That is, in response to the post you addressed to me 9/17/04, 15:31:00. You had asked me to consider whether I thought that a number of scenarios that you described were illegal; in term of some of the scenarios you also asked if I thought that there was an issue of ethicality.
Now let me repeat that I am not a lawyer, so what I say is based on what I've read or on what lawyers have told me.
Some of the things you describe appear to me, on the basis of what I understand, to be in violation of the law. For example, I think that in all states now, counsellors would be required to report child abuse. I don't know when the scenario that you described occurred, or whether there were other factors (such as that the abuse report had already been investigated and found to be without merit). But in general, I believe that there is an ethical and a legal responsibility to report if you are in charge of a minor child and there is reason to suspect abuse.
Similarly, of course it would be illegal to purposely break a child's arm when the child was leaving without permission. However, it would not, I don't think be illegal to restrain the child and if the arm was broken as part of this restraint, then it would come down to a question of fact as to whether this was an accident or a excessive use of restraint.
Now your reference to the Wilderness Challenge or to staying up all night for Propheets is puzzling. When my son was there, this wasn't a problem and there was certainly food and water provided during that time. As I understand it, kids wanted to go on the Wilderness Challenge, and if they were not allowed to, it was because they were being punished. Same with the Propheets, I've heard them described as the best part of the program.
I never heard of anyone being forced to participate in either but I'll ask my son about it, maybe it was done differently when he was there as opposed to when you were there. But whether it would be illegal or not, I can't see how much therapeutic good could come from making a child participate until he or she was at the point of looking forward to these kinds of rituals--it sounds to me like the anticipation is part of the positive change that can occur.
I wouldn't think that it would be illegal to require other activities such as wood-chopping as part of the program--as long as basic academic education tasks are included in the curriculuum, the school would, I should think, meet state requirements. You've got to remember that a lot of in-your-seat learning time in the pulbic schools is busy work, for example, a woman I know who home-schools finds that her kids spend a fraction of the time in terms of school hours on school work and still easily pass all required testing.
And I don't know why you couldn't read books for a period of time, I would guess that they thought that you were retreating into them in order to avoid participating in the program.
I imagine that you could ban a child from reading under the law and if there was a cogent therapeutic reason, I wouldn't think that it would be unethical. In a CEDU school, whether you like it or not, a lot of this is about modifying behaviors (Deborah will have a conniption about that but it's true) and so it isn't just about academics, it's about changing patterns that the child is using to avoid facing things that must be faced in terms of normal functioning.
Can a private school discriminate on the basis of religion? I don't know but I think they may be able to, certainly Catholic schools sometimes let in non-Catholic students and do not provide non-Catholic services. I wouldn't think it would be a good idea though, we never had that during my son's time at RMA. I think that the school could require you to speak a certain language, again I'm not clear on the reason for it, maybe they thought that you were using the different language to isolate yourself from the program.
Were your parents OK with speaking to you in English on visits, and what explanation did they give you for it?
And in terms of using racial slurs, or self-disclosing examples that you give, I imagine that these things would be legal, as a part of the raps, but I would have to know more about the context to say whether I thought that it sounded helpful. Same with the counsellor who claimed to have molested a 13 yeear old--more information would be necessary to know if hiring was legal: what was his age at the time, how much time had passed. Whether it was wise for the school to employ him would depend on these and other factors such as what he has done since, in terms of becoming a different person.
I don't know if I have addressed all your scenarios, and I realize that you weren't really asking for my opinion in particularly good faith, but considering these different situations was interesting. It does illustrated the complexities of mixing educational-therapeutic elements in setting like a CEDU school. There is certainly a need to consider the least coercive way to move a self-destructive child in a better direction, while being aware that some coercion is always going to be needed, given the nature of the population being addressed.
