I must say that the AJN treated the King David (Reform) School respectfully and in a journalistically responsible way. First they reported what were allegations but wouldn’t name the school. The week after they followed up with the name of the School. I found the issue of staying in touch with alumni during the two years after they leave school a very interesting one. I imagine civil libertarians might argue that this is over the top because the student is no longer a student, and presuming they are of adult age, what could the school do if the student contacted a teacher. Yes, one could write it into a teacher’s contract, but I wonder if civil libertarian lawyers would be able to take up a case against it. I see the sense in it, but I’m just wondering from a legalistic point of view as someone who doesn’t understand the law.
Certainly, I have a rule that I don’t keep in touch with my students on Facebook until they graduate. I have found this an enormous resource, and frankly I get נחת seeing where they have gotten to. They often ask me for counsel 10 years after they have left University and visit me in my office. These are nice moments.
If only the Jewish news was less sensationalist in reporting in general. Then again, they have to sell papers, so that’s their business.
Recently there was an article floating (pardon the pun) that there was plenty of poo in beards. This morning I read a responsible journalist analyse it and realise they had made a story (a false one) out of nothing. Journos seem to be less likely to be wholesome in their analyses than they used to be.
pitputim 