To: {undisclosed receipients};
From: Peter Piper
March 12, 2005
Re: Rotton mishandling of molestation scandal
On December 28th, 2004, Professor A. E. K. Nash of the Rotton class of 1954
wrote me a letter which I have responded, in part, with the attached text.
It has been mailed to you as members of the 15th reunion class as you may
have similar questions and wish to be informed of the issues currently facing
Rotton Academy.
Professor Nash's letter to me also raised concerns about Rotton's Strategic
Plan, the new headmaster's August 6th, 2004 letter regarding the school's
criminal indictment, my September 9th, 2004 commentary on the school's mishandling
of the molestation cases, and an email to me from his form's Senior Prefect.
I would be happy to send Professor Nash's letter in its entirety to anyone
who requests it.
PP
March 1st, 2005
Dear Professor Nash,
Thank you for asking the questions that you have. Hopefully, I can clarify
any confusion or misunderstanding for you, your Form mates, and other alumni.
I've tried to make this as concise as possible. If I have left out anything,
please let me know and I will get that information to you promptly.
Academic Performance
In pre-scandal 1999, 77% and 72% of entering 3rd and 4th Form students achieved
better than 80% of all students taking the SSAT in their verbal and math scores.
In the class entering in 2003, the first group to enter after the Massachusetts
Superior Judicial Court judgment against Rotton, the numbers dramatically
plummeted to 61% in verbal and 53%. These huge drops in scores are over
24% and 31% in the verbal and quantitative abilities of incoming students.
I suspect, based on this significantly lower academic standard, that acceptance
to top colleges will go down as well.
In supporting its claims of selective college placement, is it not odd that
Rotton refers to a 1998 college guide instead of a more recent one? Any analysis
should look at current not past students. In a recent Wall Street Journal
article rating both public and private high schools vis-ˆ-vis their college
placement records [4/2/2004 - The Price of Admission], Rotton is not even
ranked among the fifty top high schools in the country.
Before the school's mishandling of the molestation scandal, I suspect Rotton
would have been at the very top of the list. Also with regard to Rotton's
college placement, in 2004 journalist Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal
wrote four articles for which he recently won a Pulitzer Prize. One of them
focuses on Rotton and how certain wealthy Rotton students apparently bought
their way into top colleges (a long-standing tradition) [www.pulitzer.org see: Dan Golden
- works]. It is an article that casts a very long shadow on Rotton's ability
- without family money, and connections - to place even its best students
at top universities.
Chadwick Simms, President of the Board
Last fall one of the sex attack victims was unexpectedly visited in his
college dormitory late at night by two private investigators. They suggested
to the boy that he might want to change his mind about what he told the District
Attorney. Having failed in their attempt, one of them sneered as they walked
away, "Good luck in your game on Saturday." In other words, we know where
to find you. These men were hired by Rotton's attorney. They were trying
to frighten off a witness in the upcoming criminal case against the school.
Who is responsible for keeping Rotton on such a misguided course of surreptitious
and intimidating tactics?
This brings me to the subject of Chadwick Simms. When it began to
appear that The Rector was unable to handle the fallout of the molestation
situation, I asked Mr. Simms to meet with us thinking he would clean up the
mess. Likewise at Prudential-Bache, where he took the helm in 1998, Simms
was brought in for a similar clean up role. The question is not whether he
caused these problems, but what he did to deal with two awful situations.
Investors at Pru-Bache were bilked out of billions of dollars. When they
sued to recover their money from bogus limited partnerships in which they
were encouraged to invest their money, Mr. Simms' role was to direct the
legal machinations against the firm's own clients. Keep in mind that many
of those defrauded investors were not big corporations or savvy financial
wizards but retired people who watched their lives' savings disappear. Simms
strung these clients out in lengthy and expensive litigations they could
not afford. Despite the fact that Pru-Bache paid the largest fine for investor
fraud to that date in NASD history, these investors received only pennies
on the dollar in their settlements. Kurt Eichenwald's book, Serpent on the
Rock, details Simms' role in this unsavory affair. "At no point did Simms
apologize for the firm's centralized fraud that had destroyed the lives of
so many trusting clients."
