Archer’s Attempt to Shut Down Josephsons’ Website Rejected by Court

Archer’s attempt to shut down the Josephson’s website rejected by court. Archer Chair Barbara Bruser expands knowledge of suit to entire Archer community by letter that attacks Josephsons’ character and motives and stands behind Elizabeth English.

In a letter sent to all Archer parents, Archer Board Chair, Barbara Bruser demeans the Josephson’s lawsuit and disparages their motives without ever responding to any of the specific substantive claims that form the basis of the lawsuit and stands behind Elizabeth English.

She also points out that Archer is a values driven institution, but there is abundant evidence that the values that currently drive their reaction to this lawsuit are the values of secrecy and deception through selective disclosure.

Archer lawyers seem frantic in their efforts to move this action into a private arbitration process that deprives the Josephsons of the right to appeal their case to a jury of their peers and will shroud all aspects of the case in secrecy. If they are successful, we won’t even be able to report the outcome of the case.

Ms. English insists that departing employees promise to never say anything bad about the school (that includes criticizing Ms. English) and swiftly rebukes any employee or parent heard saying anything she objects to. And, as alleged in this case she will exercise the sole discretion granted her by the Board to disenroll any student whose parent threatens litigation or simply opposes any of her decision.

This attempt to shield the institution and its head of school from any criticism reaches a new high (or perhaps low)  when Ms. English dispatched two lawyers with about 50 pages of legal documents to court in an effort to compel the Josephsons to take down this website and refrain from ALL communications about their grievances and lawsuit to ANYONE by ANY MEDIA. (The motion and supporting briefs are posted on the website under “Pleadings”).

In a special hearing that did not last more than 10 minutes, the judge (without even looking at Archer’s massive papers) summarily rejected the lawyers’ motion as it had no merit.

This effort had to cost many thousands of dollars and was a colossal waste of the school’s money.

As to deception by selective disclosure: while the lawyers claimed that distribution of any information about the lawsuit would cause Archer irreparable harm, they failed to tell the judge that Archer itself had already launched its own mass communication campaign to all parents. (We only found out about the letter when the reporter asked us about it after the hearing).

See new posting on the homepage below – “Why Doesn’t Ms. English Put Archer’s Interests first and Resign?” and full motion and brief at “Defendant’s Failed Motion” under Pleadings tab.

Comments 2

  1. Since you have asked for my response, I will leave it here. I am interested to see if you publish it, if you treat my response – as a disinterested party, not involved with your family or this school in any way – as important as your need to have your own response to this situation made public.
    I myself graduated from an all-girl’s high school. I myself am a parent whose child was brought up in front of a school’s disciplinary hearing which was shaming, which I though was not fair. My response to your situation is based in experiences I have lived through as a student, and as a parent.
    I feel you, as parents, have lost track of your larger goal of supporting your child’s maturation to independence, which necessarily involves taking responsibility for bad choices. Like this website proclaims: “even when it costs more than you want to pay”. Parents: you have chosen the easier path. As the existence of this website demonstrates, you are still choosing to be blind to the disservice you are doing to your child. You are not allowing her to take full responsibility for her actions. You are not allowing her to grow from her mistakes. You should have supported her unconditionally during her process through the school’s disciplinary procedure, respecting the school’s procedure, not countermanding it. The “emotional” toll on your child would have been far less. She would have learned from the experience, and been a better, stronger person for it.
    Instead, you have shown her that money and family resources can get her out of any sticky situation she may find herself in, in her future. Too bad.

    1. Post

      I respect your right to your opinion but I so wish you took the time to read the Complaint or summary of the facts. I don’t doubt that you might still disagree with me but I don’t think the facts support your conclusions re: daughter 1 and the fact that you do not share my outrage about throwing out daughter 2 for no other reason than i advocated for daughter 1. And the vindictiveness of forbidding the already punished girls by forbidding them to attend the graduations of there friend – this sort of bullying i will not tolerate. In the traditional sense this is clearly a no win situation but that cuts as strongly for Archer and English as my family. The dismissed our efforts to settle and are working only to keep this secret. Best wishes, Michael Josephson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *