Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Jersey Girl]

I won't be replying to any more posts on this thread.

[_marg]

(You realize you sound as egotistical as Joseph Smith, when he claimed to have done more for mankind than anyone else, with the single exception of Jesus Christ, and he wasn't sure he hadn't done more than Christ... don't you? How do you manage to get your head through a standard doorway?)

This shouldn't require being pointed out, he didn't say he's done more than everyone else in this world with regards to helping to prevent abuse in these sorts of institutions just more than anyone on this board.

In other words while you and Jersey Girl are critical of him for not contacting gov't agencies on behalf of those currently at Westridge, his actions of making people aware through his website, his article, may have prevented some parent sending their kid there, it may have initiated some kids to do something about it themselves, may have initiated some lawyer to get involved..but at least it's something versus contacting a gov't employee who can find nothing illegal with the treatment which is what you and Jersey Girl propose.

I'll ask you as I asked Liz and Jersey Girl, what sort of abuse that you've read him describe should he report to some gov't agency that you think they would act upon because it's considered legally abusive. Do you see any problems with the treatments offered by a program which use behavior modification of levels started out with no privileges and moving up to higher level with privileges added?

[_marg]

Well I never read there was "no speaking, sitting or anything but working or reading LDS literature".

A direct quote from his account.

"On Tuesday night they would meet with all the boys with sexual issues and provide remedies like IcyHot on the penis to stifle homosexual urges." Because he does not characterize this in the first person, I don't believe." -- I actually read about that experience from someone on their blog. It is a very credible story

No, I have given a direct quote from his account. And I don't find it credible. But, each to his own.

Bob you quote me above in which I countered you saying that he claims there is "no speaking, sitting or anything but working or reading LDS literature" and yet your response doesn't address my counter.

I'll repeat, what I've read is that what you describe occurs but only initially and only as a punishment when privileges earned previously, are taken away.

With regards to the Icy Hot incident, I've posted on this MB previously and linked to a blog by the man who did experience that at Westridge/UBR when he attended. Do a search for Icy Hot on this MB if you are interested.

I believe what Eric says, that those with sexual issues did meet once a week with a therapist. The Icy Hot is likely as bad as it gets with regards to abusive therapy but it is an example. I've also read by that individual and by someone else, that therapy in that time, consisted of wrapping a boy up tight in a blanket and using extreme pressure on the abdomen to the point that the boy could barely breathe. It sounds strange but strange things happen and I don't think this man who told his story was lying especially since I've read about it by more than one individual.

by the way this fellow was homosexual.

GoodK doesn't claim to be gay.

No Bob, the fellow who described his experience on his blog with the Icy Hot was.


As far as the rest of your post, I'll skip parts for brevity, I see nothing much to comment on.

Finally, I have never insinuated that I know things about GoodK to think he should have been locked away. I challenge you again to point me to a place where I have done so.

You've deleted and edited lots of your posts, I'm not going to go back and search. If you don't think he deserved to be sent away to a treatment facility due to behaviors at home, I'll accept that based on your words above.

[_rcrocket]

I edited about two days worth of posts. You mean, in all the months of posting on this subject you can't find proof to support your assertion?

Bob you quote me above in which I'm countering you that I haven't read that he's said there is "no speaking, sitting or anything but working or reading LDS literature" and yet your response doesn't address that.

The reason you haven't read that quote is because you must not have read his web site! It is a direct quote.

Can you imagine? A licensed secondary school (licensed also as a California facility) teaching only "LDS literature?" I mean, Westridge has a full library. Can you imagine that every text book, every library book, is "LDS literature?" I'm amazed. Amazed you don't believe me that this is a direct quote from GoodK's web site.

You also describe as abusive the teaching of Mormon doctrine to these boys. How terrible. When I was growing upon in Texas about two blocks from my house was a Catholic girl's high school. This school specialized in discipline problems. The girls had to wear uniforms. They spent at least an hour a day in religious training. Often, their parents want these troubled girls to become nuns. I know these details because when some of the girls transferred out, they transferred into my high school. How terribly abusive that must have been. A religious-themed school for discipline problems. You agree, right?

[_Droopy]

And since I was friends with your family, I felt that somebody had to stick up for your dad, your Mom and your poor sister.

Butt out of another's personal family affairs, Bishop.

Go on over to the masturbation thread, Rollo, your presence is needed there more than here.

[_marg]

I edited about two days worth of posts. You mean, in all the months of posting on this subject you can't find proof to support your assertion?

It makes no difference Bob I accepted your statement.

The reason you haven't read that quote is because you must not have read his web site! It is a direct quote.

Can you imagine? A licensed secondary school (licensed also as a California facility) teaching only "LDS literature?" I mean, Westridge has a full library. Can you imagine that every text book, every library book, is "LDS literature?" I'm amazed. Amazed you don't believe me that this is a direct quote from GoodK's web site.

Actually Bob he doesn't say that is what goes on during school time. Reread it. He's comparing the privileges given those with blue t-shirts versus those with green t-shirts who were put on work crew. Those who were assigned to wearing green shirts weren't allowed to sit, talk with others, read other books besides the Book of Mormon, and were often on work crew, but they were allowed to go to school. So I take it that during the day when on work crew they weren't allowed to sit or talk with each other. And my impression is that in school the abuse didn't occur, privileges such as those denied outside school as a "green t-shirter were not enforced in school during school time. So in school they could sit, read other books assigned, etc. However I understand how it could be misread. And perhaps greater clarification from Eric is needed.

Getting off from work crew meant school during the day, and considerably less work. Some sadist there created a t-shirt caste system that involved wearing either a blue t-shirt or green t-shirt. "Blue shirts" could talk, receive letters (which were opened and read first), talk to their parents, and possibly go off campus."Green shirts" were allowed into school, but that was about it. No speaking, sitting, or anything but working or reading LDS literature. A "green shirt" was forced to read the Book of Mormon, in particular the first 22 chapters. We were interviewed by one of the four full-time Mormon missionaries that worked there and had to paraphrase all of "First Nephi"before receiving a blue t-shirt.

You also describe as abusive the teaching of Mormon doctrine to these boys. How terrible. When I was growing upon in Texas about two blocks from my house was a Catholic girl's high school. This school specialized in discipline problems. The girls had to wear uniforms. They spent at least an hour a day in religious training. Often, their parents want these troubled girls to become nuns. I know these details because when some of the girls transferred out, they transferred into my high school. How terribly abusive that must have been. A religious-themed school for discipline problems. You agree, right?

Bob, I'd have to know more about that school. At Westridge the kids have little contact with the outside world, so in that environment in which there are few if any outside influences, in which one's time is controlled, and what information one has access to is restricted, I think it's abusive to force a particular religious belief system onto those attending. There is no direct correlation between improving one's behavior and believing as true historically the stories of the Book of Mormon, many of which are simply irrational, but please I don't want this discussion to go into an examination of the Book of Mormon. Do you agree with me?

(by the way, it's too nice a day to be spending it all day on this so, I'm leaving this for the afternoon at least. )

[_harmony]

In other words while you and Jersey Girl are critical of him for not contacting gov't agencies on behalf of those currently at Westridge, his actions of making people aware through his website, his article, may have prevented some parent sending their kid there, it may have initiated some kids to do something about it themselves, may have initiated some lawyer to get involved..but at least it's something versus contacting a gov't employee who can find nothing illegal with the treatment which is what you and Jersey Girl propose.

In other words, he's done nothing to directly impact any child who lives in an abusive situation. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Jersey has. Jersey does. Every day. Every damn day. Directly. For multiple children. She's done more in the last week than GoodK's done his entire life, as far as directly impacting children in abusive situations.

