Comments from current Hyde students

[tommyfromhyde1]

Tinker only applies to public schools.

Fresh beauty opens one's eyes wherever it is really seen, but the very abundance and completeness of the common beauty that besets our steps prevents its being absorbed and appreciated. It is a good thing, therefore, to make short excursions now and then to the bottom of the sea among dulse and coral, or up among the clouds on mountain-tops, or in balloons, or even to creep like worms into dark holes and caverns underground, not only to learn something of what is going on in those out-of-the-way places, but to see better what the sun sees on our return to common everyday beauty.
-- John Muir

[Antigen]

Same outcome at Killian High in Miami back in `99
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_Nine

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
--Philosopher, Blaise Pascal

[Lars]

As a lawyer, I say forget the legal analysis and consider this: any place that forbids criticism (other than of one's own self) and/or independent thought is an unhealthy place to send your kid.  And private institution or not, it's contrary to our American values.

To any kids there, I say speak your mind and when they say you've got attitude, tell them that their stifling of free speech and independent thought is contrary to the values we hold dear as members of a free society.

Our country is a marketplace of ideas that are exchanged, fought over, compromised, etc.  It's a big part of what makes our nation great.  Hyde is only interested in their ideas - discussion of anything that brings them into question is not tolerated there.  

Speak your mind.  And if you feel that anything they inflict on you amounts to abuse, report them to the proper authorities.

[Anonymous]

Lars, politcal pull seems to trump "proper authorities" in the case of teen gulags. Just ask the Straight folks or the WWASP folks. Remember how Hyde had kids working as campaign volunteers? Those elected officials owe Hyde. And Hyde's probably the biggest or second biggest employer in Bath (depending on how many orders Bath Iron Works has). Bad press might work but a CPS worker who inquires too closely into Hyde's practices would likely get his chain yanked by someone in Augusta.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-05 12:06:00, Lars wrote:

"As a lawyer, I say forget the legal analysis and consider this: any place that forbids criticism (other than of one's own self) and/or independent thought is an unhealthy place to send your kid.  And private institution or not, it's contrary to our American values.



To any kids there, I say speak your mind and when they say you've got attitude, tell them that their stifling of free speech and independant thought is contrary the values we hold dear as members of a free society.



Our country is a marketplace of ideas that are exchanged, fought over, compromised, etc.  It's a big part of what makes our nation great.  Hyde is only interested in their ideas - discussion of anything that brings them into question is not tolerated there.  



Speak your mind.  And if you feel that anything they inflict on you amounts to abuse, report them to the proper authorities."

Thank you for this wonderfully eloquent statement.  I agree completely: Hyde students should not be intimidated by Hyde's zealous attempts to limit free speech.  Hyde students who want to speak out should TRULY embrace Hyde's supposed commitment to courage, truth, integrity, and concern (among Hyde's favorite terms).  What that means is . . . if you have constructive criticism to offer, you should feel free to say it publicly.  No one -- at Hyde or elsewhere -- has a right to discourage the free expression of ideas.  Hyde clearly facilitates public pronouncements of its model when it works to the school's advantage.  If Hyde staff are sincere about the school's core values, they should applaud students who have the integrity and courage to speak out about their Hyde-related concerns.

[Antigen]

Yeah, well, hmm. I think some of Hyde's practices (as described by some former students and parents) probably fit the definition of clear and obvious abuse and neglect that would fall to "the authorities".

What would the authorities do, for example, about the hours and hours of meaningless stick moving or excessive physical excercise? I would guess they'd place arbitrary limits. That's what they usually do. So a kid who's determined and posessed of great stamina and ambition would be prevented from pushing the limits. But they could still, easily, humiliate and torment an asthmatic or just a non-athletically inclined kid within those limits.

It seems to me that they're actually quite keen to that and willing, even eager, to bend their program to accomodate those rules and regulations.

I know I hang out with and share genuine respect and affection w/ a bunch of very left wing pro-regulation type people. But I'm not one myself. I sincerely believe that this problem that we're talking about--the one manifest by the troubled parent industry--is best addressed by going back to our rebellious, radical cultural roots. The old fashioned sensibility was that the buyer beware. That doesn't get it 100% of the time. But I think it's a far more effective, less expensive, and more comfortable approach than to put it off on Big Brother.

But that's just me, and I remain very well out of the mainstream on that point. The point of agreement among all critics that I know of is that we must be free to beat the issue around like a red headed step child.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
--Herbert Spencer

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

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-05 12:06:00, Lars wrote:

"As a lawyer, I say forget the legal analysis and consider this: any place that forbids criticism (other than of one's own self) and/or independent thought is an unhealthy place to send your kid.  And private institution or not, it's contrary to our American values.



