My questions for tonight are based on a loose end from last year. Then, Principal Rawson had yet to make good on the "outstanding IOU" he gave to the sexual assault survivor community some months before. As he pledged in his letter to PATH on July 8, 2019:
"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."
Finally last November, he made good. Well, sort of, anyway.
In short, there's more than a few howls in this dog.
Fortunately/unfortunately, a few things have come to light since last November.
A close look at the Kaminski arrest affidavit, the latest unfolding of the sexual assault scandal, brings to light manifold failures. This includes Assistant Principal Karen Lassey's conduct. When Lassey waded into this morass of mismanagement she "was concerned about the situation" where both the student and teacher had defied direct orders and the explanation "didn't make sense to her." It was clear to her "that there were pretty clear boundary violations." So what did she do about it?
Before we even go there, we need to throw out the work of the Trustees' ad hoc committee above. It was improperly constituted. AP Lassey, it seems clear, participated in the mismanagement she was assessing.
That's a fatal flaw.
So let's have a look at the affidavit and what it says about Lassey's conduct alongside the others she and the committee gave a free pass.
First, we need to backtrack to gather the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle.
In the 2018 Holland & Knight "overview" (still waiting for the actual report) of its "independent investigation" into campus sexual assaults, it includes an interesting aside:
"...two matters 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."
The findings?
"(In these) two investigations that did not involve allegations of sexual misconduct by faculty or employees, 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."
Who were these PEA employees? How did the Academy respond to this determination of the Trustee's "independent investigation?"
H&K's determination was largely based on the 10,000-word report I filed with then Principal MacFarlane and then President of the Trustees Panetta in 2016. "A Sexual Predator at Exeter: Context & Consequences" focused on two episodes. The first was the response to a sexual assault on campus during the Martin Luther King Jr. observance in 1993. The other concerned a series of assaults that took place during the same weekend remembrance in 1995. The same faculty member was involved in both, with their spouse working alongside as the Dean on Duty for the later.
The H&K summary also says that "Among the issues investigated in those two matters were whether PEA and certain of its employees met their obligations to report certain issues internally at PEA and/or externally..."
During the 1995 spree, the assailant harmed at least five students. According to an Academy official cited in a news report of the incident, "although academy administrators did not immediately notify campus security or Exeter police - they were notified two days after the attacks - steps were promptly taken to identify the culprit and expel him from campus..."
Those "steps" included sequestering the "culprit" overnight at the Dean and her spouses' faculty apartment, then driving him out of state the following morning.
After being put on probation for dishonesty, the students was caught in numerous dishonest acts by faculty, staff and dorm proctors who did their jobs dutifully. They observed troubling behavior and reported them. For example, the student wasn't "forthright in (their out of town) slips." "...Paperwork for out of town travel...stated by train...but (the student) had ridden with him (Kaminski)." In the dorm, "there were persistent instances of (the student) being tough to track down." They "...started accumulating minor rule violations such as not checking in at the right time and saying (they) were in the library when (they) were not." The student was specifically forbidden to go to Kaminski's house again, and was observed doing so anyway.
In some instances, these reports were made to deans who specifically requested that such violations be reported to them. After repeatedly, demonstrably being dishonest, none of the deans apparently sat the student down and demanded the truth.
At the same time, Kaminski had been called to account repeatedly. Even so, he disobeyed direct orders to not have the student at his residence again.
Remember Assistant Principal Karen Lassey? At the time, she was dean of academic affairs. She waded into this morass of mismanagement apparently on at least two separate occasions. The first was when Dean Melissa Mischke "expressed concerns about (the student's) relationship with Kaminski..." apparently with the student present. Another time, she was called in as the student and the student's advisor had a chat. The student had just been caught defying the order to not go to Kaminski's house. Lassey "was concerned about the situation" and the explanation "didn't make sense to her." It was clear to her "that there were pretty clear boundary violations."
Really?
I'll be damned if I stand silent while my effort for accountability for sexual assault victims is perverted by the Academy's institutional racism.
What?
What became of the "PEA employees (who) failed in their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner..."
As I wrote to then-President of the Trustees Tony Downer on September 7, 2017:
"Though my whistle blowing focused on Rev. Thompson's apparent covering for a sexual predator on campus in 1993, I find it troubling that he seems to be the only non-perp faculty member or administrator facing censure. In fact, this is deeply disturbing given the long history of African American males being singled out for punishment in our society. If he is to be held accountable, others should be, too. If you are providing blanket immunity to non-perps in the apparent absence of policy and process, then it would seem necessary for you to restore him to full faculty status - if you are to be consistent."
