AN ASSAULT ON OUR OPEN SOCIETY

A Temple for the Open Society

EDITORIAL NOTE: this is adapted from an email sent to the General Alumni Association Directors on the eve of the start of "virtual" Exeter Leadership Week. 

***

Louis Kahn's design concept for the Academy  library is radical. The "open stacks" are truly open.The grand staircase at the entrance lacks a security chokepoint. This free access is a fundamental departure from other libraries. It serves as a symbol of what we treasure most: an expression of our fearless, courageous insistence that freedom of inquiry is the best "defense of the open society against its enemies."

In the transition to digital, Exeter had been demonstrating leadership in carrying this profound belief forward. Three years ago, the newly digitized archives of The Exonian, the "oldest continuous preparatory school newspaper in America," went online. The school afforded "free browsing access to the entire archive" with minimal restrictions.  

Now, alumni have been locked out. What's happening here? 

The Fall 2017 library newsletter focused on this extraordinary asset for the community:

The Exonian is an invaluable historical resource for the history of our school, and indeed for the history of secondary education. Until now, access to back issues has been limited to fragile bound volumes in the Academy Archives, but we are now happy to announce that the entire run of the newspaper, back to volume 1, issue 1 of April 6, 1878, is available online at archive.theexonian.com!

Visitors to the site will be able to search and browse the entire historical archive of the newspaper, and clip and save articles as images or text. We invite you to explore the length and breadth of Academy history from the student’s perspective...

Since the launch, many have utilized the archive. You can find numerous alumni postings on social media that link to it (for example, this posting in the "Exonians" Facebook group). The Exonian archive should have been recognized as a signal success in the emerging digital paradigm. While some wonder if the Internet has made the library an expensive anachronism, this created opportunities and occasions for community engagement.

Now, alumni have been locked out.  What's happening here?    

The Digital Scholia

From the beginning, I wondered about ways to take advantage of this digital reboot. After conversations with Peter Nelson, the now-departed Academy Archivist, I realized how we could use the new capabilities to capture informal knowledge/social history.  

I should mention that during the Dot Com era, I wrote extensively about the "New Media" for numerous "old" media trade publications." The first flowering of the World Wide Web gave me the chance to rethink human communication. The digitization of the Exonian archives was an opportunity to put this experience to use.

There's really nothing completely new about "New Media." Email, for example, is simply the oldest electronic medium, telegraphy, grafted onto the IP-infrastructure. Of course, that sparked a revolution. What inspired me here is the phenomena of "scholia" in ancient literature. These are the marginal notes that explain arcane, obscure details that explain the text. This came to mind as I discovered the notation capabilities the digital service provider built into their newspaper system.   

The idea - that Peter's departure left unfulfilled - was for a project that could engage every alumni Exonian editor, writer and photographer. There's a treasure trove of Academy history ungathered in the memories of anyone who has worked on The Exonian.  We could gather alumni Exonian staff online to add their recollections to the collection. We could preserve the stories behind the stories.  

As the archive went online in 2017, I tested the waters. But we never managed to properly organize it.  Still, it should be easy to network through the alumni editors to create an occasion/event to gather alumni. It would be like the Wikipedia "edit-a-thon" the library hosted not long ago.  

A Roadblock on the Digital Superhighway

Locked out of our own property

Suddenly, this is no longer possible. 

 Last week, I went to the archive to look for a news item. I discovered that alumni are now "outsiders" locked out of content less than 75 years old. You can see for yourself with this link to the graduation issue my senior year.

I immediately contacted those in charge to ask what was the situation. My email exchange with the Academy's new Head of Archives and Special Collections and the Academy's Librarian is troubling. They seemed hesitant to acknowledge what has happened. Instead, they insisted that "this 75 year restriction has been in place since the Trustees made it so in the 1980’s." 

After pressing the point, they still would not acknowledge there's been a change. However, there is a process for gaining limited access at their discretion. "If there is a specific article that you wrote or that any other alum has written that they cannot get access to they can submit the request through the online request tool and we can help them get access to it."

So much for the dream of the internet creating broad-based engagement.  

Oh, and these new restrictions extend beyond the digital archive. We are now locked out of the microfilm and print copies that used to be "open stack" in the library basement.

