Revised January 2018
 St. George’s School, Phillips Academy, Milton Academy, Phillips Exeter Academy, Pingry School, Choate Rosemary Hall, Emma Willard School and St. Paul’s School.
Appendix: School Criteria for Disclosure of Names in Cases of Historical Educator Abuse
By: David Wolowitz, J.D. (Revised January 2018)
Published August 30, 2016
“Our threshold for public disclosure of past sexual misconduct is established by considering a series of factors:
- The severity of the misconduct, its effect on the former student(s), and/or whether the school was made aware of multiple concerns of misconduct;
- Whether there exists an ongoing current risk to students at Andover or elsewhere;
- Whether the behavior of the faculty member violated Andover's expectations; and
- Whether the allegations could be corroborated.”
ST. GEORGE’S SCHOOL
Published September 1, 2016
“To strike the appropriate balance between identifying perpetrators, protecting the identity of alumni who wish to keep their identities confidential, and taking every reasonable step to avoid the possibility of making unfair public accusations against faculty and staff, we have adopted the following practice:”
Editor’s Note: Criteria are shortened to exclude extraneous information.
- We have identified by name the faculty and staff members who engaged in, or allegedly engaged in, sexual or personal misconduct when allegations against them are supported by multiple credible accounts or independently corroborated evidence.
- We have chosen not to identify students who sexually assaulted other students by name.
- We have not reported allegations when, in our judgment, a witness’s account was not credible.
- In a small number of instances, we find the evidence equal in weight on each side of an allegation, and we have therefore been unable to reach a clear credibility assessment. In the small number of instances that fall in that category, we decided not to include allegations we heard.
Published February 21, 2017
“In determining our threshold for naming publicly these former employees, we carefully considered several factors including:
- The severity of the offense;
- Whether the individual engaged in sexual misconduct with students in repeated incidents;
- Whether there exists a potential risk to public safety today; and
- Maintaining a victim's request for privacy, where disclosure would compromise that privacy.”
PHILLIPS EXETER ACADEMY
Published March 2, 2017
“Below are the principles of disclosure adopted by the Trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy. In defining these principles, the Trustees reviewed current best practices as well as the perspectives from sexual assault survivors, professionals in the sexual assault field, and legal counsel. The principles are meant to serve as a guide to the Academy in making decisions regarding the possible public disclosure of allegations of misconduct against former faculty and/or staff of the Academy.”
Editor’s Note: Absent minor formatting changes, the following text is taken directly from the report.
1. After a careful review of the available evidence, does the Academy have a good faith belief that an allegation of misconduct against a faculty or staff member is well-founded? If the answer is yes continue with the analysis.
a. Is there an admission to the truth of the allegation by the alleged perpetrator of misconduct? If the answer is yes, the Academy should consider making a public disclosure using factors one through seven, infra.
b. If there is no admission to the truth of the allegation, has the alleged perpetrator been investigated and found guilty by a competent authority (for example, by court of law and/or state agency, employing the appropriate due process standards)? If the answer is yes, the Academy should consider making a public disclosure using factors one through seven, infra.
c. If there is no admission and no due process finding, the Academy may still consider making a disclosure. The most significant factor must be the reasonableness of the Academy's good-faith belief that an allegation is well-founded, as well as the harm sought to be alleviated. Additionally, the factors below must be considered and weighed in making a decision.
d. Affirmative answers to the questions listed below weight in favor of making a public disclosure, though an affirmative answer to any one question standing alone may not merit a public disclosure. Instead, the totality of all the factors listed below should inform the decision about disclosure.
1. Is the alleged perpetrator a current or ongoing risk to members of our community or the public?
2. Is there the potential for other unidentified victims of the alleged perpetrator?
3. Would the alleged misconduct, if committed today, violate the Academy's Faculty Handbook, Staff Handbook, or E Book?
4. Has the Academy commissioned a full and fair investigation of the alleged misconduct, the result of which was a finding that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred?
5. Has the Academy received multiple allegations of misconduct against the same perpetrator?
6. What effect will disclosure have on the Academy's former students?
7. Are the allegations raised against the perpetrator already in the public domain?
Published March 27, 2017
Pingry’s investigators used a “preponderance of the evidence standard.”
Editor’s Note: The following factors are not listed as naming criteria, but represent the only mentioned guidance used in the naming calculus.
- Individuals were not named where “a lack of information from witnesses with firsthand knowledge about the others, as well as a paucity of corroborating evidence.”
