 1992, it seems clear that school officials knew or should have known most all of the issues about faculty misconduct revealed when things finally boiled over again in 2016. Why didn't they clean house way back when? So far, I'm only talking about the faculty perps. Those, for the most part, belong to an earlier era when coeducation was new. Of course, this all merely points to the current issue - peer assaults and their mismanagement.

Why is it so hard for the Academy to acknowledge such issues, address them, then move forward? I've got a working hypothesis. Call it a possible syndrome: Exoniensis Narcississima. This may seem to be just some unfortunate idiosyncrasy in a privileged, prestigious subculture. But like Mr. Tremallo's doughnut, tug at this thread to discover what may be the quintessential American Story of our time.

Observations & Anecdotal Experiences

A shadow over John Phillips

When I wandered wounded out from PEA in 1993, I told some faculty at Harvard of my experiences. One, a consultant to private secondary schools, offered a provocative observation. In his experience, the more highfalutin the school's mission statement, the more intractable the problems. Another, a Psychology of Religion professor, offered a Jungian reading. "The brighter the light, the darker the shadows," he said.

Here's what Exoniensis Narcississima feels like.

Exeter is legendary for its unhappiness. In fact, it prides itself on it. Celebrated schoolmaster Ernie Gillespie's famous graduation benediction included the line "I don't think anybody has ever claimed that Exeter is a warm nest." His observation has been warmly embraced since he said it in 1967. This points to how Exonians delight in their misery. I suspect it's why I found such pleasure in discovering Dostoyevsky there. "Suffering is the origin of consciousness," his Underground Man tells us. And we prided ourselves on maximizing our consciousness.

Later, returning, a prep school residential life training the summer after my first year on the faculty was a revelation. The facilitator started out saying how it was key to categorize your school. They fit into two basic categories: happy or unhappy. I wondered about PEA - where do you put those happy to be miserable?

Such paradoxical feelings are a key feature of Exoniensis Narcississima. This feeds a cognitive dissonance that undermines reality-checking.

In my day-to-day life on the faculty, I noticed an added aspect to this. It's an old truism that academics love their classrooms but hate the politics outside them. Exoniensis Narcississima adds a layering of prestige to this. For me, the general negativity about the place evaporated off-campus in certain situations. When I'd find a rare moment to socialize in Cambridge, I experienced an unusual emotional pivot. When asked what I did for work, I'd pridefully unfurl my title, "Assistant School Minister/Instructor in Religion at Phillips Exeter." It was impressive and people were impressed. Feelings of malaise momentarily vanished as I basked in the glory of the place.

Smothered by the weight of History

Back on campus, this grand and glorious past caused a different affect. The school's celebrated history going back to its founding in 1781, before the last gunsmoke of the Revolution had cleared, was stifling. For current inhabitants, it seemed impossible to measure up. When I arrived at Harvard Divinity School the year before, Rev. Peter Gomes met with new students to lovingly assure us that the admissions office had not made a mistake in admitting us. We belonged there. But at Exeter, whatever insecurities the students felt along these lines, what the faculty faced was far more intense. So add Impostor Syndrome as another element of Exoniensis Narcississima.

This aspect fueled a particularly toxic dynamic. The fear of being found inferior to past brilliance created a cover-up culture. Instead of facing the usual piddly problems that go along with an organization of this size - the ills of alcoholism, depression and the like - a cover-up-culture drives these underground to fester. If you need to keep up a perfect appearance, how do you deal with imperfections? More than likely, you focus furiously on image.

What happens if someone should detect an imperfection?

Easy fixes for identified problems

Example:

When I got hired, I was personally recruited by Principal O'Donnell and her husband to be a faculty advisor to WPEA, the campus radio station. The O'Donnell's were key in the station's renovation in sumptuous new quarters in the old library. I was a good "fit" as advisor because I had been on the station's board as a student, and worked professionally in radio after.

One of the many upgrades included a new transmitter. When the broadcast engineers turned on the new unit one Saturday, I tuned in on my car radio and drove around to check the reach of the signal. I did this on my own initiative, knowing the potential issues with such gear given my work at commercial stations. So I took what precious free time I had that afternoon to drive all over Rockingham County, jotting down locations and signal strength.

As it turns out, there was a problem. Transmitters are tuned to their assigned frequency, and this one needed a slight tweak. It was bleeding over into the NPR affiliate repeater in Durham. So I dutifully alerted the consultants, passed along my observations, then headed home. Better this than than to wait for NHPR listeners to file complaints.

