NOTICE TO POTENTIAL PARENTS

[Anonymous]

I think at least some of your questions are relevant and valid.

My concern is the hyperbole that gets regurgitated here.

The first is the continued insinuation that the only people that support Hyde are the Gaulds and members of the "administration" (and a small number of people who drank the cool-aid).  You didn't, but the person who responded to my post said:

I am very happy there is someone on this board who obviously is a part of Hyde. I hope you are willing to clear up what you say are misconceptions."

 

You will notice quotes to this effect through-out, all not-so-subtle-digs that there aren't any legitimate supporters of Hyde (the more overt digs being that we are all cultists who drank the cool-aide).

FOR ME, My experience is there is a large number of supporters and I interact with at least some of them independently and many more at reunions.

Anyway, back to the specific post to which I respond -- in this most recent case, there was the insinuation that something was done inappropriately, but no details were provided.

Personally, I like the quote someone wrote above.....

I too think everyone needs to be careful about how they criticize Hyde. I think it's very fair to make comments about Hyde's model and misguided approach to education. On this website there are many fair and thoughtful criticisms about Hyde's cult qualities, unskilled staff (some, not all), terribly negligent handling of students' mental health issues, abusive and destructive seminar format, Joe Gauld's arrogance and hypocrisy, unusually high admission and high attrition rates, and so on.

But, I don't think anyone should be making allegations about the Gaulds' income, the school's fiscal balance, or any other matters about which we don't know the facts. This is unfair and hits below the belt. I would encourage everyone to limit their criticisms to their own personal experiences and observations. Personal opinion is fine so long as it can be backed up with actual experiences and facts. Anything else is pure and unfair speculation and conjecture.

With regard to your questions, I think its fair to ask them.  Without the facts, I don't think its fair to answer them or jump to conclusions about the answers to them.

We don't know attrition rates, run-away rates, how many have mental problems and the like.

We do have people on this site who cite "many, many" and the like, but that, my friends, is conjecture.  We simply don't know the numbers and your personal experience, while relevant, is not determinative.

FWIW, I do agree that if certain disclosures aren't made, that they should (for instance, that parents will be pushed to disclose personal information that they may feel is embarassing, but the disclosure of which could also be quite healing and instrumental in exposing the disfunction of the family system that they present), etc.

Similarly, the academic backgrounds of every teacher should be posted on Hyde's website.

Anyway, point is I don't disagree with you on many of your questions and suggestions about disclosures, but that's completely different than the issues to which I responded about the alleged choking and the Paul Hurd incident.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-24 06:41:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2005-11-21 08:41:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

On 2005-11-21 01:37:00, Anonymous wrote:



"

On 2005-11-20 22:04:00, Anonymous wrote:




"You left out the time when one of the Gauld family, (through marriage) attacked a student. I would not doubt if the student provoked it, but I would hope someone in this man's position would be able to keep his cool. He apologized to the school afterwards, but what does this tell you about the quality of the administrators?  "

Since you're a tad short on the facts, not much."

So if I am  "tad" short on the facts, why don't you clear it up.  What justifies an administrator pushing a kid against a wall and choking them?





As far as Paul Hurd not giving Malcolm credit, if he didn't do anything wrong then why did the school send out letters to everyone explaining that he was leaving because of the incident?





I am very happy there is someone on this board who obviously is a part of Hyde. I hope you are willing to clear up what you say are misconceptions."

1.  Your statement about not knowing if the student provoked it suggests you don't know the details.  Without those, your post is meaningless.  In your follow on post you add new facts about choking the student.  Again, we don't know what led up to it, but if a student is a danger to himself or others, that would certainly justify physical restraint in my book.  Beyond that, I would need the details of the incident to evaluate it.  Hence my comment that your post is basically meaningless.



2.  The Paul Hurd incident was confusing to me.  Malcolm's letter said conflicting things. Yes, I gave this stuff to Paul to use as he saw fit.  No, he should not have used them and it was plagarism and is being removed (or stepping down).  I presume since this was Mal's brother in law, he was just throwing him a bone, but didn't read it all closely enough to think about it more.



As I've written before, the Paul Hurd incident to me is not evidence of Hyde being bad.  There is no school in the country not rocked by sexual assault, rape an other outrageous behavior by supervisorial adults.  And like the catholic church, many remove the teacher without legal action to avoid scandal.  Hyde did not have to deal with this situation so openly....but instead said, hey, we believe in honesty and openness, so we are going to let you in on an embarassing thing that hurts us all, but to be consistent, this is how we must handle it.



They aired their dirty laundry publicly and openly and handled the situation responsibly.  



That, to me, is evidence of their integrity.



That, to me, is evidence of Hyde's leadership.



You can spin it how you want, but what didn't happen was Hyde trying to keep it quiet and sweep it under the rug.  Instead it sent a letter to the entire alumni community....not just current family and students.  Personally, I don't know if I would have ever found out about it, but for their aggressive exemplary behavior.  I tipped my hat to Hyde for this one."

Like a few other people who are posting here, I agree that Hyde does some things well.  I can't argue with Hyde's efforts to get students to examine their character and attitudes.  I don't think it's fair to point out all that is wrong with Hyde (and I think there's a tremendous amount wrong with Hyde) without acknowledging what Hyde does that may have some merit.

But, the unquestionable reality is that what's wrapped around whatever Hyde does well is fundamentally flawed and toxic.  There is so much wrong with Hyde (pointed out hundreds of times elsewhere on this website) that what's toxic completely overshadows whatever redeeming features Hyde has.

Here's the best analogy I can think of: Imagine going to a restaurant that serves a very fine, tasty dish.  It's perfectly appropriate to acknowledge this impressive, appealing dish.  Then you find out that the restaurant's kitchen violates a number of critically important health department regulations and standards.  Departmental inspectors have documented that the kitchen is overwhelmed with rodents, staff who prepare food don't wash their hands regularly, a number of ingredients in the refrigerator are spoiled and far beyond their "use" dates, and silverware isn't cleaned properly (low water temp).

If that were the case, would you take your family to eat at that restaurant?  Would the restaurant's one impressive dish outweigh all that is wrong with the restaurant?  I suspect that any thoughtful person who cared about his or her own health and his or her family's health would get out of that restaurant fast and look for an alternative.

And that's the situation with Hyde.  This is what every parent who considers Hyde and what every educational consultant needs to know.

[Lars]

Here's the best analogy I can think of: Imagine going to a restaurant that serves a very fine, tasty dish.  It's perfectly appropriate to acknowledge this impressive, appealing dish.  Then you find out that the restaurant's kitchen violates a number of critically important health department regulations and standards.  Departmental inspectors have documented that the kitchen is overwhelmed with rodents, staff who prepare food don't wash their hands regularly, a number of ingredients in the refrigerator are spoiled and far beyond their "use" dates, and silverware isn't cleaned properly (low water temp).

You forgot to add:  And many people have gotten violently ill from eating there.

[Anonymous]

I can posit "some" people got ill from it.

I can also posit for "some" people this fish saved them from starvation and whatever other ills associated with it, the cure was worth the pain.

Metaphors aside, I seriously wish there was an easy metric for this sort of thing, because while the attrition and run-away rate is relevant on some level, its never the less an unknown and not necessarily correllated.

People leave Hyde for a wide variety of reasons and the number of posts on a website by anonymous posters does not make the case any more compelling.

There are definitely "some" who seem to have been abused at Hyde.  There definitely seem to be "some" who had great experiences at Hyde.  Both sides want to claim substantial numbers, but neither side has the ability to back them up.

Should Hyde disclose attrition (including run-aways)?  Absolutely!  I'll sign up for that request, as for me that's basic consumer information.

But without that data, while there may be many with valid tales to share on this site, any discussion of the numbers being on one side or the other seems fundamentally suspect.

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-24 15:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

There are definitely "some" who seem to have been abused at Hyde. There definitely seem to be "some" who had great experiences at Hyde.

Do you think those who had a good time might have developed an unhealthy insensitivity to those who were abused? And do you not think that's a kind of damage?