CHOATE ROSEMARY HALL
Published April, 2017
“One issue we confronted when preparing this report was whether to name adults accused of sexual misconduct. We carefully considered this question for each individual we investigated and reached different decisions based on the scope of our mandate and the information we learned. When making these decisions, we weighed a number of factors. We made a holistic assessment regarding each individual’s conduct, rather than trying to follow a strict formula.”
“The factors we weighed when deciding whether an adult accused of sexual misconduct should be named in Section IV are as follows:
- The severity of the individual’s conduct, and whether it involved sexual intercourse or sexual assault, as those terms are defined under Connecticut law.
- Whether the individual’s conduct involved either physical or emotional coercion.
- Whether we received credible reports of the individual having engaged in incidents of sexual misconduct with multiple students.
- Whether the individual was the subject of one or more direct reports in our investigation or if our information about the individual came from other sources.
- Whether we were able to corroborate the incident(s) we are describing and the amount and quality of this corroborating evidence.
- Whether Choate received an earlier report of potential sexual misconduct by the individual, either at the time of the incident or at a later point, and whether we believe that the school’s handling of that earlier report is particularly relevant.
- Whether the individual taught at other secondary schools or other educational institutions after leaving Choate and whether Choate assisted the individual in finding other employment and/or the individual currently works in education.”
THE EMMA WILLARD SCHOOL
Published April, 2017
“Key factors in the determination to include respondent names included those matters where the”
Editor’s Note: Criteria were originally found in paragraph form.
- Matters where the information arose through a first person account;
- There was contemporaneous corroborative information (including in some instances, an admission);
- The conduct was already of public record; and/or
- The conduct was criminal in nature.
ST. PAUL’S SCHOOL
Published May 20, 2017
Editor’s Note: The following criteria are not explicitly described as criteria used to determine whether a name would be made publicly available, but rather criteria used to place alleged perpetrators of sexual misconduct into three separate groups based on the evidence and seriousness of the allegations against them. Names would then be made public based on the level of substantiation of the sexual misconduct. The report did not name faculty members where allegations were not well-substantiated.
- The nature and severity of the sexual misconduct involved, including whether the faculty member or staff engaged in activities such as rape, sexual intercourse or sexual assault.
- The degree of harm and lasting impact to the victim(s) resulting from the sexual misconduct.
- Whether the faculty member engaged in repeated sexual misconduct with one student or a pattern of misconduct with multiple students.
- Whether the alleged misconduct, if committed today, would violate SPS’ written policies concerning faculty conduct and expectations.
- The availability and reliability of oral or written victim accounts, corroborating witness accounts, admissions by faculty or students, or other documentary evidence to substantiate sexual misconduct.
Published January 5, 2018
“We have not identified in this Report any former students – whether reporters or victims – by name or class year, in order to protect their privacy… Likewise, we have not referred to faculty and administrators by name, except where we have credible evidence that: 1) they engaged in inappropriate conduct with a student or students; or 2) they were aware – or reasonably should have been aware – of such misconduct and failed to take appropriate action to address it…
The decision to identify by name a teacher whom we believe engaged in inappropriate conduct with a student was not taken lightly – either with respect to those we name in Section II.A., or those whose conduct we describe in Section II.B., but do not name. We believe that the reports in both Sections are credible, that the teachers described in both Sections violated Nichols’ and their students’ trust in them, and that students were harmed as a result. But we also are aware of the need to balance the benefits to the victims and to the School community of holding wrongdoers publicly accountable, against the interests of individuals in not being publicly identified as a wrongdoer where we have less supporting evidence, or the conduct is less severe, than that attributed to the teachers whom we do name.
Thus we have identified teachers, and have attributed conduct to them by name, where we have a credible first-hand account of misconduct, supported by other extrinsic evidence, or a credible second-hand account supported by other factors, such as a first-hand report of similar behavior (i.e., “pattern evidence”), combined with some other compelling factor, such as severity or harm caused. See II.A., below. In Section II.B., below, we report credible accounts of misconduct attributed to faculty members whom we do not name, because, while we believe the reports are credible, they are almost all second-hand accounts, and lack the compelling support of those in Section II.A…”
[Footnote: “In short, we have adopted a standard analogous to “clear and convincing” evidence for identifying teachers by name, and a standard similar to the lesser “preponderance of the evidence” to report misconduct without attribution to an identified teacher.”]