 |
| Disgruntled malcontents attacking the administration |
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."
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.
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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment