Scary Larry back on campus!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Joe, you can't handle the truth

[Ursus]

All work and no play, make Jack a very dull boy...

[Ursus]

Well the truth is, we at Hyde know what is best for you. That is the truth, not these sordid talks of personal peccadilloes of long departed faculty.

HMmm... All very easy for you to say.  Our banter aside, I wonder just how the respective personally affected kids felt in the aftermath.  How have they been able to come to terms with being taken advantage of sexually by faculty members?  Also -- in the cases that came to light while they were there -- how have they dealt with how Hyde has/had chosen to deal with said circumstances?  Anybody hear anything of/from these kids?

[Anonymous]

What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?

On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.

The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?

[Anonymous]

What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?

On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.

The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?

Following up my previous post, I don't think Hyde keeps Dubinsky around because they value him more than the bad publicity. Hyde markets itself as a provider of character. Now, there are probably only a handful of corporations in America that would not dismiss Dubinsky at the first allegation of child molestation. For Hyde to do so, however, would amount to an admission of its gross judgment mistakes and fallibility in the character arena, thereby undermining its entire marketing platform. In effect, there is an incentive to retain disgraced teachers like Dubinsky.

[Anonymous]

What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?

On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.

The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?

Following up my previous post, I don't think Hyde keeps Dubinsky around because they value him more than the bad publicity. Hyde markets itself as a provider of character. Now, there are probably only a handful of corporations in America that would not dismiss Dubinsky at the first allegation of child molestation. For Hyde to do so, however, would amount to an admission of its gross judgment mistakes and fallibility in the character arena, thereby undermining its entire marketing platform. In effect, there is an incentive to retain disgraced teachers like Dubinsky.

This leads to an evolutionary dynamic that prioritizes "the bad genes." Hyde entrusts character education, increasingly over time, to those least qualified to teach it.

[Ursus]

I don't think Hyde sees the connection between the sick subtext of seminaring people's sexual secrets to death, and the confess all in the name of "truth" mentality that is part and parcel of their modus operandi, and the tacit green light given pedophiles like Dubinsky, Thurrell, Milton(s) et al.  

It was no coincidence that Larry Dubinsky was the person these kids had to confess all their sexual indiscretions to (Dean's Area?), and that he prodded them to go into far greater detail than any normal person would have felt comfortable hearing.

People like these latter examples have more wrong with them than mere pedagogues are capable of addressing.  It would appear that Hyde seeks to deal with them the same way they deal with every thing else:  they need an attitude adjustment!  Ha!Ha!

Of course once an appropriate amount of effacement has been undergone, they are welcomed back into the fold of high esteem, if they ever left in the first place.  "We're all just one big happy family, eh?"  Yet, somehow, surprising to Hyde, yet not surprising in the least bit to any sane person on this earth, the victimized kids feel too ostracized to return.  I guess they don't have enough commitment.  Or enough character.

If you molly-coddle pedophiles, they will continue to abuse.  No amount of "contemplation" will even start to scratch that surface.

[Anonymous]

What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?

On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.

The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?

They are all SICK!!  I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls.  He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.  

What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students.  Isn't this a little odd?  We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him.  Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble.  The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female.  In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently.  The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way.  The police would have been called in.  Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once.  Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away.  Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim.  Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school?  Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?

That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down!  I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School

[Anonymous]

What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?

On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.

The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?

They are all SICK!!  I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls.  He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.  

What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students.  Isn't this a little odd?  We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him.  Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble.  The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female.  In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently.  The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way.  The police would have been called in.  Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once.  Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away.  Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim.  Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school?  Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?

That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down!  I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School

I wrote the post that you quoted. I have to admit that, having left many years ago without suffering any major trauma, I devote a few minutes of my day to this site primarily for amusement; it's rebellious and fun, just like old times. The subject of Hyde as the microcosm of a small state run by madmen also holds some interest for me. But when I read posts like yours I am reminded of the very real suffering going on there, and I feel for you kids. I agree with you 200% that "the Hyde way" should be banned, and I am optimistic that it will be when children's rights and the harmfulness of homespun mental health therapies like Gauld's become a big enough public issue. Hopefully, our insights and testimonies will hasten that day.

[Ursus]

They are all SICK!!  I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls.  He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.  

What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students.  Isn't this a little odd?  We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him.  Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble.  The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female.  In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently.  The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way.  The police would have been called in.  Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once.  Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away.  Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim.  Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school?  Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?

That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down!  I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School

I wrote the post that you quoted. I have to admit that, having left many years ago without suffering any major trauma, I devote a few minutes of my day to this site primarily for amusement; it's rebellious and fun, just like old times. The subject of Hyde as the microcosm of a small state run by madmen also holds some interest for me. But when I read posts like yours I am reminded of the very real suffering going on there, and I feel for you kids. I agree with you 200% that "the Hyde way" should be banned, and I am optimistic that it will be when children's rights and the harmfulness of homespun mental health therapies like Gauld's become a big enough public issue. Hopefully, our insights and testimonies will hasten that day.

What the hell is wrong with a place that sacrifices the psychological health, not to mention sanity, of its students and families to protect one of its own?  Guest is right, these people are SICK!!  Oh, there are regulations alright, but Hyde places itself above them.

Hyde School knowingly declines to report sexual abuses committed by its faculty, knowingly withholds information of such activity from the rest of the community, and knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.  What does this say about Hyde's modus operandi?

Hyde considers itself above the law.  Think about that for a minute.  Think about the sheer arrogance that it takes to continue that mind set for decades.  The Dubinsky case is nothing new to Hyde.  Laura Denton Gauld and Laurie Gauld Hurd were both students at Hyde when the Thurrell incident occurred.  They have both been well schooled in the art of protecting the Hyde cabal at the expense of the victimized student.

[Anonymous]

Hyde School knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.

Are you sure about this?

[Ursus]

Hyde School knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.

Are you sure about this?

Which part, that they knowingly reinstate and/or abet, or that they do this once the student and their family have gone?

I actually was trying to give them the benefit of doubt by saying that the student and their family have gone.  I think they do this while the student and the family are/were still involved with the school.  That is, at least, what they did in Thurrell's case.  From what I've heard about the Dubinsky case, that is what they did as well.  Dubinsky continued to live in faculty housing, whether that was on campus or a few houses up the street, it certainly wasn't far enough away.

I suppose one might also consider what constitutes "abet."  And I don't know exactly what they do re. reinstatement, which is why I phrased it "knowingly reinstate and/or abet."  I don't know exactly what they do, but clear it is that they help this faculty member in some way from facing the consequences of their actions, and do not help the students in question in dealing with the circumstances of the assault in some healthy way.  This is above and beyond the mind-boggling illegalities of the whole scenario.

Their behavior would suggest that they consider the student a greater liability than the faculty member in circumstances like these.  And that says a lot about their avowed ideals vis a vis education in general, not to mention a "character-based" one.

[Anonymous]

Hyde School knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.

Are you sure about this?

Which part, that they knowingly reinstate and/or abet, or that they do this once the student and their family have gone?

The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?

[Ursus]

The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?

Good question.  I have no idea.  But the middle school placement appears to be a relatively recent entry in Thurrell's illustrious teaching career.  It may well be that his wife is more responsible for the requisite "character reference."  One would imagine that a Waldorf school would require more than that.  Perhaps the current Hyde School administration could attest to giving said reference?

I was under the impression that once you are guilty of such a transgression, you are not supposed to teach kids again.

[Anonymous]

I thnk Bob was teaching kids at some boat building place near Portland about 5 ys ago.