What makes this even more troubling is that the Academy does not own the copyright on these materials. The alumni who created them do. So we are now locked out from our own property and must ask permission to (hopefully) be allowed access.  

Appropriate Access - Insiders vs. Outsiders

That being said, I also fully understand and appreciate a serious evaluation of the privacy issues. I was on the faculty during the arrest and conviction of a colleague in '92. I vividly remember the change in access to PEANs. Prior, they were open access in the reference section of the library. But as reporters began to snoop around, the yearbooks were moved into the library offices where they remain now - available by request.

Nothing changes till you change it

The original policy for these digital archives (which was still posted - and immediately changed once I sent the link to library staff) seemed inadequate. Anyone, anywhere could access. Only the search function was disabled for content newer than 75 years. Now, this limitation has been extended so that there's a wall that excludes alumni. 

The proper boundary, I would suggest, is that alumni be allowed unfettered access while limiting outsiders to the community. That should be easy to implement. The security system for the alumni database is the obvious model to follow. If you are allowed access to that, you should be able to access The Exonian archives - and other such content.

Finally, let's be clear about one thing. I have no desire to put the library staff serving my alma mater on-the-spot. These are professionals normally committed to expanding access. It seems obvious that they have received directives counter to that. They are not the problem. 

An Academy Principal lacking academic principles?  

The reason for shutting out alumni isn't too hard to guess.

We await a public trial following the recent arrest of a former faculty member for crimes allegedly committed on campus. Likewise, the ongoing struggle to achieve truth and reconciliation in the school's mismanagement of campus sexual assault threatens to boil over.

In short, the Academy's current leadership is under duress. Their response? Violate a core value of our academic community.  

How is that possible?

For the first time in the modern era, Exeter's Principal Instructor has no significant professional academic credentials. Is it any surprise that he operates under other values?  

All this leaves us with a few questions:

What is hidden in the archives that would motivate the current leadership to sacrifice our core commitment to open inquiry? What do they want to keep under wraps?

What does this example teach our students at a critical moment in our democracy?

Finally, if this is about image and reputation, then there's a more fundamental question. Is this an academic institution, or has it become a prosperity cult? 

The current leadership's focus on material success and maintaining appearances is telling. Who are the role models offered?  It has been a long time since new buildings on campus were named for educators who devoted their lives to the institution. Why don't we have the B. Rodney Marriott Performing Arts Center?  Because we now glorify those who have amassed significant fortunes instead. Are their donations a testament to a commitment to Non Sibi selflessness, or are they building monuments to mark their self-full success (while receiving a hefty tax-deduction)?   

Larry David, the preeminent philosopher of our times, has reflected deeply on this:

###

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

Twitter @EUnafraid.

PART II: THE MORAL EDUCATION OF A HATE PROFITEER

Mark Zuckerberg is undoubtedly Exeter's best-known alumnus. When I tell people about the school here in South Africa, I mention his connection for immediate recognition. That his fame is turning to infamy should be of concern to those responsible for his moral education. 

The Exeter/Facebook connection runs deep. "The Facebook" is the name for the "Photo Address Book." It is the directory with the face of every student, teacher, and administrator on campus. For decades, The Facebook has been a core part of every Exonian's life. It is as central as, say, the phone book in pre-Internet days. 

The toxicity of Mark Zuckerberg's brainchild is increasingly unmistakable.  Facebook has poisoned public discourse to such a degree that it threatens to bring down the American experiment in self-governance. Growing internal discontent shows how employees find themselves morally compromised implementing Zuckerberg's "values." An advertiser boycott shows that, as one outspoken defector observed, "I’m not alone in being upset about Facebook’s willingness to profit off of hate." 

Are the issues with Zuckerberg's company a reflection of his personal values? He has a majority stake in the stock that essentially gives him autocratic power - an extraordinary position for a "public" company. According to Roger McNamee, an early investor/proponent of Facebook "There is a core team of roughly ten people who manage the company, but two people – Zuck and Sheryl Sandberg – are the arbiters of everything.”

