Protecting Charities from Lawsuits

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

In your story on charitable immunity (“Making Charities Accountable,” September 15), Ben Gose paraphrases Harvey P. Dale as saying that “the abolition of immunity laws would give charities more incentive to put in place systems that prevent harm in the first place.”

At the American Boychoir School, we have had a model system of child protection in place for many years.

Our first incentive is our institutional mission — building lives of achievement and character through the power of music. A second incentive is a vigilant Board of Trustees and staff, who regularly monitor our Child Protection Plan. A third is our parents, who are actively involved in the life of the school. They have recently written, “We have the utmost confidence in their safety and well-being due to an extensive child protection program at the school that includes staff screening and training, longstanding policies and procedures, and, most importantly, education of the boys to protect themselves from inappropriate behavior of any nature involving students or staff members.”

The American Boychoir School has not opposed changes in the charitable-immunity statutes as long as those changes limit the time period for which institutions can be held liable and place reasonable limits on the amount of money juries can award, as is the case for hospitals in malpractice claims. Abolishing charitable immunity retroactively without other adequate protections could take away from current students and future generations the educational and artistic benefits for which the American Boychoir School is recognized internationally. We do not believe that outcome serves the public interest.

Donald B. Edwards
President
American Boychoir School
Princeton, N.J.