A few days later, I happened to run into CPOD (the nickname the lower echelon admins had for C. Patrick O'Donnell, the Principal's husband) walking across campus. I smiled, thinking he would be pleased by my devotion and diligence to a project turning out well. Instead, he snarled, "I hear you've been complaining..."

I was flabbergasted. 

What does it mean when pointing out imperfection is taken as a personal attack? Imagine how this might affect the ability to address day-to-day issues. Imagine how this might affect reporting adults demonstrating "boundary issues." Imagine how this might affect reporting mismanagement of peer assaults.

After I left the faculty, I raised questions along these lines in a letter to the faculty calling for a code of discipline:

Other important questions to discuss: What is the proper course of action if you become aware of misconduct? Do you feel motivated to report such improprieties? Or, do you find yourself -as I once did - holding secrets about unprofessional, inappropriate or even endangering behavior? Does the administration's response to my case inspire the confidence to come forward should you find yourself in a similar predicament? Do you find that it encourages you to speak up or to be silent? Are their actions here indicative of a desire to be open and forthright? Or, rather, does it demonstrate a propensity for denial and avoidance? Is the situation detailed here the rule or the exception? Consider the widespread rumors that circulate about faculty and administrative misconduct. Aren't they typical of institutions unwilling or unable to deal directly?

That was in 1994. The school finally adopted a code of conduct...in 2016. Has the entrenched denial dynamic been rooted out? Is Exoniensis Narcississima still virulent? I leave it to others to determine. 

There's other aspects to Exoniensis Narcississima I'll discuss next time. Also, we'll look at how understanding this syndrome illuminates aspects of the culture on the local, national and international level.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.

GAUDEAMUS IGITUR: THE GREAT TREMALLO

Harkness as performance art

When I returned to serve on the faculty, I knew I had the best job on campus. The combination of ministry and teaching gave me the opportunity to experience the full breadth of the Exeter Experience. To up my game in the classroom, I thought I'd check out some of the legendary teachers I'd missed as a student. Top of the list? Fred Tremallo.

I cherished the days I had time to sit in on his class. He was masterful in his command of the Harkness classroom, transforming it into performance art.

What made him so good? For one thing, he knew how to use silence.

I wandered in one day to discover his room invaded by other visitors. It was parent's weekend. So the Harkness table was circled by an audience. The students were working their way through some novel - I don't remember what it was. That is the secret of the Harkness experience that some miss. The finest moments come when the text is simply the pretext for enabling the classroom dynamics. That becomes the focus as the students discover their own talents.

But this day, inexplicably, Fred got started off on the wrong foot. What a bad day for him to stumble! He threw this random question to get things going:

"What about the doughnut?"

It proved to be a non-starter, too obscure. No one had a clue. 

For me, working the Harkness classroom is like sailing. You needed to build up momentum in the conversation going downwind. You get the kids talking about something, anything. Then, then tack upwind from that to move through the text. Here, we were stalled, pointing into the wind. 

He persisted. "What about he doughnut?"

Some attempted to interpret this as metaphor. Wrong.  "What about the doughnut?" he repeated.

We sat in awkward silence - the class and spectators. Fred seemed utterly at ease, calm and relaxed.

Next, attempts at deflection. These comments aimed to offer Fred an easy out - a new, more productive area to get a conversation going. They were inviting. As the students offered their intriguing take on the reading, Fred listened attentively. But as they finished, he asked again  mystified - how could they forget? "What about the doughnut?"

The missing treat

My skin crawled watching on the sidelines. Fred seemed off on the one class where he needed to be on - with parents expecting to be impressed.  They had the bad luck to catch him on an off-day. I'd never seen him miss. This wasn't just disappointing - it seemed odd as the minutes passed. The only thing coming clear in the confusion - he wasn't going to budge. 

"What about the doughnut?"

An unsettling silence began to settle in. Focus turned from trying to spark a conversation to leafing through the pages of the reading. Fred just sat peacefully, confident that eventually someone would satisfy his peculiar demand. 

It took some time, going line-by-line through the 40-odd pages assigned, but finally someone found it. Some character, as an aside, offered that something was "like a doughnut." That was it. Nothing more. Nothing more at all - a throwaway line that an editor might have excised from the text.

What followed proved Fred was one of the best to ever conduct class at PEA.

