Comments from current Hyde students

Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools

<< < (5/8) > >>

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
--- End quote ---

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

Anonymous:

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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

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

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:

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

"
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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

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

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.

"

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.
Perl Services
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version