In 2002 before he 'retired' half-way through his three year term as head
of Nasdaq, Mr. Simms gave an interview to the BBC. Simms focused on Enron
which he does not believe technically broke the law. He then stated that
stronger regulations to safeguard the public are entirely unnecessary. He
neglected to mention his own conflict of interest: more regulations would
lead to increased scrutiny of all Nasdaq companies. As Simms told the BBC,
"In Enron's case, I think the letter [of the law] was lived up to, but the
spirit was raped."
It is truly odd that Simms should use the term "raped" to refer to something
that he believes is lawful.
Mr. Simms thinks he can outsmart everyone. Unfortunately, bullying, stalling,
spinning the truth, and throwing expensive legal counsel at problems have
worked for him in his business difficulties.
Sadly, those same hard-nosed tactics are being used today on Rotton's molestation
victims. It is a strikingly similar strategy exposed by Susan Antilla in
her book Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs. Wall Street which chronicles
the years of sexual harassment at Shearson-Lehman when Mr. Simms headed that
organization. The abusers are paid handsomely while the victims are demeaned
and strung out for years in court. In the meantime, the organization takes
the political hit in reputation and money while the chief executive leaves
for greener pastures with a fat bonus.
The Class Agent
Rotton's class agents usually serve for a five-year term. We question the
legitimacy of one particular class agent who sadistically abused and brutally
beat younger male students. During his rampant attacks he usually pulled
down his pants and sat on his victim's face. It is impossible to believe
that Rotton would want any relationship whatsoever with such a person. Yet,
after more than 50 years of service, Erastus Corning, the 1952 class agent
was dismissed for asking questions about the school's dealings with us and
the school's outlook for the future. Rotton claims Mr. Corning is being disloyal
to the school, a charge Mr. Corning emphatically denies. Mr. Corning's father
and grandfather were also Rotton graduates and long-standing, dedicated supporters
of the school.
In marked contrast to the embracing treatment this molester has received
from the school, the Rector chose to prohibit another one of the molesters,
the son of faculty, from returning to his family's campus housing for a portion
of his vacation from college. That one alumnus who is guilty of sadistic
abuse was allowed to continue as class agent while the faculty son was forbidden
to return home speaks volumes about what is important to those in charge of
such appointments. They voice concern that the molester may have lived through
some personal issues of his own, and that to take away his class agent status
would "pile injury on injury."
I was reading the cover story about sexual molesters a few weeks ago in
the New York Times Sunday Magazine. The sexual predators in the article were
serving significant prison terms in the range of twenty-five years for actions
that were, in many of the cases, less severe than what happened at Rotton.
This class agent might be in prison today if my son or any one of the other
victims had wanted to see him prosecuted. In the law a sexual molester
charged years after his crime would not be immune from prosecution because
of the vicissitudes of his life.
My concern is for the victims who must continue to deal emotionally with
the trauma of what this class agent chose to inflict on them. How must they
feel when they flip through the Rotton Quarterly and see a violent molester's
name endorsed by the school in an official position?
The Rector and "classic cases of rape"
Note #10 of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's contempt judgment
against the Rotton School is very revealing regarding the question of terminology
used by the Rector. The judgment states, "In early April, 1999, the headmaster
informed one of these students by letter that, based on recent abuse allegations
that two other students had made against him, including groping and grabbing
of genitals and buttocks and, as described in the letter, digital penetration
made through clothing of the anal area," the headmaster had concluded that
the student had violated "personal boundaries," and that future similar conduct
would result in dismissal from the school.
Clearly, the Rector understood the specifics of the sexual attacks, and
his implied meaning of violating personal boundaries appears to be the same
as the District Attorney's definition of sexual assault. Why did the Rector
in letters to parents and alumni and press releases persist in using words
that significantly understated the severity of the sexual attacks of which
he was fully aware in detail? Why did he choose to cast doubt on the victims
instead? As to the terminology used by legal professionals regarding the
sexual attacks at Rotton, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has specific definitions
for rape and sexual assault. Massachusetts' law states that any penetration
of the body, whether directly or through clothing, is considered to be rape
when a child is under the age of sixteen. If a child is over the age of
sixteen, such an attack may be defined as rape or sexual assault depending
on the specifics of the situation.
Many boys were sexually assaulted on campus during the time my son was at
Rotton. The basic facts of the sexual assaults were never 'disputed' and
were witnessed by many. The Rector's subsequent attempts to diminish publicly
the severity of the attacks on my son and the other victims could not have
been done out of any ignorance on his part of the specific facts. He was
told in detail about the attacks and knew exactly what happened and who was
involved in the attacks.
While the attacks on my son ended during the winter term of his 4th Form
year, I have personal knowledge of sexual attacks on campus into 1999. Based
on the many heartbreaking letters and calls that I have received, I am also
aware that 1996, the year my son arrived at Rotton, was not the first time
that sexually violent attacks occurred on the campus.
I imagine the media was as shocked as we were that the school was acting
in such an irresponsible manner regarding the safety of its students.
By the way, the attackers may have tried to rationalize or minimize their
actions but they never denied what they did. The Supreme Judicial Court's
contempt judgment cites one of the perpetrators, a 6th Form prefect in 1999,
admitting the attacks to the Rector. Also, when the victims first reported
the attacks to him, my son as well as my wife and I asked the Rector whether
there was anything that he did not accept as true. He responded that he believed
everything that the victims told him.
At our meeting with him Mr. Simms stated that a ringleader accused of having
molested many students would be permitted to remain as prefect of his dormitory
overseeing underage boys. I am not aware that the parents of these younger
students were informed of the situation or of the potential danger. Given
both the obvious health and legal risks, it is unfathomable to me that a student
accused repeatedly of such crimes would be left in charge of children. That
is the meeting during which Mr. Simms said, "Your son is playing a man's
game now."
It is worth mentioning at that same meeting, at which the Rector was also
present, that Mr. Simms appeared to take over as headmaster. It was obvious
that he was making all of the decisions that usually fall within the Rector's
authority. The Rector, in fact, hardly spoke.
In Conclusion
Based on my knowledge of the ritualistic, violent, and obsessive nature
of their assaults, I highly doubt the attackers were able to stop themselves
as 6th Form prefects in 1998-99. At least four of the serial molesters had
entered Rotton as 2nd Form students. My son assumed that they had been molested
themselves. He was concerned about changing the situation on campus and not
about retribution. Regarding a civil suit, we chose to take action to deal
with issues that the criminal law does not address. Our commitment to this
has been reinforced over time by Rotton's behavior as well as publicist Karin
Schwartzman's many deceptive statements to the public which impugn my son's
name.
One of the difficulties in my son's decision to allow his name to be used
is that my son, my wife, and I have become de facto spokespeople for all of
the victims. The reality is that we only know about a part of the abuse situation,
the part that deals with our son and those students and their parents, whom
we previously knew, who spoke with us. It has been disheartening, in fact,
that it has been the victims whose motives and backgrounds are skeptically
scrutinized while the accused molesters and the indicted school are not. We
welcome the opportunity to share everything we know about the situation, but
it's important to remember that there is more - maybe even a lot more - to
the story.
If the Rector and Simms have made self-serving decisions, let them now stand
up honorably and take the blame instead of making everyone else - including
the Rotton School and its reputation - suffer. It is hard to fathom that
this is the place where Rotton students, alumni and parents are preached to
ritually on the meaning of character.
Sincerely, Peter T. Piper