You can lead a camel to water but you can't make it stink (any more than it already does)
-- Job

[Lars]

On 2005-11-24 15:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I can posit "some" people got ill from it.



I can also posit for "some" people this fish saved them from starvation and whatever other ills associated with it, the cure was worth the pain.



Metaphors aside, I seriously wish there was an easy metric for this sort of thing, because while the attrition and run-away rate is relevant on some level, its never the less an unknown and not necessarily correllated.



People leave Hyde for a wide variety of reasons and the number of posts on a website by anonymous posters does not make the case any more compelling.



There are definitely "some" who seem to have been abused at Hyde.  There definitely seem to be "some" who had great experiences at Hyde.  Both sides want to claim substantial numbers, but neither side has the ability to back them up.



Should Hyde disclose attrition (including run-aways)?  Absolutely!  I'll sign up for that request, as for me that's basic consumer information.



But without that data, while there may be many with valid tales to share on this site, any discussion of the numbers being on one side or the other seems fundamentally suspect."

As another poster mentioned, the Class Notes section of their bulletin should shed some light on how many viewed their experience positively enough to stay involved.  Most people who make it through there never look back.  Actual numbers?  I couldn't give you an exact percentage for how many give money to the school or return for alumni weekends, for example.  But I bet it's pretty low.  Most of the people I've stayed in contact with feel the way I do - they're embarassed to admit they went there.

And the posts on this website do make a strong case.  I can't speak for others, but I spent three years in Bath and I know what went on there.  If one of their "success stories" wouldn't send a kid there in a million years, that should tell you something.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-24 15:48:00, Antigen wrote:

"

On 2005-11-24 15:17:00, Anonymous wrote:


There are definitely "some" who seem to have been abused at Hyde. There definitely seem to be "some" who had great experiences at Hyde.

Do you think those who had a good time might have developed an unhealthy insensitivity to those who were abused? And do you not think that's a kind of damage?

On this site I have seen the detractors of Hyde calling people names (cultists, brainwashed, etc. etc).  On this site I have seen some pro Hyde people say that many of the people with discipline problems and others who are just detractors didn't get it.  Both statements can be seen as invalidating (and thus being insensitive to) others.

That said, many of the anti- and pro- Hyde folks here post thoughtful personal experiences and observations about Hyde.  

What I think creates unnecessary acrimony (and at least perceived insensitivitly on both sides) is the format of this website which allows everyone to be anonymous instead of requiring posters to use anonymous but unique pseudonyms that make linear conversations more possible.

If your question is more specific to this stream, then I have to throw it back at you and ask that if you have more direct knowledge about the assault alleged above (but which no one seems to have any real facts) and about why they Paul Hurd situation was not exemplary -- in either case in a fashion that makes the responsive comments insensitive, I think everyone would encourage you to point that insensitivity out more directly.

[Anonymous]

1. Your statement about not knowing if the student provoked it suggests you don't know the details. Without those, your post is meaningless. In your follow on post you add new facts about choking the student. Again, we don't know what led up to it, but if a student is a danger to himself or others, that would certainly justify physical restraint in my book. Beyond that, I would need the details of the incident to evaluate it. Hence my comment that your post is basically meaningless.

As I've written before, the Paul Hurd incident to me is not evidence of Hyde being bad. There is no school in the country not rocked by sexual assault, rape an other outrageous behavior by supervisorial adults. And like the catholic church, many remove the teacher without legal action to avoid scandal. Hyde did not have to deal with this situation so openly....but instead said, hey, we believe in honesty and openness, so we are going to let you in on an embarassing thing that hurts us all, but to be consistent, this is how we must handle it.

They aired their dirty laundry publicly and openly and handled the situation responsibly.

That, to me, is evidence of their integrity.

That, to me, is evidence of Hyde's leadership.

You can spin it how you want, but what didn't happen was Hyde trying to keep it quiet and sweep it under the rug. Instead it sent a letter to the entire alumni community....not just current family and students. Personally, I don't know if I would have ever found out about it, but for their aggressive exemplary behavior. I tipped my hat to Hyde for this one."
**********************************************************************************************

You certainly have put a lot of time and effort into researching all the posts and have articulated YOUR OPINIONS.  I give you credit for this.  This board is for all posts both positive and negative and you have given us your positive spin on Hyde.  This is your right.

