FOR half a century, their awful stories were kept secret within the prestigious halls of The Hutchins School. Cowed into silence and convinced they would never be believed, four men sexually abused at the school in the 1960s finally and bravely told their stories at a royal commission this week. The appalling accounts of grooming, sexual abuse and neglect coupled with institutional silence and heartlessness told this week mirror much of what the commission has heard all over the country. For the victims of former headmaster David Lawrence and as many as seven abusive teachers, it has been 50 years of suffering in silence and feeling powerless against the organisational might of Hutchins. For 21 of those years, one man's requests for a private apology for the abuse he suffered were treated with disbelief and cynicism despite the overwhelming evidence of paedophilia at the school. The man, known as AOA, finally got his apology within the last fortnight, four years after he had stopped asking and with the royal commission looming on the horizon. The short apology reeks of being far too little far too late, and the school said as much via barrister Neil Clelland, QC, this week. AOA said he felt "f---ing insulted" by the apology - a perfectly understandable reaction. Especially when viewed against the stonewalling he had received since raising his complaint in 1993, including a letter from former headmaster William Topping in 2002, telling him that the board "could not be held accountable for events that occurred more than a generation ago". But perhaps the most damning evidence came from former teacher Geoffrey Ayling, who accused the school of allowing Lawrence to offend for five years, and of covering up the crimes of paedophile staff members. Mr Ayling said he would have been ostracised and sacked if he brought his concerns forward at the time, and felt compelled to leave Hutchins and end his teaching career while still in his 20s. "I believe that there was a conscious decision by the school to cover this up in the 1960s and to keep this information about its teachers from becoming public," he said. The aim of the royal commission has not been to throw rocks at the powerful, or pursue a vendetta against organised religion. Rather, it has been to shine a light into dark places, and examine the institutional responses to sexual abuse to ensure that the deliberate hush and whitewash of the past can never be repeated. What has emerged in the commission's investigation of Hutchins is that the school's handling of complaints was naive at best, and self-serving at worst until recent years. It has also shown an institution that has fought hard to minimise scandal, protect its reputation and displayed an almost bloody minded reluctance to accept the veracity and truthfulness of victims. Finally, it has revealed the unhealthy power structures within Hutchins in previous years, and the reliance it placed on the "old boys' " network. There is no doubt that the school's reputation has been damaged by the revelations at the royal commission this week. But if Hutchins is to continue its reputation as one of the state's finest schools, it must show more humility, compassion and contrition than it has in the past.
FOR half a century, their awful stories were kept secret within the prestigious halls of The Hutchins School.
Cowed into silence and convinced they would never be believed, four men sexually abused at the school in the 1960s finally and bravely told their stories at a royal commission this week.
The appalling accounts of grooming, sexual abuse and neglect coupled with institutional silence and heartlessness told this week mirror much of what the commission has heard all over the country.
For the victims of former headmaster David Lawrence and as many as seven abusive teachers, it has been 50 years of suffering in silence and feeling powerless against the organisational might of Hutchins.
For 21 of those years, one man's requests for a private apology for the abuse he suffered were treated with disbelief and cynicism despite the overwhelming evidence of paedophilia at the school.
The man, known as AOA, finally got his apology within the last fortnight, four years after he had stopped asking and with the royal commission looming on the horizon.
The short apology reeks of being far too little far too late, and the school said as much via barrister Neil Clelland, QC, this week.
AOA said he felt "f---ing insulted" by the apology - a perfectly understandable reaction.
Especially when viewed against the stonewalling he had received since raising his complaint in 1993, including a letter from former headmaster William Topping in 2002, telling him that the board "could not be held accountable for events that occurred more than a generation ago".
But perhaps the most damning evidence came from former teacher Geoffrey Ayling, who accused the school of allowing Lawrence to offend for five years, and of covering up the crimes of paedophile staff members.
Mr Ayling said he would have been ostracised and sacked if he brought his concerns forward at the time, and felt compelled to leave Hutchins and end his teaching career while still in his 20s.
"I believe that there was a conscious decision by the school to cover this up in the 1960s and to keep this information about its teachers from becoming public," he said.
The aim of the royal commission has not been to throw rocks at the powerful, or pursue a vendetta against organised religion.
Rather, it has been to shine a light into dark places, and examine the institutional responses to sexual abuse to ensure that the deliberate hush and whitewash of the past can never be repeated.
What has emerged in the commission's investigation of Hutchins is that the school's handling of complaints was naive at best, and self-serving at worst until recent years.
It has also shown an institution that has fought hard to minimise scandal, protect its reputation and displayed an almost bloody minded reluctance to accept the veracity and truthfulness of victims.
Finally, it has revealed the unhealthy power structures within Hutchins in previous years, and the reliance it placed on the "old boys' " network.
There is no doubt that the school's reputation has been damaged by the revelations at the royal commission this week.
But if Hutchins is to continue its reputation as one of the state's finest schools, it must show more humility, compassion and contrition than it has in the past.
