Where do we go from here?

Both Stuart and Michelle deny the truth of what Daniel writes. Stuart claims the posting is “full of gross untruths” and that his version of events “has been corroborated by faculty and students who were present at the time of the allegations”. Michelle implied that the postings are untrue because she wrote that “no-one bothered to ask me whether that was true” and indicated that it was wrong of me to post Daniel’s letter before doing so.

Both Stuart and Michelle suggest that I should have checked with them for accuracy, but they both indicate the confidentiality of the matter. I wonder, then, if checking with them would have achieved much?

Clearly, both Stuart and Michelle feel strongly that they have been wronged: Stuart says that a group of graduates is “trying to bring me down” and that his faith in me and “this institution has been severely undermined.” Michelle is worried that students will not be willing to approach her with “confidential concerns over things that are happening to them in their life" and wrote that her mother is very upset wondering why Michelle would ”want to devote so much of my time to students who obviously don’t care about the people who work in this place, and don’t recognize what they’ve been given”. In short, both Stuart and Michelle deny what Daniel has written and feel victimized by the posting of Daniel’s words. Stuart feels so strongly that he has seems to have threatened me with legal action. He wrote, "The statements are actionable and by posting them you have accepted responsibility for them."

Daniel too, apparently feels victimized, and he believes that other current students feel similarly; he would not have written if he felt otherwise.

Herein lies the problem: people on all sides of this issue feel victimized. Without being party to the events in question, I find the differing accounts of circumstances and events highly confusing. At the same time, I feel as if I am expected to “pick sides” without complete information. I also feel that I am expected to contribute financially to Pearson College - something I would like to do. However, prior to making financial contributions, I would like to be able to make an informed decision about what is going on. The allegations that have been raised recently are serious – a feeling that has become even more apparent when legal action seems to be threatened against me. As a long-term donor, I do not feel it is too much to ask for clarification, especially given the (ever-increasing) number of legitimate and laudable non-profits that also would like donations.

I apologize publicly for upsetting Stuart and Michelle. But I’m also worried about what Daniel has written in case it is true. When the College published Ruse's letter to faculty on the world wide web, his allegations, many of which were similar to Daniel’s, came to light. Ruse itemized thirteen issues - none of which have been resolved as far as I know. I do know David Sutcliffe arranged for Ruse’s severance, but I do not believe he made known whether anything Ruse said was true, or even if he investigated. It seems to me that there should be some way to know whose story is correct while maintaining individual confidentiality where appropriate, especially since graduates have been expressing concern for several years now, apparently without resolution.

It only fair to Stuart, Michelle, Angus, Ruse and other people who work or have worked at Pearson, to current and past students like Daniel and myself, as well as donors and friends of the college, that the truth be known. It isn’t fair that employees should feel victimized by former students or colleagues, nor that a student should feel victimized by employees. Through all of this, however, it seems that the Board has done nothing concrete to develop a process, the sole aim of which is to resolve allegations in a manner that is satisfactory to all interested parties.