“Former students who claim they were sexually abused at a prestigious Rhode Island boarding school are calling for another investigation after the school issued a report acknowledging the accusations.” …
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prep-school-students-call-2nd-probe-abuse-claims-36057271
Sounds like an excuse to go after money.
The school’s moral obligation is fulfilled by acknowledging the accusations and offering reasonable help.
The victim of course has right to sue the school in a civil court for $6M, and other victims have right to join the litigation. But then the school also has right to defend itself, as it is the current administration’s duty as the treasurer of tuition and endowment. It can’t just give away whatever amount is asked by the victims. It will be the court’s decision.
Probably it is also the victims’ right to use the media to hurt the school’s reputation as a bargaining tool, as the damage sought for the 40 years old crime by a former employee might not be strong enough on it’s own. Bottom line is, it’s now purely business. Nothing personal or moral. And it should not, in my opinion, affect the current applicants.
The victims are not asking for any money at this stage of the game.
The victim sued the school for $10M once. Now she hired the same attorney again.
The school accepted the demands of the new law suit, yet they want another investigation to maintain the issue. I think it is reasonable to guess they are working on to move on to the “next stage” of the game.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/12/14/stgeorges/QBq1IfsItk6relwmPQJbRP/story.html
@jwalche, I don’t think that’s exactly correct. There is no current or “new” law suit that’s been filed. The first victim to come forward did file a suit many years ago, seeking $10 million, as you say. She later dropped that suit because, according to her (and I have to say given the times then, I find this credible), the attorneys for the school were playing hardball, suggesting that the sex with the 67 year old (incredibly unattractive) athletic trainer was consensual.
Many years later, she and her former attorney decided that that really needed to come to light and they asked St. George’s to investigate. I would note that her attorney, Eric Macleish, is a very well regarded attorney, who was deeply involved in bringing the Catholic priest sex abuse cases to light as well. He also happens to be a St. George’s alum himself, so I think it’s at least reasonable to believe that his motivations in encouraging his client to pursue this now are as much about wanting to see his alma mater come clean and move forward as it is about money.
St. George’s then conducted its own inquiry and decided that there was credible evidence that there was indeed sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s, that it was fairly widespread, and that the school administration had tried to cover it up at the time. The school apologized to the victims, informed the alumni community about the results of the investigation, and turned over what they’d learned to RI police, who are themselves now investigating possible rape charges (there is no statute of limitations for rape in RI).
Whether right or wrong I don’t know, but the original victim and other victims who came to light during this investigation feel that the school’s report didn’t tell the whole story and want a new investigation conducted. Their main argument is that the investigation was conducted by the law partner of the school’s long-time legal counsel, and that there was thus a conflict of interest. Also, and I hate to feel that I even have to say this, but I will – this isn’t just one hysterical woman coming forward. Multiple victims have come forward, and one of the most outspoken advocates of the school conducing a new investigation is a male victim who is himself now the principal of an elementary school.
Again, personally, I would tend to credit the need for a new investigation at least to some extent. When a public corporation is accused of internal wrongdoing, one of the key things they do is hire some outside party to conduct an independent investigation. You would never, ever choose someone with financial skin in the game to conduct that investigation, simply because whatever they conclude, it’s potentially going to be subject to accusations of not having been truly independent. I find it bizarre that St. George’s didn’t choose someone else to conduct the investigation, and I can’t see what harm it would do the school to have someone neutral and well-respected conduct a truly independent investigation. If a new investigation turns up nothing more, then that’s great and perhaps it will give the victims some additional measure of solace to feel that their voices were heard. If it turns up additional former wrongdoing, then that should come to light.
@soxmom, I agree with everything in your through analysis, and I also understand and respect your conclusion (if I am right) that the new actions are entirely or mostly not for the money.
Yet, with the understanding, the actions still seem more, if not most, motivated by the money. That’s my personal opinion. I acknowledge that I might be too cynical, though I don’t see me that way.
Nonetheless, I can’t see how these past crimes and current actions should affect the current applicants as @iamlucky claims that they should.
I think current applicants should only be concerned if they believe that the current administration is not being forthcoming about the investigation or scope of the prior problem. I don’t mean to suggest that’s the case at all, just that this would be the right question to ask yourself. No one can rewind time, and the fact that abuse happened in the 1970s and 1980s, or that the abuse was covered up by prior administrations, should not be germane to an assessment of the school today. Personally, I thought that the current administration seemed to have done a good job handling a difficult situation (in terms of being willing to conduct an investigation voluntarily, releasing the information publicly, turning over the files to the police, etc). The possible conflict of interest on the investigation is surprising to me, though, and I will be interested to see what the school’s response is to that issue.
@soxmom, you clearly didn’t say that. It was my personal response to @imlucky’s personal opinion on another thread because I was mixed up.
From this article, http://wpri.com/2016/01/05/alleged-sexual-abuse-victims-to-speak-in-boston/ :
“Two of the alleged perpetrators include a current Episcopal priest & an assistant school choir director in New York City.”
The fact that two of the alleged perpetrators are currently employed in positions that have contact with children is a big deal to me. Apparently Zane and his administration never reported any of the actions of the alleged perpetrators at the time they were fired (although it was/is required by law) many years ago. Did subsequent headmasters and administrators also purposely avoid reporting the info when they became aware of it?
If my kid were at St George’s (or looking to apply to St George’s) I would want to know that Peterson and his current administration are acting with full transparency leaving no stone unturned to ferret out the whole truth. A new investigation without ANY conflict of interest seems warranted to me considering how serious and widespread these allegations are regardless of when they occurred. The abuses did not occur under Peterson but he has the obligation to make darn sure that all of the information comes to light so that the victims and the school can move on.
The school already admitted that it “failed on several occasions to fulfill its legal reporting requirements,” but it reported the findings to the authorities now and they are being investigated by the police.
Ii appears to me that the school accepted all accusations by the victims and agreed to pay for therapy for victims immediately, which were all that was asked by the victims. I fail to see what more stones a more independent investigation can turn.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that the school has accepted all accusations by the victims. For instance, the school’s report identifies the number of victims as being lower than the number that the victims themselves have made public, the report only identifies one of the perpetrators by name, and does not concede that that current administration knew about the abuses and was covering it up. Now, I’m not saying that the current administration DID know and cover it up, but at least one of the victims says that he told the current headmaster some time ago and he did nothing. I have no basis at all to judge who’s telling the truth about that, and I don’t purport to do so. I’m just saying that IF the victim is right about that, I’d certainly understand why he would feel that the school has not in fact accepted full responsibility for its actions. I don’t know how fully the existing investigator looked into any allegations about the current administration being complicit after the fact, perhaps he was more focused on the historical events. If that’s the case, it seems to me that a more independent investigator could well lead to a different outcome.
@soxmom I agree.
@soxmom, alright. it makes sense. I take back my claim that they are going after the money. Now it feels that they can have another, more independent and more through investigation. Thanks for taking your time to explain.
Interesting further developments reported this morning. First, it turns out that the lawyer who conducted the investigation for St. George’s was not only the law partner of the school’s legal counsel, but also her husband. But more importantly, the school’s board of trustees and the victims’ group made a joint statement announcing that the school has agreed to have another investigation done, and that the trustees and the victims’ group will jointly select the investigator. And the advocacy of the victims has had another direct impact: one of the abusers named publicly by the victims was an Episcopalian priest (I think he was the assistant to the school chaplain at the time), while the school’s investigation had only identified him as “Perpetrator #2.” The Bishop of Pennsylvania has now removed that priest from the Episcopalian ministry in that state, where he had been acting as a substitute minister.
The Providence Journal has published several articles on the case. http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20160105/NEWS/160109705/0/SEARCH
http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20160105/NEWS/160109638
There are more stories at the site.
The victims’ lawyers claim that 40 victims have contacted them since the story broke in mid-December. I would not bet that all the victims have come forward.
Would insurance cover claims if the school administration chose not to obey the state law requiring them to report child abuse? Not once, but multiple times?
Some of the alleged perpetrators went on to careers which brought them into contact with children. The victims allege some of the employees admitted their acts at the time they left the school. If they harmed children after their departure, do you think the parents of those children won’t sue the school?
This happened a really long time ago. Just like the re living of the incidents at Horace Mann, this is all about money.
The Rhode Island State Police are investigating, according to the Providence Journal. There is no statute of limitations on such offenses in Rhode Island–and the school did not follow state law at the time, thus they have only recently been reported.
The victims were teenagers in the '70s and '80s. Some have shown themselves to be willing to speak to the media about their experiences. The Horace Mann scandals have shown that the taboo against victims speaking out no longer exists. The St. George’s victims are now well-educated, middle-aged adults.
It is not over. It would have been better for the school to have reported the offenses at the time. These are criminal offenses.
I wonder how this is impacting current-cycle admissions…
Since it happened decades ago, I suspect the impact to the current admission cycle will be limited. School administration try to make things go away quietly for “good” reasons. It would mean liabilities and bad publicity. It’s most relevant whether kids enrolling now will be exposed to more danger for sex abuse than other schools. In that sense, the recent scandal in SPS is more detrimental.