In the real world, actions speak louder than words, marg. Jersey acts; GoodK writes. Jersey saves lives, while GoodK is looking up words in his thesaurus.

I'll ask you as I asked Liz and Jersey Girl, what sort of abuse that you've read him describe should he report to some gov't agency that you think they would act upon because it's considered legally abusive.

That's exactly the point, marg. There appears to have been no abuse, at least not the legal definition of abuse. That's what Jersey's been trying to get through your head, and what I've been trying to push GoodK to see. He couldn't report anything illegal, because there was nothing illegal to report. I'm not saying that should be the way it is; I'm just saying that is the way it is. And if he's writing a book about his childhood, good for him. I hope he gets published and makes a buck off it.

Do you see any problems with the treatments offered by a program which use behavior modification of levels started out with no privileges and moving up to higher level with privileges added?

Treatments? Virtually every parent I know, LDS and nonLDS, uses a very similiar method to modify behavior. Do your chores, you get to watch an hour of tv. Don't do your chores, and you get handed the toothbrush to clean the bathroom floor. Funny thing about it: it works for the parents.

I've told you and everyone else here what I think of the UBR. I don't need to repeat myself again.

[_marg]

In other words while you and Jersey Girl are critical of him for not contacting gov't agencies on behalf of those currently at Westridge, his actions of making people aware through his website, his article, may have prevented some parent sending their kid there, it may have initiated some kids to do something about it themselves, may have initiated some lawyer to get involved..but at least it's something versus contacting a gov't employee who can find nothing illegal with the treatment which is what you and Jersey Girl propose.

In other words, he's done nothing to directly impact any child who lives in an abusive situation. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Jersey has. Jersey does. Every day. Every damn day. Directly. For multiple children. She's done more in the last week than GoodK's done his entire life, as far as directly impacting children in abusive situations.

In the real world, actions speak louder than words, marg. Jersey acts; GoodK writes. Jersey saves lives, while GoodK is looking up words in his thesaurus.

Initially you guys were telling him to contact gov't services and then became critical that he didn't. Now you and Jersey Girl appreciate and admit it would be a waste of his time to do so. However, with your recent criticisms of him, he countered that no one on this board has done more than him with regards to this issue and he is correct about that. When he used the words "child abuse" it was in the context of the discussion and the abuse which goes in in residential teen treatment places. the discussion is not about child abuse generally, nor does it matter that his actions are not direct. The fact is he has done things which have made a difference. He has acted, while all you've done is be critical and really offer him useless advice.

I'll ask you as I asked Liz and Jersey Girl, what sort of abuse that you've read him describe should he report to some gov't agency that you think they would act upon because it's considered legally abusive.

That's exactly the point, marg. There appears to have been no abuse, at least not the legal definition of abuse. That's what Jersey's been trying to get through your head, and what I've been trying to push GoodK to see. He couldn't report anything illegal, because there was nothing illegal to report. I'm not saying that should be the way it is; I'm just saying that is the way it is. And if he's writing a book about his childhood, good for him. I hope he gets published and makes a buck off it.

Not true Harmony..as Jersey Girl wrote, "That is why harmony and Liz, (and myself previously) keep harping on his reporting to social services and/or law enforcement. Even crock's questions and skepticism are signs to him that he's unprepared for any of this."

I've understood all along that it would be a waste of his time contacting gov't bodies. When Liz suggested that in this thread I pointed that out, yet both you and J.G. have been telling him to speak with social services and critical that he hasn't.

Do you see any problems with the treatments offered by a program which use behavior modification of levels started out with no privileges and moving up to higher level with privileges added?

Treatments? Virtually every parent I know, LDS and nonLDS, uses a very similiar method to modify behavior. Do your chores, you get to watch an hour of tv. Don't do your chores, and you get handed the toothbrush to clean the bathroom floor. Funny thing about it: it works for the parents.

I've told you and everyone else here what I think of the UBR. I don't need to repeat myself again.