It seems that all of the deans involved in 2016's morass of mismanagement have apparently been allowed to go their merry way - Mischke, Cosgrove, Shapiro and Kim. Those leaving for other schools likely did so with positive references from PEA.
And what of Principal O'Donnell who signed-off on the failures in 1993 and 1995? She is afforded extraordinary privilege. Principal Rawson publicly lauds her as his friend and mentor.
Meanwhile, the only one publicly held to account is African American. He has been put out to pasture after decades of service to the institution and denied emeritus status.
So...all this boils do to a simple series of related question for Principal Rawson:
Finally, a simple "yes" or "no" question here for the Principal and the Trustees:
Given the fatal flaws of your ad hoc committee, are we going to get a truly independent, transparent investigation into these matters???
"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."
Finally last November, he made good. Well, sort of, anyway.
After the new information found in the affidavit for the recently arrested former faculty, this requires a radical redo. Let's see why by first examining this curious document on its own terms.
In it, Principal Rawson, along with then-Trustee President Tony Downer, provide the results of the Trustees' "ad hoc committee composed of the assistant principal, the dean of faculty and director of human resources, with the academy's general counsel, who served in a non-voting advisory role."
Let's set aside issues with the composition of the committee for a moment.
In it, Principal Rawson, along with then-Trustee President Tony Downer, provide the results of the Trustees' "ad hoc committee composed of the assistant principal, the dean of faculty and director of human resources, with the academy's general counsel, who served in a non-voting advisory role."
Let's set aside issues with the composition of the committee for a moment.
The "report" is a masterpiece of obfuscation and obnubilation. It opens with "The committee's findings included..." But what of the findings not included here? You can drive a truck through that loophole.
Setting that aside, let's look at the findings provided, followed with the problems they present. The committee:
Setting that aside, let's look at the findings provided, followed with the problems they present. The committee:
- "did not find evidence of conscious or intentional efforts to evade the obligation to make a legally mandated report to authorities."
- "did not find evidence of any individual engaging in a pattern of failure to make legally mandated reports."
- "did not find evidence that any individual consciously intended to cause secondary harm to students or otherwise act against the best interests of students."
- "found that in those instances in which employment and related actions have been taken in the past and adverse consequences imposed, those actions and consequences have been appropriate. The Academy, as do most employers, considers such personnel matters personal and confidential."
- "found no evidence that it considered sufficient in any case to support public consequences for alleged failures to report or other failures or omissions."
In short, there's more than a few howls in this dog.
Assistant Principal Lassey's Fatal Conflict of Interest
 |
| Arresting reading |
A close look at the Kaminski arrest affidavit, the latest unfolding of the sexual assault scandal, brings to light manifold failures. This includes Assistant Principal Karen Lassey's conduct. When Lassey waded into this morass of mismanagement she "was concerned about the situation" where both the student and teacher had defied direct orders and the explanation "didn't make sense to her." It was clear to her "that there were pretty clear boundary violations." So what did she do about it?
Before we even go there, we need to throw out the work of the Trustees' ad hoc committee above. It was improperly constituted. AP Lassey, it seems clear, participated in the mismanagement she was assessing.
That's a fatal flaw.
So let's have a look at the affidavit and what it says about Lassey's conduct alongside the others she and the committee gave a free pass.
First, we need to backtrack to gather the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle.
In the 2018 Holland & Knight "overview" (still waiting for the actual report) of its "independent investigation" into campus sexual assaults, it includes an interesting aside:
"...two matters 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."
The findings?
"(In these) two investigations that did not involve allegations of sexual misconduct by faculty or employees, 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."
Who were these PEA employees? How did the Academy respond to this determination of the Trustee's "independent investigation?"
H&K's determination was largely based on the 10,000-word report I filed with then Principal MacFarlane and then President of the Trustees Panetta in 2016. "A Sexual Predator at Exeter: Context & Consequences" focused on two episodes. The first was the response to a sexual assault on campus during the Martin Luther King Jr. observance in 1993. The other concerned a series of assaults that took place during the same weekend remembrance in 1995. The same faculty member was involved in both, with their spouse working alongside as the Dean on Duty for the later.
The H&K summary also says that "Among the issues investigated in those two matters were whether PEA and certain of its employees met their obligations to report certain issues internally at PEA and/or externally..."
During the 1995 spree, the assailant harmed at least five students. According to an Academy official cited in a news report of the incident, "although academy administrators did not immediately notify campus security or Exeter police - they were notified two days after the attacks - steps were promptly taken to identify the culprit and expel him from campus..."
