<p>Periwinkle, interesting and sad articles. (I read all of them, except the one about AHS grads; I couldn’t open it.) Although these stories were tales of students dealing drugs and, in some cases, associating with some “very nasty people”, all of the young men/women in these articles were college students; none were 15-17 kids attending elite NE boarding schools, dealing drugs, toting guns and associating with known gangsters. The Afrika Owes case remains unique (at least to me) and most disturbing, especially in light of the fact that I have a child in one of these elite NE boarding schools. I continue to find this incident quite chilling. If you don’t, then so be it.</p>
<p>That’s why you don’t give your kid permission to leave campus to go, say, overnight into New York with their friends. We still have some control over the movements of our 15-17 year old children. And I doubt that the gun toting thugs would ever appear on the doorstep at Deerfield, or Hotchkiss (they wouldn’t even be able to find Hotchkiss!) It’s an awful story, and I think I feel sorriest for the girl’s mother.</p>
<p>Exie, for some reason, you seem to be missing the point. Why? Heck if I know. Look: dealing drugs is bad. Very bad. Any prep school kid doing such should be expelled. Period. But in the Owes case, we just don’t have drug dealing, as awful as it may be. We have (according to a federal indictment) a prep school kid, while attending that school, toting guns for known criminals and “terrorizing” others in her neighborhood, all with instructions from her gang leader to kill if necessary. If you can’t see the differences in drug dealing and drug dealing armed with guns and orders to kill, then let me know where I can send you a better pair of glasses.</p>
<p>Toombs, one thing I think you & I can agree on: it’s important to teach your kids to BE AWARE of these issues. They’re out there, and it’s one of the risks that weighs agains the benefits of BS. And I do hear what you’re saying about weapons…obviously this national “trend” is intensifying if it’s passing through the gates of these elite institutions. I am NOT of the mind to send my student off to school “packing for protection,” however; yet I gather the Texas legislature is considering such a measure for its public university campuses. Can you imagine? Maybe elite BS will consider ways in which they can make the application process a more thorough screening? I’m not really sure what else they can do–especially with privacy laws that protect minors–but certainly it’s a proposition worth considering.</p>
<p>my two cents:
This year at Exies favorite BS there were several students expelled, one for bullying, one for drugs, another for drinking. There is a student that is known to deal, but administration doesnt know how to bust him/her, or doesnt want to b/c the “evil you know…”? Except for one of those kids whose family was rather wealthy, all came from middle class backgrounds.<br>
As parents are we actually so ostrich-like that we dont think that most (and really all) of our kids will try drink and drugs? And guess what? Some will be hooked from the very first time. Its a shame, but its a fact. I understand that by saying the mantra of “kids from super wealthy families who get more supervision in BS than at home” some people may mask the fact that actually its very diverse students that do drugs/drink.
In terms of the original post - totally it can happen at any school, boarding or day. Heck, it can even happen at a public. My son was gone already by the time she enrolled, but whats problematic for me, and I imagine a number of parents since the head felt it necessary to address it in a letter, is that the girl was not without a support system. She came from a program that picks students based on their scores and grades, then trains them for a number of years, not only giving them enrichment classes to add breath to their learning, but also preparing them for lifestyle change. They also follow up with meetings/calls while the student is in BS. Essentially she went through a rather extensive list of adult mentors and some peer/older student orientations. Not one person picked up on the clues. Dont make this kid to be an angel seduced by a svengali. She was cunning enough to fool the adults. The adults in this case have extensive training and lots come from similar backgrounds to the kids they mentor.