I have no idea what you think of UBR but given that you think a treatment teen place which uses grades behavior modification is comparable to what goes on in homes getting kids to do chores tells me you are either being dishonest and downplaying the abuse which goes on there, or you really are a clueless individual. Why do you think there are people working to change the legislation with regards to these programs if they aren't abusive, if all they offer is similar to disciplining kids at home?

[_harmony]

Initially you guys were telling him to contact gov't services and then became critical that he didn't. Now you and Jersey Girl appreciate and admit it would be a waste of his time to do so.

marg, GoodK would never believe anything Jersey or I said, so telling him to contact government officials would give him someone who could tell him if his claims had merit. He didn't see that through either.

However, with your recent criticisms of him, he countered that no one on this board has done more than him with regards to this issue and he is correct about that. When he used the words "child abuse" it was in the context of the discussion and the abuse which goes in in residential teen treatment places. the discussion is not about child abuse generally, nor does it matter that his actions are not direct. The fact is he has done things which have made a difference. He has acted, while all you've done is be critical and really offer him useless advice.

He can't document any difference he's made. Jersey can. He can make claims, but just like his allegations, they don't stand up to scrutiny. Jersey is a required reporter and she actively pursues child abusers every day. Saying that GoodK does more by his website and his press conference is ludicrious. It's a vain boast.

Not true Harmony..as Jersey Girl wrote, "That is why harmony and Liz, (and myself previously) keep harping on his reporting to social services and/or law enforcement. Even crock's questions and skepticism are signs to him that he's unprepared for any of this."

I've understood all along that it would be a waste of his time contacting gov't bodies. When Liz suggested that in this thread I pointed that out, yet both you and J.G. have been telling him to speak with social services and critical that he hasn't.

It might have helped him, had he done so. His hubris keeps him in ignorance though. Maybe his lawyer has told him though, and that's the reason we haven't seen any legal complaints. Too bad he had to spend money in order to find out what a visit to his government office would have given him for free. But that's the hubris again.

I have no idea what you think of UBR but given that you think a treatment teen place which uses grades behavior modification is comparable to what goes on in homes getting kids to do chores tells me you are either being dishonest and downplaying the abuse which goes on there, or you really are a clueless individual. Why do you think there are people working to change the legislation with regards to these programs if they aren't abusive, if all they offer is similar to disciplining kids at home?

I have spoken of the boot camp near here, the boys ranch that's even nearer, and the very successful boys ranch that is about 50 miles away. Although none of them uses the precise behaviorial modification method that GoodK alledges happens at UBR, they are still examples of places where parents send their children, whether willingly or unwillingly, and they use discipline methods that you would no doubt disagree with. (When one of the boys at the ranch near here got kicked off the bus for misbehavior several years ago, the house parents made him walk the 5 miles to school and back every day for the week he was kicked off. The house father walked with him both ways, so it's not like he was thrown onto the road unchaperoned. You'd no doubt think that was a terrible punishment. I on the other hand think it was handled appropriately).

None of my examples is supported in any way by the LDS church, so your kneejerk reaction to anything the church is involved in isn't going to apply here. The most successful one is supported by an Evangelical group, though, and I have no doubt that they have mandatory scripture study and daily chapel, so you can certainly flail around about indoctrination and unusual punishment.

And I see no legislation of that sort taking place in my state. Utah, though, still lives pretty much in the 50's, so maybe there's some action taking place there (which I have also advocated that GoodK do.). We tend to be a little more socially advanced here than the Wasatch Front is.

The difference between you, marg, and Jersey is her efforts support abused children no matter where they are. Your effort is confined to supporting a 26 year old with a chip on his shoulder. Her efforts matter; yours don't.

[_marg]

Initially you guys were telling him to contact gov't services and then became critical that he didn't. Now you and Jersey Girl appreciate and admit it would be a waste of his time to do so.

marg, GoodK would never believe anything Jersey or I said, so telling him to contact government officials would give him someone who could tell him if his claims had merit. He didn't see that through either.