Now that we had a discussion underway, it turned to tugging at this loose thread. What about the doughnut? It wasn't random at all. How did it connect to larger themes? With Fred's occasional guidance, the students unraveled the entire fabric of the book from that single strand. The seemingly unimportant detail was, in fact, what stitched the structure of this literary work together. By the end of the class, everyone had a gut-level understanding of what sets literature apart. No detail is unimportant. Read with attention and miracles happen.

Fred's style perfectly embodied his signature catchphrase: Faith. Focus. Flow. The best part was his effortless and unassuming manner. His mastery was unalloyed with any arrogance.

Outside the classroom, Fred was an enormously engaging conversationalist. We enjoyed wide-ranging discussions. He also told me wild, improbable tales about his life. I remember in particular his love-at-first sight experience meeting Ellie, the love of his life. She was a fixture on campus, too, back to my student days. In a harsh place, she was the kind spirit working in the Academy's bookstore.

He told me that, in his younger days, he was doing spy stuff in Berlin. He wandered around the city with an attaché that contained a loaded .45 automatic. One weekend, he went out on a date to a house party. That's where he encountered Ellie. The recognition that they were life partners was immediate and mutual. As his date wandered out of earshot for a moment, their discussion turned to how Fred should kindly, lovingly extricate himself from her. No easy way to dump a date, but perhaps they could make it easier. It didn't have to be cruel. Fred and Ellie were kind like that.

I forget the details about how they came to the Academy. It was an earlier era where a talented person could walk onto campus and, with enough panache, land a gig. However they arrived, I don't see Fred taking a conventional route. Nowadays, the school's reputation demands a level of professionalism that requires serious credentials - a PhD and proven talent. Sadly, that means eccentric, unusual characters that have made for some of the most legendary teachers get weeded out. They resist the assimilation necessary to get "properly" credentialed.

However Fred found his way to the Harkness table, it was destiny. What was hard to bear was the jealousy this inspired in some of our colleagues. His class transformed kids. They talked about the magic. This was all-too-much for some. A few mockingly referred to him as "The Great Tremallo." 

Moonlit Spirituality  

Roque Bluffs: Rough & Ready

After the first term, I traveled up to Maine's Washington County to visit Fred and Ellie at their home in Roque Bluffs. This remote spot is nearly 300 miles from Exeter, a five-hour drive. It offered the classic beauty of coastal Maine, but far enough away to be affordable on an Academy salary. Someone on the faculty discovered it, then several others bought properties there for retirement.

I arrived in the midst of heavy December snowfall. Weathered in, we kept warm around the woodstove telling tales. Fred shared the local lore. At one point, the subject turned to things spiritual. I'd brought my meditation cushions to maintain my Vipassana practice. Oddly, Fred seemed disinterested.

As the winter storm passed, the skies cleared the next night. This revealed a spectacular full Moon illuminating a chest-high pristine snowfall. Looking out into the night, Fred turned to me, "Are you ready to experience my spirituality?" We put on our winter gear and headed out towards their backyard, a vast field that reached down toward the shore.

We swept through the fresh powder heading towards the shoreline. The crisp and clear air, the Moon-bright landscape, our effortless motion through the seemingly solid snow - how can I combine or pick apart these elements to capture the ineffable sense of joy we shared drifting through the cloud-like layer? Then, awe entered suddenly as the stark white landscape gave way to the pitch black ocean. We stood silently, absorbing the wonder.

Fred never got to share his retirement there with Ellie.

I remember returning to campus for Fred's memorial service. Many shared of how he lived and died doing what he loved. To the end, his devotion to his teaching and to his students was unmatched. Even confined to an oxygen tent gasping for breath as the cancer ate his lungs, he insisted on writing student's college recs. He'd promised this to them before he was suddenly taken ill. He fulfilled his pledge.

During the service, everyone received a slip of paper with Faith. Focus Flow. printed in italics. After, as Phillips Church emptied out, I overhead some of colleagues, linguists, chatter. 

"It sounds profound - in English. But put it in French or German - prattle." 

Even in death, it was too much for some to simply accept and appreciate the way Fred touched so many lives. Somehow, they felt slighted by his genius in the classroom.

Ernie Gillespie famously said "I don't think anybody has ever claimed that Exeter is a warm nest." But this left me cold.

***

Others, too, keep Fred's memory alive. When Dan Brown Came to Visit tells of how some unknown writer with a debut techno-thriller novel out stepped in for Fred at his untimely passing.  Ned Hallowell, the famed doctor who brought ADD and ADHD to the popular consciousness, lovingly remembers Fred in his memoir, Because I Come from a Crazy Family: The Making of a Psychiatrist.

. 

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.