To any kids there, I say speak your mind and when they say you've got attitude, tell them that their stifling of free speech and independent thought is contrary to the values we hold dear as members of a free society.



Our country is a marketplace of ideas that are exchanged, fought over, compromised, etc.  It's a big part of what makes our nation great.  Hyde is only interested in their ideas - discussion of anything that brings them into question is not tolerated there.  



Speak your mind.  And if you feel that anything they inflict on you amounts to abuse, report them to the proper authorities."

Add your comments to the following website.  No one has posted yet from the Bath Campus*******
http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/c ... yde_school

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-05 12:06:00, Lars wrote:

"As a lawyer, I say forget the legal analysis and consider this: any place that forbids criticism (other than of one's own self) and/or independent thought is an unhealthy place to send your kid.  And private institution or not, it's contrary to our American values.

Couldn't agree more.  The problem is not free speech and independent thought however, its determining the line between that and attitude.

To any kids there, I say speak your mind and when they say you've got attitude, tell them that their stifling of free speech and independent thought is contrary to the values we hold dear as members of a free society.

Couldn't disagree more and I think bad advise.  How would you respond to your child if they responded to you as you advise?  Would you let the child determine what's attitude and what's independent thought?  I certainly wouldn't.

I understand your point, and its good advise for adults, but I think this is conceptually and legally wrong for the kids at Hyde.  

Lets face it, many kids are at Hyde because of attitude problems, and you would no more give them a veil behind which to sheild there attitudes than you would your own kids (well, at least I with mine)!  

And legally, the contract parents sign with Hyde gives Hyde the ability to stand in the place of the parent.  That pre-empts virtually ALL free speech rights.

While California has a unique statute that protects some speech rights in private schools, in most states, there is no such protection.  You can debate whether that's good or bad, but it is what it is.

Otherwise, as far as I can tell from what I have found on the web, almost all of the cases people site above are only applicable to PUBLIC institutions, and even with those, free speech at a high-school level is subject to a fair amount of restrictions.

http://www.splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=52
(Note that this page supports your concept that its bad practice, but my interpretation that there is no "right" of free speech.  FWIW, I also don't think the authors were necessarily thinking of a Hyde-type school when writing this.)

http://www.hb-rights.org/2speech/

http://privateschool.about.com/cs/stude ... rights.htm

Hyde is only interested in their ideas - discussion of anything that brings them into question is not tolerated there.

This is actually what I think is the nub of your point.  Not legalities.  Not free speech.  Its that you believe Hyde isn't open to dissent....and  what this really comes down to is whether you think they either (a) simply don't like all dissent, or (b) will take issue with dissent that reflects, reinforces, or venerates attitudes that are conter-productive to character development.

I have to say in my experience, it clearly wasn't (a), and I saw a lot of (b).  Is there dissent they shut down that was legitimate?  Probably, but as an institution do they simply shut down all defense.  Nope, sorry, I was there, and that was not the case.  

Did they miss it once it a while?  Sure, everyone is human, and maybe they are overzealous at times, but my experience was not anywhere close to the black and white you report. And did I see "dissent" very legitimately shut down time and time again.  You betcha.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-06 01:30:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2005-11-05 12:06:00, Lars wrote:


"As a lawyer, I say forget the legal analysis and consider this: any place that forbids criticism (other than of one's own self) and/or independent thought is an unhealthy place to send your kid.  And private institution or not, it's contrary to our American values.

Couldn't agree more.  The problem is not free speech and independent thought however, its determining the line between that and attitude.

To any kids there, I say speak your mind and when they say you've got attitude, tell them that their stifling of free speech and independent thought is contrary to the values we hold dear as members of a free society.

Couldn't disagree more and I think bad advise.  How would you respond to your child if they responded to you as you advise?  Would you let the child determine what's attitude and what's independent thought?  I certainly wouldn't.



I understand your point, and its good advise for adults, but I think this is conceptually and legally wrong for the kids at Hyde.  



Lets face it, many kids are at Hyde because of attitude problems, and you would no more give them a veil behind which to sheild there attitudes than you would your own kids (well, at least I with mine)!  



And legally, the contract parents sign with Hyde gives Hyde the ability to stand in the place of the parent.  That pre-empts virtually ALL free speech rights.



While California has a unique statute that protects some speech rights in private schools, in most states, there is no such protection.  You can debate whether that's good or bad, but it is what it is.