Facebook marks a malignant turn to the Internet. The dream we once had has now turned to a nightmare. During the halcyon days of the Dot Com era, I covered the rise of "New Media" for trade publications in the media business. I explained to broadcasters what the upstart Internet might mean. I had an extraordinary beat speaking with visionaries about how this could be a force for good. I was quite aware of the shadow possibilities, too.

Imagine for a moment how different things could be if Zuckerberg's company aimed to serve the public good as its primary goal? What if, instead of this "willingness to profit off of hate," he embraced the values represented by Exeter's motto, Non Sibi. How would such a Facebook operate? It might be run like Wikipedia, a public charity funded by contributions. A core function wouldn't be looking for ways to leverage our personal information for profit. Instead, it would be to encourage civic participation while protecting our privacy. Zuckerberg's Facebook is geared to fueling confirmation bias, deepening polarization and prejudice. What if it sought to expand our horizons by connecting us to people and ideas beyond the narrow confines of the familiar? 

But I digress...

Zuckerberg's lifework has become a force for evil, a product and instrument of "knowledge without goodness." But what of his moral education at Exeter? 

A Hidden Change  

When I arrived on the Exeter faculty in 1991, a dozen years after I had graduated, I didn't realize a fundamental change had occurred. The school's rules for students as written were different from the rules as enforced. My contract stipulated it was my duty to report if I witnessed students breaking major rules. My first year, I had the dubious distinction of turning the most kids for such things. How did that happen? Was it just my luck, or were colleagues looking the other way?

One such incident resolved the conundrum. In the dead of night one evening, I happened to wake up and look out the window towards a student residence across from my dorm. I saw a student leave the building. Being out after hours is a major offense. So I followed protocol. I called security and met them outside. This wasn't anything I wanted. I was sleep deprived, had a class to teach in hours, and a long day to follow. Suddenly I had a major new task tossed on the "to-do" pile. But this was a crucial part of the job. We were there to enforce these boundaries. This point was explicit in my contract. 

When the security guard arrived, he surprised me with an unexpected question. 

 "Are you sure you want to do this?" he asked. 

I explained this wasn't about what I wanted. We had a protocol and would follow it. So we called the dean on duty. A search for the missing student went forward. He was confronted for the rule violation when he turned up. Then he faced consequences in the discipline system. That meant I had to invest time in various administrative duties like writing up a report. When all was said and done, the dorm head for the errant student surprised me with a statement as out-of-place as the security officer's question. "Next time, be sure to call me first," he said.

So the rules varied depending on which faculty were involved. In one grotesque instance, a colleague inserted himself into the proceedings inappropriately. For whatever reason, he took it upon himself to attempt to "rescue" the students up for action in a case centering on dishonesty. Suddenly it was about politics and personalities rather than the student's observed behavior. Whatever value that might have been extracted from this experience was lost. 

After, I had a few words with colleagues about how this had destroyed a crucial opportunity in our moral education. The massive investment in student and faculty time was wasted - or worse.  We taught an immoral lesson. What you do isn't as important as who you know. What could we do to prevent rogue adults from offering such a toxic education again? Rather than discourage this, the particular colleague's mismanagement was legitimized. He was granted official status as an adjunct to a dorm. Of course, he did this again - played favorites regardless of the boundaries. This led to peculiar, demoralizing discipline decisions with unjust outcomes. 

What Would John Phillips Do?

A shadow over the Academy 

This is the moral education I saw several years before Mark Zuckerberg arrived on campus. I would imagine this had only become normalized over the intervening years. What would John
Phillips think of his part in educating our modern Alcibiades? He founded the Academy just as the American Experiment was getting underway. I'd like to think he'd have shut it down and pursued other interests if he knew his work was destined for this.

After the recent felony arrest of a (newly) former faculty member, maybe people are willing to consider the need for fundamental change. Reading the affidavit, it portrays a school that is simply irresponsible. Forget in loco parentis. They're loco, lousy parents. 

***

Next, let's have a look at that affidavit and what it reveals about the institutional failures it portrays.

###

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

Twitter @EUnafraid.