My opinion, (which I too am entitled to) difers with yours.  I will respond to a couple of the above statements.

I was at the weekend where this incident happened.  I was not at the site where it happened, but as you know at Hyde it takes approximately 1 min and 30 seconds for rumors to fly.  I was told not only by students, but faculty alike that this boy was with his father when having an arguement with Mr McMillan.  The boy spit at Mr McMillan, and he reacted by pinning him against the wall and choking him.  You can defend this action all your want, but it is MHO that Mr McMillan should have had enough self control not to react the way he did.  He is a top administrator and this is innapropriate behavior.

You state, "There is no school in the country not rocked by sexual assault, rape an other outrageous behavior by supervisorial adults. To me this comment in itself is outrageous.  Your inference is that because it is the norm for other schools, it is not so outrageous for it to happen at Hyde. Sorry guy, but I didn't pay $35,000 per year for my daughter to be around this!!


You also state, "As I've written before, the Paul Hurd incident to me is not evidence of Hyde being bad."  Who said that this one incident is what makes Hyde bad??  All that potential families need to do is read all the posts where parents and students tell their story!  They can judge for themselves!

In this particular incident with Paul Hurd, Hyde did discuss this openly, but in my experience at Hyde this is rare!  It is very rare for Hyde to air their dirty laundry.  

As I said at the beginning.  Everyone on this board is entitled to their own opinion, and this is mine!  I would not be so arrogant, (like you) to say I am right and you are wrong.  We have two differing opinions!

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-25 07:53:00, Anonymous wrote:

Again, we don't know what led up to it, but if a student is a danger to himself or others, that would certainly justify physical restraint in my book.

Ok, then how are we defining what is and is not a threat to oneself or others? Speaking from my own experience in a similar program (similar in some ways, not identical) here's how that went and I'll explain why I think it's similar.

In the Seed and Straight, just like the rest of the troubled parent industry, the parents, staff and (to some extent) client group believed they would be deadinsaneorinjail without the Program. I keep hearing that about Hyde, too.

It's hard to say how much a kid actually believed that at any particular time. But that's how it works; if you disagreed and let it slip by word or gesture or posture or facial expression, there would be consequences. I keep hearing that from former Hyde students too.

So it appeared for all the world that everyone but the misbehaver believed that the effective operation of the Program was absolutely as necessary to our individual and group survival as insulin to a diabetic.

So talking out in group, as in mocking the whole stupid program, or just trying to walk away, defying the authority that kept the rest of us sitting ram-rod straight in our chairs or in any way undermining the false consensus or chain of command was deemed a threat to everyone's life. Hell, when my dad asked the Parents group for support for a project of his that was unrelated to the Program, he got reemed out for trying to kill us all by diverting funds and volunteer hours away from us. If they thought they could get away with it, I bet they would have slammed his ass on the floor and sat on him till he decided to work his program again.

I'm hoping Hyde is not quite THAT extreme. And, from all I'm hearing, it's not. But that still leaves the question, and it's a really important question; how does Hyde determine what is and is not a threat to a student's self or peers? Without that crucial bit of information, you (Hyde supporters) sound to me just about like a wife beater saying "The bitch didn't know when to shut up."

Not very compelling. Actually, kind of ugly.

The inspiration of the Bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer

_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82

[Anonymous]

Is anyone out there capable of doing a Dun and Bradstreet??  This would certainly prove whether it is correct that Hyde and the Gauld Family are well off or whether they are truly doing this out of the goodness of their heart like they say!

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-25 07:53:00, Anonymous wrote:

In this particular incident with Paul Hurd, Hyde did discuss this openly, but in my experience at Hyde this is rare! It is very rare for Hyde to air their dirty laundry.