Otherwise, as far as I can tell from what I have found on the web, almost all of the cases people site above are only applicable to PUBLIC institutions, and even with those, free speech at a high-school level is subject to a fair amount of restrictions.



http://www.splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=52

(Note that this page supports your concept that its bad practice, but my interpretation that there is no "right" of free speech.  FWIW, I also don't think the authors were necessarily thinking of a Hyde-type school when writing this.)



http://www.hb-rights.org/2speech/



http://privateschool.about.com/cs/stude ... rights.htm

Hyde is only interested in their ideas - discussion of anything that brings them into question is not tolerated there.

This is actually what I think is the nub of your point.  Not legalities.  Not free speech.  Its that you believe Hyde isn't open to dissent....and  what this really comes down to is whether you think they either (a) simply don't like all dissent, or (b) will take issue with dissent that reflects, reinforces, or venerates attitudes that are conter-productive to character development.



I have to say in my experience, it clearly wasn't (a), and I saw a lot of (b).  Is there dissent they shut down that was legitimate?  Probably, but as an institution do they simply shut down all defense.  Nope, sorry, I was there, and that was not the case.  



Did they miss it once it a while?  Sure, everyone is human, and maybe they are overzealous at times, but my experience was not anywhere close to the black and white you report. And did I see "dissent" very legitimately shut down time and time again.  You betcha.

"

While I accept some of your points, I cannot accept others.  When parents sign their kids over to Hyde, parents don't agree to let Hyde run every aspect of a kid's life, including off-campus life.  Clearly Hyde has authority on campus.  Hyde does not have control over kids who are at home over break and during summers.  

Yes, many kids are at Hyde because of attitude problems.  However, I vehemently disagree that this means kids should not be encouraged to speak out and express their opinions in a responsible way.  Irresponsible expression is a problem -- fine.  But, I would argue that if Hyde really believes what it says about character development, Hyde staff should encourage its students to speak out in a RESPONSIBLE way and to learn how to do that.  That includes students identifying what they like about Hyde and find valuable AND what they find problematic and destructive.  Communicating to Hyde students that they should stifle their opinions and that they do not have the right to express them is the antithesis of character development.  I would hope Hyde wouldn't engage in that kind of hypocrisy.  If kids abuse the free speech privilege, they should be held accountable.  What we should be about, I think, is helping these kids become responsible citizens who express opinions -- even unpopular ones -- in a responsible fashion.  Constraining free speech happens when institutions engage in totalitarian tactics and thought control.  I hope Hyde doesn't stoop to that.

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-06 01:30:00, Anonymous wrote:

And legally, the contract parents sign with Hyde gives Hyde the ability to stand in the place of the parent. That pre-empts virtually ALL free speech rights.

Bullshit. Legally, ethically and logically, teenaged kids have a right to free speech. Most especially, everyone has a right to speak up about abuse that they experience or wittness. Your contract ain't worth the paper it's printed on once you cross that line, legally.

Ethically? How can you defend such a blatantly obvious double standard. From what I've read about Hyde, past and present, any kid or parent at any time is expected and required to take any kind of criticizm--no matter how private or humiliating in nature--w/o complaint or protest. And, at the same time, any criticizm of this or any other of the school, it's policies and practices or any person the Goulds place in authority, is to be stiffled, condemned and viewed as evidence of some moral flaw in the plaintiff.

You don't get out much, do ya? Cause I'm guessing you have to work pretty hard at cloistering yourself among fellow true believers in order to maintain your circular belief system.

God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
http://www.perlservices.com' target='_new'>Perl Services

[Anonymous]

As a former Hyde parent, it is so obvious this person has no idea what he/she is writing about. Our son chose to go to Hyde and flourished while he was a student there. He is smart, athletic, just an all-around kind of guy, and he often says that if he hadn't had his experience at Hyde, he would have never developed and applied the skills and principles he has. After graduating from college two years ago, he went out into the business world and became very successful. He attributes much of his success to his experience at Hyde, saying he's glad the faculty at the school made him accountable for learning and pushed him beyond what he thought he could ever do.

He and I both see so many kids coming out of many schools afraid of their own shadows, protected by their parents who hover around them, micromanage their lives, and defend them when they're off-track at school. These kids often have no coping skills, are diagnosed with every mental illness, disorder, learning disability that exists, and their way of coping is to hang on to their parents for support well into adulthood, hang on to their diagnoses as a crutch to excuse them from any accountablility, and take their pill cocktails.

My guess is that the person who wrote this is one of those wimp kind of kids.

[Lars]

To the former parent who thinks a wimp's been writing this stuff:

Maybe your kid discovered himself there, but for others like myself, the true discovery and growth occured after we escaped from their repressive one size fits all program.

I became more outgoing and personable AFTER I left.

I discovered I was a top student AFTER I left.