In my daughters current day school in the past several years we had two different girls from a similar background, with similar (just not as striking stories). One girl had a boyfriend who was in jail, and was writing/calling her . Through a support network of her school friends, and a very strong mother, she was able to successfully dump the boy and is currently at Harvard. Another girl had a boyfriend who was a juvenile delinquent, with several arrests as a juvenile. She wound up being expelled for academic failure, although she started out with strong grades and scores. I guess the point here is yes, there are wealthy families that dont care what their children do, so they start doing drugs/drink, and yes, in cases of kids that live in an environment where a huge majority of kids are in gangs, some even the smartest of those that leave that environment will fall prey to gangs. And then there are all the kids in between.</p>
<p>Big5, I’m with you 100% on beefing up the app process. The top schools do a great job in figuring how hard an applicant works, how smart he or she may be and what a tremendous athlete s/he may become. Where they may fall short, IMHO, is gauging the moral character of a kid. Heraclitus said that “character is destiny”. I tend to think he was on to something. But how does a school determine whether or not an applicant is virtuous? I think that there are ways. </p>
<p>Thomas Lickona in his book “Why Character Matters” contends that there are indicators of character, the prime one being “the capacity for extensive relationships—a feeling of responsibility for the welfare of others, including those outside one’s immediate family and community circle”. In this vein, I remember reading a few months ago an incredible list of kids that PA admitted; that list gushed with capacity for extensive relationships. I was overwhelmed by that list. (I would bet a small fortune that none of those kids will be indicted for running guns and dealing dope.) I think that the top schools would be well served to proclaim as their top kids those with big hearts instead of those with big grades. </p>
<p>As I recall, no one at Deerfield ever sang about Owes’s big heart and joy in serving others. If Afrika lacked such heart and joy, then maybe DA should have known she lacked sufficient virtue. If so, then maybe the system did fail, and now maybe schools will look longer and harder at character. I sure hope they will.</p>
<p>@Toombs, that is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. The smartest kids are often the most astute at hiding it. And if she came off “disaffected” then that description would also knock out an awful lot of wealthy alumni kids (whoops - there goes the endowment.) If you’ve got a kid in boarding school then have them tell you the thousand and one ways drugs are sneaking on to campus and what the faculty are doing to address it.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you are so fixated on searching for a solution to a situation that out of hundreds of thousands of students, focused on “one.” And there is no evidence she was dealing drugs at school - there was every evidence she was sneaking to the jail or dealing with her “crew” at home. And that even her friends and family were unaware of her behavior. Her boyfriend was “ordering her” to take the local drug business to Pennsylvania. The article clearly says she was dealing in the shadow of a well-known church at home.</p>
<p>And what you keep glossing over is the fact that the feds COULD NOT KNOW what she was talking about on her cell phone unless they were monitoring the calls “live.” And I have every suspicion - given how boarding schools work, that there was some notification of the school and some tracking which helped them figure out she was sneaking away and led to the expulsion procedure. “Academic dishonesty” is a ruse given the explanation was “absences.”</p>
<p>Good grief,</p>
<p>@Mhmm - you’d be surprised what I “know” about my “favorite” school and where the faculty are positioned on those issues. Or who is sleeping with whom. You’d also be surprised how much worse it is at HADES schools and how many checks get written to cover it up.</p>
<p>Still - being at BS is safer than being in many public and private schools. </p>
<p>By the way - more often then not - when students are getting shot up at school across the US - it’s the wealthy and middle class white kids doing it, not the black ones. The concealed weapons laws passing in the midwest made that more likely, not less.</p>
<p>But - if Toombs’ theories hold true, we’ll see less FA as a lot of full pay wealthy kids are going to get "snagged’ by the same tools that “might” have identified Afrika. One is an anomoly - some of the others are more common than you think.</p>
