Free The Headmasters Papers by Richard A. Hawley Page B

than principles . . . Don’t worry, I’ll be reasonable.
    Best, John
    19 October
    Mrs. Philip Stone
Honey Hill
R.R. 2
Bedford, New York
    Dear Mrs. Stone,
    There is no way, I suppose, to soften the hurt and bad feelings that follow the dismissal of a student, especially a sixth former, from school. I feel, however, that in Charles’ case, those bad feelings may have distorted some important matters of fact. Whatever the source of the confusion, let me make the following matters clear:
    (1)     I made no disciplinary distinction between the boys who purchased the drugs and the boy who sold them, because both acts violate the very core of the school’s drug policy. I simply don’t believe that the buying/selling distinction is important. Without one, there would not be the other, either way. I am aware that the state and federal laws do draw a distinction, and I am also aware that according to every published measure of the phenomenon, the state and federal laws have done nothing to curb rising drug use among the young.
    (2)     I am very sorry if anything I wrote or said over the phone gave you the impression that Charles did “nothing good” here. By saying his experience wasn’t “entirely happy,” I meant only that. I am glad that you and he feel there was so much that was positive in his career at Wells.
    (3)    I made no mention of reapplication for a later term or for a post-graduate year, because I don’t think either course would be desirable, for Charles or for Wells. For Charles to return at some later point in the year after a stop-gap phase at another school would suggest our policy for upper formers who break major rules is to “rusticate” them temporarily. This is not our policy. We rarely take post-graduate students, and when we do, they are generally promising scholars who are either chronologically or physically young and who want another year’s preparation and maturity before college. I don’t think Charles needs such a year, here or elsewhere.
    (4)     I did not “humiliate” Charles and the other boys involved before the whole student body. I did state briefly what had happened and that Charles was involved. The boys admitted as much to the Student Court, to the Faculty Discipline Committee, and to their friends. Not to have announced to the assembled school what had happened would without question have given rise to speculation and rumor which would have been far more hurtful than the truth.
    (5)     I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that I wanted “nothing further to do with” you or with Charles. I suggested that you deal with Mrs. Pearse directly only with respect to Charles’ transcript. Mrs. Pearse serves as our registrar, and dealing directly with her saves a step, especially when I am out of town.
    You mention that you are considering litigation. Of course this disappoints me, but you have every right to do it. It is hard for me to see the point of it. Charles not only had the “due process” of Wells School, he had it at its most deliberate and most caring. I for one would be pleased to stand by our treatment of Charles in court.
    Respectfully,
    John O. Greeve
    19 October
    Mr. William G. Truax
President, Fiduciary Trust Company
New Haven, Connecticut
    Dear Bill,
    I have this morning received a letter from a mother who says she might be interested in suing us in order to restore the dignity of her sixth-form son who was recently dismissed for purchasing LSD from another boy in Hallowell. My experience of such mothers and such letters is that the ominous hints rarely come to writs. Nevertheless, you might want to bounce her letter off Seymour to see what, as counsel, he makes of it. Just in case it comes to something, I am preparing a file of disciplinary memos, housemaster’s notes, my address to the school, and all correspondence on the matter. I will make