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

[Anonymous]

It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.

To be sure, some consideration can be lent to this as well.

But let's consider, for a moment, Hyde's position on parental involvement, so finely put into words by Joe (color emphasis added):

*  **  ****  **  *

Since kids--and their parents--have been far more immersed in this counter growth culture than has Hyde, Hyde can be far more objective about how to best address the true growth needs of kids. And given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best, and further we consider our commitment to help each student realize that best a sacred trust.

So--Yes, we may be wrong, and thus we appreciate all the input we can get. However in the end, we urge parents that until graduation to defer to Hyde's judgment, not their own. To instead accept their own judgment becomes a clear statement to their children that the Hyde experience is simply an add-on to old family dynamics, and not a new beginning for the entire family.

*  **  ****  **  *

So... Hyde expects parents to be involved vis a vis the seminar process, but to defer final judgment to Hyde when it comes to interpretation of such, not to mention all else.

We know little of Hyde's response to the parents' certain alarm in this case.  However, given Hyde's response to other legal circumstances they have found themselves in, it would safe to say that they probably acted in Hyde's own self-serving interests, and not in the best interests of the child.  It is likely that their actions may even have been quite proactive, in an attempt to stave off potential need for litigation.

Were thinly veiled threats insinuated?  Were the circumstances significantly downplayed?  Was there an attempt to redistribute responsibility?  What kind of pressure did Hyde put on the parents?

I think one also needs to consider the fact that the parents in this case were of a different generation than most of the current set of parents, and that questioning the "authority" of Hyde would have carried a heavier psychological onus than we would ordinarily consider justified.

In the end, Hyde's "commitment to help each student realize {their} best" was far less of "a sacred trust" than the student or parents were led to believe.  Just about the only thing that appears "sacred" here is preserving the appearance of the old Blue and Gold.

One thing we know about Hyde is that the school's grasp of the concept of character is terribly shallow.  They are skilled at trotting out the nice-sounding terminology and make it sound like they're authorities on character.  But, beneath the thin Hyde rhetoric is a bunch of simple minded thought-control machines.  

I've met very few Hyde staff who are truly independent thinkers.  Most spin out the Hyde jargon like they're rehearsing for a play.  The behavior of lots of Hyde staff belies the school's lofty claims about character education.  When you sign up for Hyde, you're signing up for a very odd collection of staff, some of whom haven't rid themselves of their own personal demons, some of whom can't seem to function outside of Hyde's protective cover, some of whom lack character in any significant depth, some of whom should not be teaching anything in the classroom given their own questionable academic backgrounds and qualifications, some of whom have engaged in scandalous behavior.  

Why would any parent pay close to $40,000 for this kind of environment?

Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life.  Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college?  I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems.  If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?

[Ursus]

Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?

What about the kids who might have had no problem getting into college before Hyde, but who were too traumatized after Hyde to even try?

What about those phony "grades," one part character growth, one part academics, where if the teacher or the school did not like you, or felt that you were "deficient" in the character department, the academic portion was somehow artificially depressed?

What about the kids who left during one of the many purges, or whose parents pulled them out before graduation, and who had difficulty obtaining their transcript from Hyde?

What about those obnoxious letters sent along with the transcript detailing the so-called difference between a "diploma" and a "certificate," and how and why you failed to obtain the diploma?

It would appear that Hyde finds ways to make academic progress difficult for students who are not in agreement with the school, even though academic achievement is allegedly considered separate.  In certain cases, I personally would not consider sabotage to be too strong or harsh a term for it.

[Anonymous]

Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?

What about the kids who might have had no problem getting into college before Hyde, but who were too traumatized after Hyde to even try?

What about those phony "grades," one part character growth, one part academics, where if the teacher or the school did not like you, or felt that you were "deficient" in the character department, the academic portion was somehow artificially depressed?

What about the kids who left during one of the many purges, or whose parents pulled them out before graduation, and who had difficulty obtaining their transcript from Hyde?

What about those obnoxious letters sent along with the transcript detailing the so-called difference between a "diploma" and a "certificate," and how and why you failed to obtain the diploma?

It would appear that Hyde finds ways to make academic progress difficult for students who are not in agreement with the school, even though academic achievement is allegedly considered separate.  In certain cases, I personally would not consider sabotage to be too strong or harsh a term for it.

   I remember on one of these threads some one with a story of how, Legg I think it was, described in detail the character faults that lead to a failure to receive a diploma when forwarding a transcript to a college one ex student was applying to.

[Anonymous]

Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?

What about the kids who might have had no problem getting into college before Hyde, but who were too traumatized after Hyde to even try?

What about those phony "grades," one part character growth, one part academics, where if the teacher or the school did not like you, or felt that you were "deficient" in the character department, the academic portion was somehow artificially depressed?

What about the kids who left during one of the many purges, or whose parents pulled them out before graduation, and who had difficulty obtaining their transcript from Hyde?

What about those obnoxious letters sent along with the transcript detailing the so-called difference between a "diploma" and a "certificate," and how and why you failed to obtain the diploma?

It would appear that Hyde finds ways to make academic progress difficult for students who are not in agreement with the school, even though academic achievement is allegedly considered separate.  In certain cases, I personally would not consider sabotage to be too strong or harsh a term for it.

