The Total Failure of Shattuck-St. Mary’s

A boarding school. Naked dance parties. Child pornography. Molestation. An arrest. A suicide. Allegations. Lawsuits.

A cover-up.

Total institutional ethical failure.


When I first heard about the scandal at Minnesota’s Shattuck-St. Mary’s (I’ll refer to it from now on as SSM), I had a hard time wrapping my arms around the extent of the criminal behavior. And let’s face it, I am not a novice when it comes to these cases. It takes a lot to shock me.

SSM, a grade 6-12 Episcopal boarding and day school located about 50 miles from Minneapolis, also reminds me of a school a little closer to home—one that suffered its own huge institutional failure when it came to child sex abuse and cover-up.

There is so much to discuss, that I have decided to write a series of posts about SSM and what happened. I am also going to try and tackle some of the questions we are all asking. Things like:

I am also going to look at some of the players—people like:

That’s a lot to talk about. But the only way to stop this kind of cover-up in the future is to truly understand how and why it happened here.


1 thought on “The Total Failure of Shattuck-St. Mary’s

  1. “Seibel is separated from the school because of the adult pornography on his computer and in part because he did not take responsibility for that,” Stoneman testified. “Neither of those to me posed an immediate threat to any students.”

    Nick Stoneman is the President of Shattuck-St. Mary’s School where the Day School tuition is $29,000. Do the parents of students at the school agree with Mr. Stoneman that Seibel’s actions/conduct did NOT pose an immediate threat to any of the students?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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