What a person chooses to do with that experience would seem to be up to them. Some people go to scary movies and see monsters, some see actors in make up.
Interesting. So, to be clear, are you saying that a person who suffers from trauma is choosing to do so?
Kind of that whole "I am responsible for what I see." line from the summit?
I find your logic of comparing 2.5 years at CEDU to the experience of watching a 90 minute horror movie to be inherently flawed. Especially since you can always walk out of a movie theater. (Although, interestingly enough, I
have always maintained that if there were ever to be a fictionalized film based on CEDU, the only person qualified to really capture the feel of that place would be David Lynch.)
Also, it seems you are conflating the people who frequent forums on this issue to be people who haven't "gotten over it". What is your basis for that observation? Simply because they choose to talk about it? Process it? Do you also feel that having an agenda for putting a stop to the troubled teen industry can be boiled down to butthurt plain and simple? Granted, there are lots of people who still have issues and are working towards closure, (and I personally don't think that's a bad thing) but are you absolutely sure that every single person who chooses to discuss their experience are navel-gazers who pick at emotional scabs? Or is it just people who have been out 20+ years? What is your statute of limitations on that? 5? 10? And if so, how did you come to that conclusion? Was there a study? A control group? (I personally maintain that there *should* be a study, actually. Let's see how "successful" these duck farms really are, once and for all.)
I also call into question your assumption that people who choose not to discuss it have "moved on", whatever that means. Outward appearances and actions do not always belie how someone has processed an experience. I personally feel that people are all over the map on this, whether they are outspoken about it or not, and I would never be so arrogant as to assume where they are at with their experience simply by their decision regarding how they conduct themselves outwardly. Granted, I didnt always have that opinion.
BTW, I was there when you were, during the "camelot" era, and as for where I "am at" regarding that experience... well.. I don't really take offense at people assuming one way or the other with me. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, of which I care little. Fact of the matter is, the phenomena of "tough love" is fascinating in how it manifests itself, both on a personal, political and sociological level, and well, that is something that's pretty darn interesting in my eyes. Regardless of whether you find your experience positive, negative, or just "meh", you can't deny that it was weird.
As for the Tim Brace issue, I agree that there are a lot of differing opinions on him. I was there when he was headmaster, spent many an hour in his raps, on the floor, he ran my IWTL, etc... My personal impression is that overall, he was far from simply complicit when it came to towing the party line. He was a staunch advocate of the CEDU way, and that, I certainly have problems with. He actively partook in fostering the melodrama associated with the regressive techniques used in CEDU's form of "therapy", whether it be in raps or propheet/workshops. Im sure you can corroborate how raps and such with him often involved running one's anger, and resulted in reducing most participants into a sobbing, weepy mess. Oh, a Tim Brace rap, well, looks like everyone will be "taking care of their feelings". Oh, Tim's running the warm up, most people will be crying like babies after that.
Not sure about you, but I do NOT find that to be a valid form of therapy, and I find it to be counterproductive to any sort of actual emotional development. He is not, and never was, qualified to "treat" any teen, nor assist them with emotional matters, and his opinions on "emotional growth" were as flawed as everyone else's there. Plain and simple, his tactics and behavior were harmful... at BEST.
The fact that he seems like "an ok guy" because he wasn't as confrontational as other staff (and I agree, he was not known for aggressively attacking someone's character) is misleading, because his tactics regarding "therapy" were just as misguided. It's actually rather pathetic that he was considered "ok", especially when it is as a result of comparing him with the brutal staff. Sure, he was "ok" and seemed "nice", but at CEDU, that's not saying a whole fuck of a lot.