MARK ZUCKERBERG'S MORAL EDUCATION: PART I

The way life's supposed to be

Future historians may attribute the Phillips Exeter Academy's most famous living alumnus for something more than founding Facebook. He might be remembered instead for being a key figure in the destruction of the American Experiment in self-governance. Is he an aberration or an archetypal product of the "Exeter Experience"?  

Zuck: Augustus or Alcibiades?  

There is a long-standing tradition of holding teachers accountable for students gone bad. Ancient Athens found Socrates responsible for the monstrosity that was Alcibiades. The master's most prominent student played a pivotal role in destroying the democracy. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, Socrates empowered his traitorous self interest. Plato devoted much of his career to understanding how it was possible that his great moral teacher enabled such immorality. 

 

 

Zuckstyle hair

Now, the monstrosity that is Mark Zuckerberg threatens to do the same to the United States. "Zuck" likes to think of himself as something like Caesar Augustus. But that's just narcissistic self-delusion. Alcibiades is the better parallel. So how did this product of Exeter's vaunted moral education go bad? 

There is a deep misunderstanding about how the Academy achieves its mission: 

"Above all, it is expected that the attention of instructors to the disposition of the minds and morals of the youth under their charge will exceed every other care; well considering that though goodness without knowledge is weak and feeble, yet knowledge without goodness is dangerous, and that both united form the noblest character, and lay the surest foundation of usefulness to mankind." 

But how to achieve this? 

 Back when I was on the faculty in the early 90's, Principal Kendra Stearns O'Donnell seemed interested in that question. She asked to meet with the Religion Department to find out. I was excited at the prospect. As the Assistant School Minister and Instructor in Religion, it was a rare opportunity. The Principal was seeking our counsel on how best to carry out the school's moral mission! 

I am not sure that I can adequately express my disappointment with what happened. It turned out that the Principal was simply looking for some platitudes and soundbites to spice up her fundraising efforts. So we had been called into service to polish the appearance of providing a moral education. But what was the reality? 

You don't have to look far to get what John Phillips believed. He describes the difficult task in the very next paragraph following the oft cited passage above. Here's what the instructors need to do to accomplish this: 

"It is therefore required that they most attentively and vigorously guard against the earliest irregularities. That they frequently delineate in their natural colors the deformity and odiousness of vice, and the beauty and amiableness of virtue. That they spare no pains to convince them of the numberless and indispensable obligations; to abhor and avoid the former and to love and practise the latter; of the several great duties they owe to God, their country, their parents, their neighbors, and themselves. That they critically and constantly observe the variety of their natural tempers, and solicitously endeavor to bring them under such discipline as may tend most effectually to promote their own satisfaction and the happiness of others. That they early inure them to contemplate the several connections and various scenes incident to human life; furnishing such general maxims of conduct as may best enable them to pass through all with ease, reputation, and comfort."

Just so much talk?

In other words, you spend a lot of time working with kids to keep them on the strait-and-narrow.

So the moral education at the Academy does not reside in the Religion Department or in any academic studies. Helping adolescents advance into adulthood boils down to a very simple dynamic. The adults in the community establish and enforce boundaries. The adolescents test them. This tension/conflict/energy, properly guided, enables children to effectively enter into adulthood and the responsibilities that go with it. This is where they can learn goodness. 

For this to work, the adults have to agree what those boundaries are beforehand and then be evenhanded in enforcing them. Perhaps the single most toxic thing any adult in the PEA community can do - short of outright criminality - is to play favorites. This is especially true in matters of discipline. What happens when personalities instead of rules/principles applied to observed behaviors determine responses to rule-breaking? The students receive a toxic education. They learn that it doesn't matter what you do. What matters instead is who you know and how to cheat the game.

Some might cynically suggest this Machiavellian pedagogy is a better, more honest preparation for life than a rule/justice-based understanding. Great. But that isn't what John Phillips intended. Somehow, this cynicism passing as morality is what apparently guides Zuckerberg. So, if he is a product of Exeter,  then the education it offers has come completely off-the-rails in terms of being faithful to its mission.

***

Next up in Part II, a postmodernist rendition of Crime & Punishment. I'll talk about what happened late one night when I inadvertently happened on some rule-breaking. My would-be Raskolnikov? A PG sneaking out after hours.  

###

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

Twitter @EUnafraid.

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