Talk:American Boychoir School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am an alumnus of the American Boychoir School -- a week or so ago I added comments to this article about the American Boychoir's history of sexual abuse as reported by the New York Times and ABCNews' Nightline. Stangely, when I checked this evening, the comments had been taken down. I imagine it was the Boychoir who removed the remarks believing that it to be bad public relations. I've put my remarks on the Wilkipedia article again. They are easily verified and all quite true. It will be interesting to see if these are also removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwh7758 (talk • contribs).
Actually..I, not the Boychoir, moved the abuse part to the history section and did not remove it. Please sign your name next time too. Wangster 13:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is a big big problem here, for everyone concerned. Assuming the allegations to be true, then obviously the School would have a stake in cleaning things up as much as possible. But it's also important to realize that the alleged abuse happened decades ago and that the school is a completely different place now. By no means am I trying to denigrate the alleged abuse or the damage done to its victims; nobody in their right mind would want anything like that to happen to anyone. I have complete faith in the place and the people running it; my son, who graduated from ABS this year, would not have attended if there had been the slightest doubt in my and my wife's minds about the environment and his safety.
- The question remains: how does the school get past this situation? Is it appropriate, just, fair, that the current school be driven out of business for alleged crimes that are some 35 years old and for which nobody currently at the school bears any responsibility? Closing the modern school down does nothing to solve the problem, it just drives a very valuable institution into the ground to no positive end--only vengeance. Should one shut down Harvard because of alleged anti-Semitism in admissions practices a century ago? Should we outlaw the Roman Catholic Church because of highly regrettable, illegal, and morally repugnant actions of some of its clerics? I believe the answer should be "no." What should happen is for the institution in question to clean itself up, deal with the offenders, change policy, guidance, and management, and move on. ABS has done these things already. I sincerely hope the public at large can understand that and move on also. But it's such an emotionally-charged issue that there's no wonder people can't do so yet.
- I am sorry to sound so legalistic in my repeated use of the word "alleged," but I don't believe any of this has been debated/decided in a court of law yet. Wspencer11 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- The school admitted in court filings that the abuses occurred (see the April 16, 2002 NYT article). 67.117.130.181 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information...I stand corrected on that point. It does not change my position, though. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Editing the article
I would like to suggest that, given the hot-button nature of the abuse aspects of the School's history, significant edits should be discussed here first. Mr. Kruger's addition, although it was quite correctly removed, is an important one to have available, and I hope he (or someone) will add it here. I will do so myself if nobody else does it anytime soon. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Latest edit
I have removed the two links that Alansohn put back, partly because one doesn't work, and partly because, as I noted above, I feel very strongly that we need to discuss significant edits to this article before they go in. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- The previous two removals of these links were clear vandalism, and have already been reverted. . A test of both links shows that both links work. Both of these links have been included in this article, amid all of the discussion on content, for over two years. These links have been present since the creation of the article on May 30, 2005. I agree very strongly that we need to discuss significant edits to this article, and that the status quo ante should be respected before making any changes without justification. As the links have been in the article since its creation, as both links work, and as no justification has been provided for their removal, the links will be reinserted. Alansohn 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what I saw was that two links got added and one would not load (it still won't load for me). Also, I did not see the deletion-reversion issue you mention, so I'll accept the status quo for the moment. I personally do not believe either link really serves the article; what is your view on how they do? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- My reverts were labeled "restore deleted links" (or variation) and your's had an edit summary of "rv the reversion", so I would assume that there should be little confusion. It would help to take a look through the article's history to see that these links have been present since day one. Given the extensive charges of abuse of students at the school, it seems clear to me that coverage of the abuse claims and a site dedicated to survivors of the claimed abuse would be relevant to the article. Alansohn 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have been advised by one far wiser in the ways of Wikipedia than I am, to abandon ship...which I am hereby doing, with great sadness. I am convinced of the value of the school and of the danger of prolonging and therefore emphasizing the issue, and wish with all my heart that people could move forward on this deeply tragic situation. Bye. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent discussions on the admin noticeboards about abuse claims in this article
I just restored some material to the article that had been removed by a new anonymous editor. See the discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard, and another discussion at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I suggest that inclusion of the current language has been extensively reviewed. It should not be removed without prior discussion here on Talk accompanied by reasons why the information is not correct. We reflect what mainstream publications have said about the issue, per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Nonetheless, if you believe that something here is wrong, you should make the concern known and explain why you think it's wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- On 9 January, per this edit an IP removed a statement about the Nightline interview with John Ellis, the school's headmaster, claiming that the information was 'false and defamatory.' I can't find any reference to substantiate what Ellis may have said in that particular TV program, but the school's filing with the court is exactly what the article had stated prior to this IP's removal of the text. The New York Times says:
The school's willingness to file this surprising claim was noted by John Heilemann, in his New York Magazine article, and he asked the school's attorney about it."In a court filing, the school accused Mr. Hardwicke of negligence, saying if he had been abused he should have spoken up at the time. The school argued that it was not responsible for Mr. Hanson's behavior or Mr. Hardwicke's well-being, and said that Mr. Hardwicke, then 12, had consented to sex."
I added a sentence to the article to clarify that the surprising claim that 12-year old Hardwicke had consented to the sex had actually been made by the school. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)"That was very unfortunate,” Jay Greenblatt, the school’s litigator, tells me one afternoon in his office in Vineland, New Jersey. Greenblatt was appointed to the case by the school’s insurance company, which also pays his fees. He came aboard after the reply was written. “It was a boilerplate-type pleading,” he limply explains. “I don’t even know if it was reviewed.”