This is yet another astonishing form of Hyde hypocrisy: Attaching those patroizing letters to transcripts alerting recipients that the student fell below the silly Hyde character threshold.  If only Hyde would also attach a letter alerting recipients about the number of Hyde faculty and staff who fell below the character threshold.  Isn't it remarkable that Hyde feels so free to judge students and parents but is so unwilling to face up to the remarkable litany of character horror stories involving the school's very own faculty and staff?  

You can't make this stuff up.  Hyde deserves a place in the hypocrisy Hall of Fame (or Hall of Shame).

[Anonymous]

aw, lol. jes fake it till you make it. thats what the Hyde pro's do

[Ursus]

This is yet another astonishing form of Hyde hypocrisy: Attaching those patroizing letters to transcripts alerting recipients that the student fell below the silly Hyde character threshold. If only Hyde would also attach a letter alerting recipients about the number of Hyde faculty and staff who fell below the character threshold. Isn't it remarkable that Hyde feels so free to judge students and parents but is so unwilling to face up to the remarkable litany of character horror stories involving the school's very own faculty and staff?

You can't make this stuff up. Hyde deserves a place in the hypocrisy Hall of Fame (or Hall of Shame).

If this weren't so GodDamn serious, it would be GodDamn hilarious.  How aptly and cleverly put, Guest.

The recovery time from Hyde is infinitely longer than the so-called attendance time.

[Ursus]

Joe:  blames the system
Ed:   blames the victim
Bob: blame free

In a nutshell.

Joe: Hyde as the solution
Ed:  Hyde as victim

Me: Hyde as unindited  co conspirator
       

  It is great how false dichotomizing an issue can divert you from the obvious:   Hyde negligent in it's duty provide a safe environment for it's charges. Hyde, the great picker of character, had a drunken letch on the fast tract to leadership.  Hyde's failure to discern the nature of a staff member lead to one of it's charges to be put into a situation where, instead of an educational experience that lead to emotional and spiritual grow, a life long emotional scar was left.

"lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull I dreamed"

This situation, with everyone looking to the "authority" as a barometer of moral judgement, and "authority" deftly dodging the bullet by obfuscating the circumstances and turning it into yet another "character lesson," reminds me of Milgram's electroshock experiments at Yale in the 60s.

[Anonymous]

Hey they were only following orders, just like the millions of Americans who watch Faux News "We Decide. You Obey"  or Read Gannett papers for that matter.
  We are just sheep, without just leaders, we are all just fucked.  Take Bush and Iraq for example ..........


Jack Napis

[Ursus]

Hey they were only following orders, just like the millions of Americans who watch Faux News "We Decide. You Obey"  or Read Gannett papers for that matter.
  We are just sheep, without just leaders, we are all just fucked.  Take Bush and Iraq for example ..........


Jack Napis

Agreed.  Note earlier comment/discussion re. survival skill of critical thinking...

[Anonymous]

Hey they were only following orders, just like the millions of Americans who watch Faux News "We Decide. You Obey"  or Read Gannett papers for that matter.
  We are just sheep, without just leaders, we are all just fucked.  Take Bush and Iraq for example ..........


Jack Napis

Agreed.  Note earlier comment/discussion re. survival skill of critical thinking...

   Hyde was tribal.  It is all about group cohesion. No critical thinking was involved.  That is why you could for example watch a staff member walk up behind a kid walking on an icy path, push the kid,  and walk away thinking "he had that coming to him."   I don't think that Hyde does what Joe's claims in terms of removing the primitive instincts of kids.  I think it just rearranges them.
  Instead of having the normal cruelties of adolescent peer groups on the outsiders  Hyde refines the peer group and redirects the cruelty in a way that the community deems as acceptable.  I used the metaphor of stoning before.  I think it is apt.  It is after all the same thing when you get down to it:  aggressive primitive behavior channeled in a socially sanctioned way.

Jack Napis

[Ursus]

Hyde was tribal.  It is all about group cohesion. No critical thinking was involved.  That is why you could for example watch a staff member walk up behind a kid walking on an icy path, push the kid,  and walk away thinking "he had that coming to him."   I don't think that Hyde does what Joe's claims in terms of removing the primitive instincts of kids.  I think it just rearranges them.
Jack Napis

[Anonymous]

"With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority." (Stanley Milgram, 1965)

[Anonymous]

Choose the brand doctors choose most for Aspirin, Zyklon B and Heroin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

Made by good Germans, doing what they were told.

[Ursus]

Review/description of a Documentary aired on TV last year, from the NYTimes:  Click HERE for link.


By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Published: June 1, 2006

People wonder how ordinary American soldiers, men and women, could have mistreated prisoners so barbarically at Abu Ghraib. "The Human Behavior Experiments," a documentary on both Court TV and the Sundance Channel tonight, suggests that actually it's surprising such things don't happen more often.

Dr. Stanley Milgram's infamous "electroshock" experiments at Yale in the 1960's revealed just how banal the banality of evil is. "Human Behavior" shows black-and-white clips from those studies, and also reports on other, even more disturbing, experiments.

The Human Behavior Experiments[/b]

Court TV and the Sundance Channel, tonight at 10, Eastern and Pacific times; 9, Central time.

Lynne Kirby and Laura Michalchyshyn, executive producers for Sundance Channel; Robyn Hutt, senior executive producer for Court TV; written and produced by Alex Gibney; Alison Ellwood and Eva Orner, producers; Julie Anderson, co-producer; Diana DeCilio, editor; David Strathairn, narrator; music by Wendy Blackstone; Salimah El-Amin, associate producer and director of research.

[Anonymous]

So it a Hyde diploma an indication of character?