(Note how the deceptive and disrespectful conduct of Elizabeth English deliberately leads Mr. Josephson to believe that she was open to discuss alternatives for dealing with Child 1’s rudeness as a set up for a meeting in which she merely delivered an ultimatum. )
Leading up to a meeting between Michael Josephson and Elizabeth English: deceptive and disrespectful conduct of Elizabeth English
On Sunday, January 12 (10:40 AM) Ms. English denied Mr. Josephson’s request to have C1’s therapist come with him to the meeting so she could personally explain and/or discuss her findings and recommendations, but the highlighted text created (and probably was intended to create) the impression in both Michael and Anne Josephson that, instead of insisting on the student judicial hearing as the only way to deal with determination of C1’s sanction for her rudeness to her teacher, she (Ms. English) was open to explore other means of accomplishing the three critical goals (highlighted in yellow).
I understand C1 would prefer that her therapist not speak with Ms. Lancaster and that instead you would like her to attend the meeting on Monday. . . . Attendance at the meeting will be limited to you, Anne (if she chooses), Scott Lord, Samantha Coyne, and myself.
Please reassure C1 that my goal for her (as it is for every graduating student at Archer) is to:
1. Demonstrate capacity for self-reflection;
2. Take responsibility for her actions and their impact on others, in this case her teachers and classmates;
3. Have a clearly articulated plan and strategies for conducting herself in a way that is fundamentally respectful and line with Archer’s Honor Code (I would expect that her therapist can help her with this).
If C1 can do these things, then I see no reason why she should not graduate from Archer and ultimately be successful in her relationships in college and beyond. Looking forward to talking with you tomorrow,
Deliberate refusal to clarify her position
Led to believe that a looming crisis could be averted, but remembering how he had been set up before his meeting with her in 2009 Mr. Josephson immediately wrote back the following letter (10:41 AM) – as this was sent within a few minutes of receipt, it is almost certain that Ms. English received it.
If I understand your last note properly, C1, Anne and I are relieved and grateful to know that you will not require C1 to appear before the student panel as the only requirement going forward is demonstrating: 1) C1 has engaged in meaningful self-reflection concerning her behavior in December, and in general; 2) C1 has taken responsibility for her actions and their impact on her teachers and classmates (and that if more is required she will demonstrate that sense of responsibility further); and 3) you want us to present you with a clearly articulated plan and strategies to help C1 monitor and control her emotions so that she conducts herself in a way that is fundamentally respectful and line with Archer’s Honor Code.
This is completely consistent with your philosophy of non-coercive discipline and both Anne and I will, as we have in the past, cooperate fully with Archer to devise and implement a plan that meets these very reasonable needs. (In fact, we believe we have already done so). Of course, we would expect and have no objection to Ms. Lancaster’s participation in this process.
I hope that in my eagerness to move forward without creating further stress on C1 that I have not misinterpreted your intent.
I would greatly appreciate a confirmation of this as I will change dramatically my preparation for the meeting and allow me to focus on the solution rather than on supporting our objections to use of the student panel in this particular case.
Thank you, again.
Receiving no response, Mr. Josephson wrote again at 2:32 PM:
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 2:32 PM
I realize that you may not have seen or yet formulated a response to my last e-mail seeking to clarify whether my understanding of your previous note to me was correct. I am sorry to repeat my request but as your response will have a great effect on how I prepare for tomorrow’s meeting your earliest attention would be appreciated.
Intent to frustrate and harass
Clearly, Mr. Josephson’s communications were reasonable and respectful. Nevertheless, Ms. English refused to answer Mr. Josephson’s inquiry and forced him to go to the meeting unsure of the agenda and whether his belief that Ms. English had decided to focus on the end objectives rather than a particular means (i.e., the student hearing) was correct. As subsequent events will prove, this was just one more ploy to provoke and harass Mr. Josephson and demonstrate her power.
(See the next post to reveal further vindictive acts against C1)