I became happy and confident AFTER I left.

And by the way, I was a lot tougher, both physically and mentally, than most of the true believers there.  Believe it. :wink:

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-06 10:52:00, Anonymous wrote:

He and I both see so many kids coming out of many schools afraid of their own shadows, protected by their parents who hover around them, micromanage their lives, and defend them when they're off-track at school.

And then there are people like you who have "people" to do that for them.

Tell me, former Hyde parent, how much did you benefit from discussing the private details of your marriage and other aspects of your personal life in front of the entire student body, parents and faculty? Do you think that's an appropriate thing to do? Do you do that in public in other settings? Do you think you'd be meeting the nice young men in their clean white coats if you did?

It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.

--Joseph Goebbels

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-06 10:52:00, Anonymous wrote:

"As a former Hyde parent, it is so obvious this person has no idea what he/she is writing about. Our son chose to go to Hyde and flourished while he was a student there. He is smart, athletic, just an all-around kind of guy, and he often says that if he hadn't had his experience at Hyde, he would have never developed and applied the skills and principles he has. After graduating from college two years ago, he went out into the business world and became very successful. He attributes much of his success to his experience at Hyde, saying he's glad the faculty at the school made him accountable for learning and pushed him beyond what he thought he could ever do.



He and I both see so many kids coming out of many schools afraid of their own shadows, protected by their parents who hover around them, micromanage their lives, and defend them when they're off-track at school. These kids often have no coping skills, are diagnosed with every mental illness, disorder, learning disability that exists, and their way of coping is to hang on to their parents for support well into adulthood, hang on to their diagnoses as a crutch to excuse them from any accountablility, and take their pill cocktails.



My guess is that the person who wrote this is one of those wimp kind of kids."

You are certainly entitled to your opinions about Hyde's benefits.  Obviously, some people agree with you and, as this and other websites attest, many people vehemently disagree with you.  

I am particularly troubled by your last comment: "My guess is that the person who wrote this is one of those wimp kind of kids."  I have no idea to whom you're referring, but that kind of judgmental, dismissive language is exactly what is driving us away from Hyde.  We are so tired of that sort of arrogance, and we've come across it repeatedly at Hyde.  We've now talked with parents whose kids attend other schools where this kind of language and disrespect is not tolerated.  At Hyde, unfortunately, it is typical.  This is yet another example of the remarkable Hyde hypocrisy.  Staff and parents love to talk about integrity and character, but their actual behavior seems to display just the opposite quality.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-06 10:45:00, Antigen wrote:

"

On 2005-11-06 01:30:00, Anonymous wrote:


And legally, the contract parents sign with Hyde gives Hyde the ability to stand in the place of the parent. That pre-empts virtually ALL free speech rights.

Bullshit. Legally, ethically and logically, teenaged kids have a right to free speech. Most especially, everyone has a right to speak up about abuse that they experience or wittness. Your contract ain't worth the paper it's printed on once you cross that line, legally.



Ethically? How can you defend such a blatantly obvious double standard. From what I've read about Hyde, past and present, any kid or parent at any time is expected and required to take any kind of criticizm--no matter how private or humiliating in nature--w/o complaint or protest. And, at the same time, any criticizm of this or any other of the school, it's policies and practices or any person the Goulds place in authority, is to be stiffled, condemned and viewed as evidence of some moral flaw in the plaintiff.



You don't get out much, do ya? Cause I'm guessing you have to work pretty hard at cloistering yourself among fellow true believers in order to maintain your circular belief system.

God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
http://www.perlservices.com' target='_new'>Perl Services

"

Sorry Antigen.  You are just proving your ignorance and on the legal point, you are completely wrong.

Let's start at the start.  Children have free speech ONLY to the extent their parents allow it.  A parent may contractually give another institution the same right....that is, they say in a contract, "we the parent agree to let you the institution have the same power and dominion over our child as we do".   This is called "in loco parentis", and is the controlling law in most states, and last I knew for sure in MAINE.

Ethically, if you think a child has the right to say whatever they want, then I can only guess you are not a parent!

Students at Hyde ARE allowed to speak up and do ALL the time.  In fact when I was there, students basically ran the school.  But if a kid has a bad attitude or been out getting high or cheated on a test and is on 2-4, and then writes about how the school is abusive, that simply serves as evidence of their attitude and what gets challenged is NOT the free speech but the attitude.

Anyway, once again you are writing about the school that you never went to and don't know squat about except what you read from angry ex-students who don't disclose their back story.

I am open to a debate on free speech as an ethical matter, but legally you are wrong, and like Lars, your position is really based on the assumption that dissent is not permitted, and that's a load of crap.