Those "steps" included sequestering the "culprit" overnight at the Dean and her spouses' faculty apartment, then driving him out of state the following morning.
The Boston Globe's Spotlight team had a look at this, providing an independent, journalistic perspective. I am not aware of anyone involved who disputes this account.
The mismanagement of the incident reverberated on campus with one of the survivors speaking out in The Exonian. She mentions that the faculty member involved here (and also in the 1993 incident) told her "there was some discussion in Faculty Meetings about this specific incident..." which means that then-Principal Kendra O'Donnell must have been aware of what had happened. It would also seem that she signed off on keeping faculty who (as H&K determined) had failed in their "obligations to report...(and) their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner."
Now, let's fast-forward 21 years to 2016.
For all the "crumbs cast upon the current" over this period - the Internet revolution, 9/11 and what Gore Vidal (PEA '43) described as the "caper in Mesopotamia" that followed, a financial collapse and the election (and reelection) of a Black President of the United States - in this ever-changing world, one thing remained constant: PEA leadership's refusal to adopt a code of conduct for faculty, administrators and Trustees.
In other words, the faculty and administrative failures described in the Kaminski affidavit occurred in this code of conduct-free free-fire zone.
I won't recount it all. The Exonian did a solid job focusing on the accused teacher's actions.
 |
| An unchanging reality |
Now, let's fast-forward 21 years to 2016.
For all the "crumbs cast upon the current" over this period - the Internet revolution, 9/11 and what Gore Vidal (PEA '43) described as the "caper in Mesopotamia" that followed, a financial collapse and the election (and reelection) of a Black President of the United States - in this ever-changing world, one thing remained constant: PEA leadership's refusal to adopt a code of conduct for faculty, administrators and Trustees.
In other words, the faculty and administrative failures described in the Kaminski affidavit occurred in this code of conduct-free free-fire zone.
I won't recount it all. The Exonian did a solid job focusing on the accused teacher's actions.
A Dishonest Act or a Cry for Help?
Here's the highlights with a focus on the school's failures:
Just before the "grooming" crossed into criminality, the student gave what might have been a last, desperate cry for help that brought them before the discipline committee for a major offence: "Dishonest acts of any kind, including academic dishonesty."
One teacher found the student's explanation there "not believable or honest."
It seems that obvious dishonesty in responding to an accusation of dishonesty should bring severe consequences. Instead, it seems the committee accepted dubious claims at face value.
Worse, the affidavit indicates that the accused teacher leveraged this occasion to sexually assault the student before, then to gain the parent's confidence after.
The first criminal acts allegedly took place as Kaminski met with the student supposedly to prepare for being a "faculty friend." A "faculty friend" is a teacher who speaks on behalf of the student in discipline proceedings. At the discipline committee, the student's former advisor described the "faculty friend's" statement in support as "very long and weird."
This was a crucial moment. Almost any outcome was preferable to what occurred. The committee was apparently content to not get to the bottom of the matter. The parents credited the "faculty friend" with saving their child from being expelled. They would later defend him despite disturbing signs.
One teacher found the student's explanation there "not believable or honest."
It seems that obvious dishonesty in responding to an accusation of dishonesty should bring severe consequences. Instead, it seems the committee accepted dubious claims at face value.
Worse, the affidavit indicates that the accused teacher leveraged this occasion to sexually assault the student before, then to gain the parent's confidence after.
The first criminal acts allegedly took place as Kaminski met with the student supposedly to prepare for being a "faculty friend." A "faculty friend" is a teacher who speaks on behalf of the student in discipline proceedings. At the discipline committee, the student's former advisor described the "faculty friend's" statement in support as "very long and weird."
This was a crucial moment. Almost any outcome was preferable to what occurred. The committee was apparently content to not get to the bottom of the matter. The parents credited the "faculty friend" with saving their child from being expelled. They would later defend him despite disturbing signs.
The Rank & File do their Duty
After being put on probation for dishonesty, the students was caught in numerous dishonest acts by faculty, staff and dorm proctors who did their jobs dutifully. They observed troubling behavior and reported them. For example, the student wasn't "forthright in (their out of town) slips." "...Paperwork for out of town travel...stated by train...but (the student) had ridden with him (Kaminski)." In the dorm, "there were persistent instances of (the student) being tough to track down." They "...started accumulating minor rule violations such as not checking in at the right time and saying (they) were in the library when (they) were not." The student was specifically forbidden to go to Kaminski's house again, and was observed doing so anyway.
In some instances, these reports were made to deans who specifically requested that such violations be reported to them. After repeatedly, demonstrably being dishonest, none of the deans apparently sat the student down and demanded the truth.
