Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > News Items

Hyde School: A Cult to Shape Character as Well as Mind

<< < (3/3)


--- Quote from: "Ursus" ---Comments left for the above article in the OP, "A School to Shape Character as Well as Mind" (by Brad Drazen; Feb. 18, 2010; NBC Connecticut - News/Local Beat):

anonymous 7:52 PM, 2.28.10
Pity that Hyde School administrators do not heed those 5 words themselves. "Integrity," apparently, is something only the paying clientele must learn.anonymous 7:57 AM, 3.1.10
This article saddens me as someone who went to Hyde Schools. Hyde Schools is nothing more than a Cult that tries to recruit well to do parents who are desperate. All of the family weekends focus on fundraising and our government is helping to support the Guald family by allowing them to open up charter schools which we the taxpayers foot the bill.

You can read many of the catastrophies that have happened at Hyde on some of the websites that cater to abusive boarding schools and wilderness programs. Hyde is right up there with the worst of them only Hyde is very successful at marketing themselves and has pulled the wool over our government.anonymous 2:02 PM, 3.4.10
Too many sexual assaults at this place. And Hyde doesn't think it's responsible.

© 2010 NBC Universal, Inc.
--- End quote ---
Interestingly enough, despite this article's continued accessibility on NBC Connecticut's website (unlike most of their articles which quickly sink into the pay-per-view archives), all of the above comments have been removed. Gee, I wonder whether someone at Hyde complained? :eek:

Perhaps those comments struck a lil close to home, given what's been in the news of late. The "character culture" that Hyde School dishes out as part of its curriculum of behavior modification ... seems to have quite a lot in common with the one that enabled Penn State's Jerry Sandusky to continue his molestations of juveniles, for as long as he did.

In case you couldn't read what Ursus wrote above regarding Larry Dubinsky, former dean of students and his alleged sexual misconduct, (Hyde settled and paid the Hiler family) and "star" of Hiler v Hyde, here are the links to the summary: and and here is what Ursus transcribed from photos of the case into text:


MARCH 5, 2002


1.  This is an action by a female student against a private school which, upon information and belief, is the recipient of federal funds, for tolerating and encouraging a pattern of sexual misconduct directed against her and other female students by a male faulty member, over a long period of time.

2.  Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code and this court's supplementary and diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff's causes of action under state law.

3.  The plaintiff is an adult female citizen of the State of XXXXX.  She was born on XXX and at all times mentioned herein was an out-of-state student at the defendant's school in Woodstock, Connecticut.

4.  The defendant is a private school located in Woodstock, Connecticut.  Upon information and belief, the defendant receives federal financial assistance for the operation of its educational and related programs.

5.  The amount at issue in this case is greater than seventy-five thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.

6.  In 2001, and for several years prior thereto, the defendant employed at its school in Woodstock an adult male teacher by the name of Larry Dubinsky.  At all times mentioned herein, said Dubinsky was acting as the agent, servant, and employee of the defendant, within the scope of his employment and agency, and for the defendant's financial benefit.

7.  For several years prior to and including the events described hereinafter, the defendant, through its administrators and officials, had actual knowledge that Dubinsky  was subjecting the female students at Hyde School to sexual harassment which included inappropriate touching, staring, and comments.  Despite such actual knowledge, the defendant retained Dubinsky on its faculty and permitted him to continue to have daily, direct and unsupervised contact with the adolescent female students at the school, including the plaintiff.

8.  During the second week of July, 2001, at the school, Dubinsky initiated a "role-playing" incident with the plaintiff in the course of which he insisted upon having full body contact with the plaintiff, repeatedly and over her objection, while making lewd and inappropriate comments to her which included the phrase "fucking pussy".

9.  On August 1, 2001, while instructing a dance routine in which the plaintiff was involved, Dubinsky required the plaintiff to be his partner and to dance with him.  He required her to bend down in front of him, then lifted her, raised her blouse, felt around her body for her hips and placed his hands on her hips.  When the plaintiff objected and moved away from him, he attempted to coerce her into continuing.

10.  When the plaintiff complained to the defendants administrators about the aforesaid misconduct, she was summoned to a meeting at which she was required to meet with Dubinsky and was criticized by administrators for not wanting to look at Dubinsky during the meeting.  The following day, she was summoned to yet another meeting with administrators, which the administrators concealed from her parents.  When school officials were informed in September of 2001 that the plaintiff was suffering from recurring nightmares regarding Dubinsky, a faculty member falsely accused the plaintiff of flirting with another male teacher.  Her mother's pleas to the defendant's highest administrators that Dubinsky be kept away from the plaintiff and not allowed on school grounds were rejected.  In February of 2002, the plaintiff was required to serve as a waitress at a party given by the defendant's headmaster at which other under-age students were required to serve alcoholic beverages.  Dubinsky was an invited guest at that party.

11.  In the manner described above, the defendant has, on the basis of the plaintiff's sex, excluded her from participation in, denied her the benefits of, and/or subjected her to discrimination under an education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Sections 1681 - 1688 of Title 20 of the United States Code.

12.  In the manner described above, the defendant through its aforesaid agent subjected the plaintiff to assault and battery on each of the two separate occasions described above, in violation of Connecticut state law.

13.  The conduct of the defendant and its agent described above was extreme and outrageous and was carried out with the knowledge that it probably would cause the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.

14.  In the manner described above, the defendant further acted in negligent disregard  of the probability that its conduct would cause the plaintiff, like any person of ordinary sensibilities similarly situated, to suffer emotional distress so severe that physical illness could result.

15.  As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendant described above, the plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

The plaintiff claims trial by jury.


Federal Bar No. ct00215
Williams and Pattis, LLC
51 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
TELEPHONE:  203.562.9931
FAX: 203.776.9494
E-MAIL:  [email protected]
Her Attorney

Modify message


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version