Aww that's too bad, that he didn't see that through, so you guys have taken it upon yourselves to criticize him for that, when it turns out now you appreciate it would be a waste of his time. I don't blame him if he'd never believe you guys, you seem to excel in criticism mainly.

He can't document any difference he's made. Jersey can. He can make claims, but just like his allegations, they don't stand up to scrutiny. Jersey is a required reporter and she actively pursues child abusers every day. Saying that GoodK does more by his website and his press conference is ludicrious. It's a vain boast.

You are such a petty minded individual Harmony, seriously. Do you think this is really important in this discussion? Is that the direction you want this to go?

It might have helped him, had he done so. His hubris keeps him in ignorance though. Maybe his lawyer has told him though, and that's the reason we haven't seen any legal complaints. Too bad he had to spend money in order to find out what a visit to his government office would have given him for free. But that's the hubris again.

Why do you assume he had to spend money, why do you assume there should be some legal complaint at this point, why do you assume to know the law or even some gov't employee to know the laws so thoroughly?

I have spoken of the boot camp near here, the boys ranch that's even nearer, and the very successful boys ranch that is about 50 miles away. Although none of them uses the precise behaviorial modification method that GoodK alledges happens at UBR, they are still examples of places where parents send their children, whether willingly or unwillingly, and they use discipline methods that you would no doubt disagree with. (When one of the boys at the ranch near here got kicked off the bus for misbehavior several years ago, the house parents made him walk the 5 miles to school and back every day for the week he was kicked off. The house father walked with him both ways, so it's not like he was thrown onto the road unchaperoned. You'd no doubt think that was a terrible punishment. I on the other hand think it was handled appropriately).

It's not a matter of looking at one incident. It's a matter of assessing why the person is there, what are their behavior issues, was it ever independently assessed, what sort of treatment is provided for behavior issues. If it is a treatment place, should it be accepting youth with no behavior issues which require no treatment

So one incident has to be put into the context of the entire program and why that person is there.

None of my examples is supported in any way by the LDS church, so your kneejerk reaction to anything the church is involved in isn't going to apply here.

You are the one with the knee jerk reaction, and assuming my focus is religion. I'm also critical of other behavior mod schools I've read about. I've said Westridge is only one of many.

most successful one is supported by an Evangelical group, though, and I have no doubt that they have mandatory scripture study and daily chapel, so you can certainly flail around about indoctrination and unusual punishment.

And I'll repeat what I said to Bob. Keep in mind the place is a treatment place and what part of requiring reading of the Book of Mormon daily does that have to do with treatment. It is though an indication of one of the primary purposes of the place to be a vehicle for religious indoctination of Mormonism, not just any religion. "At Westridge the kids have little contact with the outside world, so in that environment in which there are few if any outside influences, in which one's time is controlled, and what information one has access to is restricted, I think it's abusive to force a particular religious belief system onto those attending. There is no direct correlation between improving one's behavior and believing as true historically the stories of the Book of Mormon, many of which are simply irrational, ..."

The difference between you, marg, and Jersey is her efforts support abused children no matter where they are. Your effort is confined to supporting a 26 year old with a chip on his shoulder. Her efforts matter; yours don't.

What the hell does that have to do with this? You both have been critical of him in particular for not contacting the gov't, and now you are admitting with high probability it would be a waste of time. You are offering him advice and part of it is that he shouldn't waste his time with a lawyer, you are concerned about his spending money apparently. So your criticism is that he's doing nothing productive... and he came back in response to that by saying no one on this board is doing more than him for this particular issue. And he's right Harmony. You haven't been helpful, or tried to be understanding or supportive in any way. You've been critical. Your approach is to down play his experiences and basically downplay any and all behavior modification programs as nothing more than offering mere discipline which according to you is good for youth. So ya, I can appreciate why he'd want you to piss off with your supposed helpful advice.