<p>Your best bet - pull your child out of BS and hide them in your closet until they’re ready for retirement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really, WBJ??? I don’t know how you think those comments aren’t racist. For one, you’re saying that just because someone is an african-american female, they can get in anything, anywhere. That doesn’t just demean african-american females by implying that they’re a shoo-in because of their race, it demeans the rest of us by saying that because we aren’t african-american, it’s harder for us to get in top insititutions. And on top of that, you have the nerve to say that Dr. King would roll on his grave at OUR words??? Shame on you. If Dr. King would roll on his grave, it’d be at YOUR parents.</p>
1 Like
<p>
Exie, I don’t see mhmm was talking about your “favorite school” with any reference to HADES. Why are you taking a shot at HADES? Just wondering where that came from… Even in such a context, it has to be a my school is better than yours argument? Sorry for the disraction. Go on please.</p>
<p>No - mhmm was referring to Taft. We’d been having jovial side conversations about BS “misadventures” offline. So I was being facetious. I should have added a smilie to clue in the other parents. (sorry about that).</p>
<p>But since there were some on here riding their horses - i thought I’d remind us that the topic was “This could happen at any school” – and if you take out the “drug dealing boyfriend/pimp at Rikers” part, most schools are grappling with how to reduce or eliminate the other kids with similar drug dealing issues. Mechanisms in place insure that it’s not in the news.</p>
<p>Like I said - if she went to “podunk” high we wouldn’t be talking about it. The Deerfield connection made it more “sensational.” The journalists made sure to emphasize boarding student (even though her tenure was brief) to up the shock value and guarantee it got broad coverage. Now it’s making the UK news with the same tag lines … elite BS student is a drug runner, yada yada yada…</p>
<p>Sigh.</p>
<p>Exie, I have read your post several times trying to figure out what I have suggested that you have found “absolutely ridiculous”. I think that it is my proposal (as well as the proposal of Thomas Lickona) that prep schools should demand high moral character from their applicants. If so, your shouting that such an approach is “ridiculous” doesn’t make your position true, especially in light of the fact that Andover has already shown us this year how to identify kids with high moral character. </p>
<p>On the one hand, you think that my demand for higher moral standards would put too much strain on the BS application system in order just to find that 1 bad apple out of 100,000. But, on the other hand, you tell us that there are a lot of wealthy alums who would get “knock[ed] out” of school if the school demanded higher moral character. Well, which is it? 1 out of 100,000 or a lot? As for me, it really doesn’t matter. Character matters. Let the chips fall where they may. </p>
<p>In the end, Exie, you sell the prep schools and the kids (and yourself) way too short if you think that they can’t demand high character. If they can’t make that demand, then we can only expect receiving from our friend Periwinkle more articles about kids dealing drugs, hanging with “very nasty people” or worse. </p>
<p>The battleground of Mankind runs thru the heart of every person. Each of us can be a criminal, if tempted. Each of us can be a hero, if inspired. It is the essence of every prep school to inspire. If it can’t demand character and inspire virtue in its students, then it is standing on the wrong side of the battleground.</p>
<p>WBJ-I will assume only a non-minority person would say that I am over sensitive.</p>
<p>You have never walked in my shoes. With that being said, I will let this topic, with you, go…I see no reason to interact with someone who is so clueless.</p>
<p>I’m trying to figure out why you think they don’t, @toombs61. </p>
<p>ALL Boarding Schools look for high moral character. No one is disputing that. You seem to be asking for some magic divining rod that will guarantee that no one will slip through the cracks even when the odds are miniscule of it happening again. So be it, then watch any FA go away for most of the parents here because the divining rod is also going to “catch” a lot of kids whose parents are carrying much of the freight.</p>
<p>Or - watch the BS spend more time scrutinizing the obvious targets (inner city kids) and ignoring the ones who are suburban and equally likely to have a boyfriend mommy and daddy don’t know about.</p>
<p>Kids are not widgets. They’re not “almost” adults. And it’s an imperfect world.</p>
<p>Given how many students go to boarding school each year and how rarely - if ever - something reaches this level of magnitude why bother suggesting that schools are somehow deficient? </p>
<p>You say that no one in DA raved about her and yet clearly they saw (initially) what everyone else who pushed her to go saw - potential and performance at a high level.</p>
