VANITY & VEXATION: QUESTIONS FOR BILL RAWSON AT EXETER LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP

Not featured at this year's APV

So much for Exeter Leadership Weekend!  This year, the gathering for the most devoted in the Academy community is quite different.

In the past, this has been a three-day event running from Friday night through midday Sunday. This change isn’t just due to the pandemic. Last year’s Zoom-based gathering was far more extensive than this year’s truncated two-hour “workshop" for alumni plus another two hours for parents. Of particular interest is how the “town hall” element is eviscerated. The hour or more Q&A for the CFO and Principal has been cut to 25 minutes. 

Perhaps a better name for this dog-and-pony show would be the Academy Potemkin Village.

So intrepid participants wanting some glimmer of truth in this bit of performance art will have to work hard to get the right questions in. I have my own question – an unexpected one which I’ll get to presently.

But first, let’s consider what’s on the minds of many Exonians - Principal Rawson’s unflattering portrait in the current Vanity Fair.  One alumna asked me if there was going to be a session dedicated to discussing this. The Academy’s leadership has known this was coming for months. The alumni volunteers should be briefed on how to answer questions this will raise for prospective students and their families. Unfortunately, there’s nothing scheduled.

How to account for such an unfortunate oversight? Or is it by design? 

I’m having a strong sense of Déjà vu. This seems to be a repeat performance from three years ago when the results of the long-awaited “independent investigation” into campus sexual assault hit. After some 30 months had passed since it was initially announced (these typically run 8-10 months at peer institutions), the “overview” of the findings was dropped at the end of the day on a late August Friday. There was nothing scheduled for Exeter Leadership Weekend that September. Was tossing this into the Memory Hole (then Interim) Principal Rawson’s first big coup?

The odds of there being any real opportunity to put Principal Rawson on-the-spot for his unwelcome national exposure are slim-to-none. 

At heart, alumna Nancy Jo Sales’ heartrending story is a memoir of being traumatized by the Academy’s ham-handed treatment. She was collateral damage in a dubious effort that ended in the destruction of the reputation of “a hard-working, beloved teacher who cared about kids,” as one colleague described Dave Weber. What’s revealed? “It's clear that school doesn't care about its faculty, students, or alums. They only care about the ‘brand’.” I’d add that this is pretty much what you should expect by having a petrochemical and pesticide industry attorney as Principal. 

For me, what’s portrayed is a sad end to the idealism I started with five years ago. I had hopes that the then-Principal and President of the Trustees would pioneer a new, healthy model for prep schools. This devastating account is a rude awakening. The dream for "a fresh attitude and understanding" has become a nightmare.

“Mr. Weber’s Confession” is also an expose. What it reveals raises critical questions that Principal Rawson really needs to answer. The new information raises fundamental issues with the Academy’s “independent” investigation into campus sexual assault.

Let’s go back to what was promised. According to The Exonian:

To ensure a truly impartial investigation into cases dating back to the 1940s, Exeter and Holland & Knight established several protocols to guide their relationship. First, Holland & Knight checked their records to make sure that they had no previous relationship with Exeter, and Exeter did the same. The school also signed a document promising not to hire Holland & Knight for five years after the conclusion of the investigation, preventing the investigation from being conducted from a point of self interest.

Since H&K’s investigation apparently concluded some three years ago, it is troubling that the firm is front-and-center for the misadventures portrayed in Vanity Fair. Here is the question I posed to Attorney Catanzano yesterday – as yet, no reply from him or the Trustees copied.

 

Attorney/Principal Rawson, too, should have to answer this as well as address ancillary issues. Rather than put him on-the-spot at the Town Hall, I am being so kind as to provide my questions ahead of time so he’s got a day to ponder his response to these:

How is it that H&K is still working for PEA? Doesn’t that mean that the school has violated its agreement NOT to hire them for five years after concluding its investigation? Perhaps, instead, the investigation is unending. If so, that is certainly different than what was originally understood. How and when was that change decided, and by whom?  

Perhaps this is all some kind of mistake. I'm all ears.

Now, if things are as they appear, how do Principal Rawson and the Trustees intent to mend this breach of trust with those (like myself) interviewed by H&K, and also the larger community? Why should current students and their families have any confidence given what would appear to be a gross lack of institutional integrity? Why should alumni continue to support this financially or by their volunteerism?

BONUS – a question for CFO Marijka Beauchesne:

How much, exactly, was spent on H&K and also on Nixon-Peabody’s work in the wake of the 2016 scandal? The Academy’s tax returns indicate that somewhere from $3 - $5 million was paid to Nixon-Peabody. Does that include H&K’s fees? Also, how do the sums spent for the law firms compare to those spent to settle claims by those harmed at the Academy? 

###

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

Twitter @EUnafraid.