Well, here's the problem with that from my point of view. Just like Art Barker (Seed founder) and all the little tin gods who followed his methods and example, the core staff at Hyde seem to believe that they are privy to some special enlightenment that the rest of us poor SOBs just don't have. If anyone disagrees with them, it's never that they're wrong about anything, the entire formula for determining who's right or wrong in that case is "Hyde can't be wrong." That's just not a good formula for reasoning.

And, following that "logic", I'd guess that Hyde has the same problems crop up again and again. And, again and again, they ignore the pattern, toss out a sacrificial lamb and pretend they have properly addressed the problem. I'd guess that anyone involved in Hyde--student, parent or staff--who tried to raise discussion about why these same kinds of abuses seem to keep occuring, or to suggest that the problem may have more to do with the structure of the program than the succession of individuals involved in it would face some pretty harsh responses.

Am I entirely off here?

the war on drugs is but one manifestation, albeit a very dramatic one, of the great moral contests of our age -- the struggle between two diametrically opposed images of man: between man as responsible moral agent, 'condemned' to freedom, benefiting and suffering from the consequences of his actions; and man as irresponsible child, unfit for freedom, 'protected' from its risks by agents of the omnicompetent state.
--Thomas Szasz

[Anonymous]

No, you aren't off at all.  Hyde for years will say, "we are growing and learning" whenever they screw up.  You would think they would have it right being in existence as many years as they have!!  

You are absolutely right that they have a difficult time admitting when they are wrong.  Joe Gauld is NEVER wrong. He is G-d like and he will tell you so.  In fact I think I have a letter he sent out to the parents referring to himself as above most anyone else in the world and telling the parents that he knows best, (not us) how to handle our kids!  I will look for this letter and if I find it I will reprint it on this website.

[Antigen]

Oh, absolutely! Anybody w/ documents I'd highly recomend that you consider making them public. Just be careful about info that might hurt innocents, like surnames and such. But most of the time, if you are entrusted w/ private communication and there's nothing like the legal confidentiality requirements you'd have w/ a lawyer or doctor, it's fair game at your discretion.

Check w/ a lawyer first, though, if you're not sure.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.  
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0136374069/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'> Andrew Tannenbaum

[Anonymous]

I wish parents who are considering Hyde could have been a fly on the wall at our home the past two days.  My daughter is home for the Thanksgiving break.  One of her friends from Hyde is staying with us as well; the friend's family situation is very chaotic and the friend asked whether she could stay with us during the break.  We were happy to accommodate her (with her parents' "blessing").

We've now heard quite a few conversations about Hyde from students' perspective.  My daughter and her friend are very, very  cynical about Hyde and have spoken at length about how many kids there play the Hyde "game" in order to survive (these two girls are not "off track" kids, to use Hyde's terminology).  We've heard lots of unsolicited anecdotes that confirm many of the postings on this website.  Major themes include the large percentage of Hyde kids who struggle with major mental health problems but do not have access to any professional services on campus; the poor quality of some of the teaching; the extremely inappropriate details the kids have heard during FLCs and other seminars; the number of staff who struggle with issues in their own lives and interact with kids inappropriately (using insulting language, verbal abuse); the kids whose behavior is out of control and who run away; and so forth.  Joe Gauld came up a lot during the conversations; I was amazed at how perceptive the kids are.  They spoke eloquently about Joe Gauld's pompous, arrogant, and insulting behaviors.  The kids seem to see right through the man.

I realize these anecdotes represent only two Hyde students' perceptions.  And, I can't verify every one of their reports.  But the girls' comments sure are consistent with what I've heard from lots of parents and some other students during the years our family has been connected with Hyde.  These conversations convince us more than ever that we made a terribly serious mistake when we enrolled our child at Hyde.  We're also convinced that our decision to leave Hyde is the right one.

[Antigen]

Interesting! On the one hand, yeah, probably not the top notch private boarding school it may be cracked up to be. On the other, these girls felt comfortable talking w/ you about it? I'm guessing you've given enough detail to bust your anonymity w/ Hyde staff. Does that concern you? Please let us know if there's any fallout and what kind.

I don't believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
--Andrew Carnegie, Scottish-born American industrialist and philanthropist