At the same time, Kaminski had been called to account repeatedly. Even so, he disobeyed direct orders to not have the student at his residence again.
Remember Assistant Principal Karen Lassey? At the time, she was dean of academic affairs. She waded into this morass of mismanagement apparently on at least two separate occasions. The first was when Dean Melissa Mischke "expressed concerns about (the student's) relationship with Kaminski..." apparently with the student present. Another time, she was called in as the student and the student's advisor had a chat. The student had just been caught defying the order to not go to Kaminski's house. Lassey "was concerned about the situation" and the explanation "didn't make sense to her." It was clear to her "that there were pretty clear boundary violations."
It would seem that then-Dean Lassey was very much involved in this situation and likely others in what appears to have been a close-knit office. Her participation in the ad-hoc committee considering anything involving this crew would be outrageous.
But what about her actions? She's there to participate in resolving this situation. What did she do about it? Where did the buck stop?
It didn't. You have to wonder - what would it have taken to inspire the deans to send the errant student back for another go at the discipline committee?
But what about her actions? She's there to participate in resolving this situation. What did she do about it? Where did the buck stop?
It didn't. You have to wonder - what would it have taken to inspire the deans to send the errant student back for another go at the discipline committee?
As far as Kaminski...now, let's think this through with a little role-play.
Say you're the dean of faculty. You've got a teacher who has defied direct orders that indicate he may be victimizing a student. This is a child you are charged to care for as a parent would care for their own.
Do you:
a.) fire the teacher on the spot;
b.) pass him off to the police.
Well, the dean of faculty punted here. He referred this to the Exeter police who were unlikely to do much better getting to the bottom of this - which is exactly what happened. It is fair to ask if the only real purpose for going to the police was to cover for the deans and the school should this blow up. If so, that's a far cry from providing parental protection.
In my humble opinion, if a teacher is so off-the-mark that you think the police should be involved, that person has NO BUSINESS serving on the faculty of the Phillips Exeter Academy.
Say you're the dean of faculty. You've got a teacher who has defied direct orders that indicate he may be victimizing a student. This is a child you are charged to care for as a parent would care for their own.
Do you:
a.) fire the teacher on the spot;
b.) pass him off to the police.
Well, the dean of faculty punted here. He referred this to the Exeter police who were unlikely to do much better getting to the bottom of this - which is exactly what happened. It is fair to ask if the only real purpose for going to the police was to cover for the deans and the school should this blow up. If so, that's a far cry from providing parental protection.
In my humble opinion, if a teacher is so off-the-mark that you think the police should be involved, that person has NO BUSINESS serving on the faculty of the Phillips Exeter Academy.
Questions for Principal Rawson
Now, let's get to the upshot here - which is racism. The school website now proudly proclaims "Exeter condemns anti-Black racism in all its forms."
Really?
I'll be damned if I stand silent while my effort for accountability for sexual assault victims is perverted by the Academy's institutional racism.
What?
What became of the "PEA employees (who) failed in their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner..."
As I wrote to then-President of the Trustees Tony Downer on September 7, 2017:
"Though my whistle blowing focused on Rev. Thompson's apparent covering for a sexual predator on campus in 1993, I find it troubling that he seems to be the only non-perp faculty member or administrator facing censure. In fact, this is deeply disturbing given the long history of African American males being singled out for punishment in our society. If he is to be held accountable, others should be, too. If you are providing blanket immunity to non-perps in the apparent absence of policy and process, then it would seem necessary for you to restore him to full faculty status - if you are to be consistent."
It seems that all of the deans involved in 2016's morass of mismanagement have apparently been allowed to go their merry way - Mischke, Cosgrove, Shapiro and Kim. Those leaving for other schools likely did so with positive references from PEA.
And what of Principal O'Donnell who signed-off on the failures in 1993 and 1995? She is afforded extraordinary privilege. Principal Rawson publicly lauds her as his friend and mentor.
Meanwhile, the only one publicly held to account is African American. He has been put out to pasture after decades of service to the institution and denied emeritus status.
So...all this boils do to a simple series of related question for Principal Rawson:
- How is it that we punish an African American man for his failures while honoring the white woman who signed off on them. What of Assistant Principal Lassey and her former colleagues?
- Does Exeter truly condemn anti-Black racism in all its forms while it metes out such injustice?
Finally, a simple "yes" or "no" question here for the Principal and the Trustees:
Given the fatal flaws of your ad hoc committee, are we going to get a truly independent, transparent investigation into these matters???
###
Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com