<p>Let’s examine the facts, shall we? She had high grades, was valedictorian, active in church, etc. She fit - and in many cases - exceeded the profile. That she had a “hidden” life that even her parents and school counselors didn’t know about is not something a boarding school can suddenly discern. </p>
<p>And yet the system did work because the Feds began monitoring her calls while in school and Deerfield began the process of expelling her. Her hardened dealing seemed to increase after she returned to a local school. At least at DA her calls were described as resistant to his assertions that she change. Once gone, all remaining barriers that might have redirected her attention were removed.</p>
<p>What more do you want them to do? </p>
<p>So yes - your assertions that something in the BS application process failed are a bit ludicrous as were your snide remarks to Big5 who had a more balanced view of the situation. You demand a process and a series of checks and balances that are already in place.</p>
<p>So my assertion stands. If you don’t trust the system, bring your kid home and stuff them in a mattress for a rainy day. Because these days - and in this economy - you’re more likely to get shot walking down the street for the change in your pocket then hanging out on a BS campus.</p>
<p>No - mhmm was referring to Taft. – I was trying to point out that this can happen at any school, by bringing up another, in agreeing with the title of this thread, and isnt meant to focus on one school in particular. ( I could have brought up an example of a recent brouhaha at Andover, not the one with people expelled for drug dealing).</p>
<p>Having a kid go through DA and having friends w kids at others, I do know what goes on, and dont hide behind an idea that its the “other” kids doing it.</p>
<p>I do have a question - - Feds began monitoring her calls while in school and Deerfield began the process of expelli – I havent been able to find this at all in the papers (only
saw Daily News online)</p>
<p>Just making sure I am keeping score accurately.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A former Deerfield student stands accused of crimes, some of which may have been committed before her withdrawal.</p></li>
<li><p>At least one poster thinks that the incident represents a predictable result of diversity initiatives in admission. That poster maintains that his/her statements and observations are not racist (self-evidence aside, apparently). In defense of statements and self, the poster offers evidence of a diverse friend group. (-1 for unoriginality, actually -2).</p></li>
<li><p>In response to the suggestion, express or implied, that diversity candidates are either less qualified and/or dangerous to the rest of the student body, some posters suggest that the argument represents bald faced stereotyping; extrapolating anectodal behavior across loosely defined economic or social groups. Crass demonization. (+1)</p></li>
<li><p>Further in response, the second group of posters suggest that the real culprits are rich and white, as determined by extrapolating anectodal behavior across loosely defined economic or social groups. Crass demonization (and pulling defeat (or at least a tie) out of the jaws of victory). (-3 for not leaving well enough alone).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Unfortunately, and possibly without precedent, no one advances to Final Jeopardy.</p>
<p>@stats21,</p>
<p>(nice summary by the way)…I’m just playing devil’s advocate with the resident extremists on the board. The reality is that kids who have “gone wrong” regardless of degree are a tiny percentage of an overall BS population. So I pointed out that more often than not, Adcoms will quietly tell you that the type of kids demonized by some on these boards are the ones they LEAST have to worry about (lower income and middle class kids of all races - versus “some” of the most privileged kids.) More than one Adcom expressed the idea that “those” kids (the latter) are lucky because their parents are allowing someone else to raise them. </p>
<p>@mhmm - have friends in criminal investigation. If the authorities knew the contents of her cell phone conversations that precisely (as stated in the article) then they were more likely than not monitoring his jail phone conversation, her cell phone, or both. And if she represented a potential danger to other students, there’s a good chance they notified the security office of her school. </p>
<p>Getting her back on her home turf would have made it easier to track her movements with her “crew.”</p>
<p>The system does work, in most cases, and concerned parents should feel the permission to breathe now. </p>
<p>99.99999% of all BS students don’t want to bust a cap in someone’s head. (sigh)</p>
<p>@Stats21 - you’re my hero of the day - too funny!!!</p>