The TransLarator
TransLarating word salads from Toronto's RCM
So! Here is a statement put out last week by the bafflingly beleaguered Royal Conservatory of Music.
I mean, they could have done the right thing 39 years ago or, three months ago, but they have chosen to be pulled kicking and practically screaming (if one believes what their students are saying) into doing what’s right and investigating alleged criminal acts, which, it seems, they want to avoid.
I’m going to put it through the TransLarator©!!!
Thank you, thank you (bow).
Before I begin - here is Lusiana’s updated petition: please sign!
From May 1, 2026:
The RCM Initiates Independent Third-Party Investigation after Allegations of Historical Sexual Abuse
Well, is the use of the present tense quite right? Check out the body of the RCM statement. It appears they are doing some internal stuff hopefully for the purpose of preserving evidence and records (and not destroying any), and only then will they “maybe” commission an external investigation. But there is no outside investigative firm named, and no timeline. So, the proper headline should probably read:
The RCM Might Possibly Someday Finally Initiate Independent Third-Party Investigation after Incredibly Public Allegations of Historical Child Sexual Abuse.
Now that I have fixed the headline – here is the rest!
In recent months, survivors have publicly shared accounts of sexual abuse that occurred when they were children and young adults at the Royal Conservatory of Music in the 1970s and 1980s. Yes. Which at least one member of RCM staff is alleged to have known about for many years, and it’s likely many others knew about as well. It has long been rumoured that RCM has shoved abuse to the side for decades.
We have heard clearly the distress, hurt, anger and concern in our community, and the questions now being raised about student safety and institutional accountability and transparency. Well, it would have been great if they had heard the distress, hurt and anger of Lusiana Lukman and others who were abused by their school. I guess, only once it became public and a PR liability did they feel the need to say something.
The RCM has completed an internal review, and subsequent work will involve an examination of additional historical records. This includes ongoing engagement with the University of Toronto, which owned and operated the RCM prior to 1991.
Oooh! Hey maybe they can blame all this on U of T! Their statement sure looks like that’s the direction they’re heading. And who knows what records they are talking about. When Lusiana went to Peter Simon in 1988, she told me he took no notes, at least not during the meeting with her. The only records she has are her memories of talking about the worst thing that ever happened to her, and the memory of her friend and witness who was in the room with Simon when Lusiana reported her sexual abuse to him.
The Toronto Star wrote that Peter Simon couldn’t recall a child with her child friend coming to him saying that her piano teacher was sexually abusing her at every lesson. One wonders if he had so many of those complaints that he couldn’t quite place it, or he’s intentionally feigning ignorance.
Once completed, the RCM, based on the unanimous resolution of its Board of Directors, will launch an independent, external investigation.
That’s nice that it’s a unanimous decision. I invited the entire Board of Directors to my film premiere April 20, and no one RSVPed. Of course, at that point this hadn’t yet become crazily public. Lusiana told her story publicly on February 7th, in a giant piece in the Toronto Star but I guess the board and the school thought – hey, maybe if we ignore her once again, as well as that pesky St. John chick, we’ll be OK!
“We have heard the calls for action clearly from our community, and we are committed to responding with transparency as this work progresses,” said Tim Price, Chair of the Board of Directors.
So, like, this word salad basically seems to say: “We totally have to say this now because we look awful - but we only said we are committed to “responding” with transparency, not that we would make everything transparent.” That’s troubling to me, and it should trouble everyone.
“The complexity and historical nature of this work have reinforced both the urgency and the need for a more robust, independent approach.”
Does anyone know what this means? Why would complexity and historical “nature” reinforce urgency? The RCM has not shown any public interest in these alleged criminal acts. A cynical person might infer that the only urgency today is to protect the RCM from scorn, embarrassment and legal exposure. The need for a “robust” (???) and independent (yes please) approach is only because people like Lusiana and Jonathan Biss have held their feet to the fire.
“While our response to date may have felt distant or slow, please know that the heart of this institution is devastated,” said Rayla Myhal, Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors.
Oh, OK. Well, they might want to talk about how survivors like Lusiana have been devastated by the alleged actions of their school, rather than how their board of directors has been upset by the mainstream media taking up the story as front-page news.
“We have not been hiding behind silence but deciding on a path that will bring meaningful action, and answers, for any survivors of sexual abuse. Does it really take almost 40 years to do meaningful things if the RCM wanted to? It does if they are hiding from the issue. Writing that they have not been hiding behind silence is just so, so cringe.
We are committed to creating lasting, systemic change. The RCM’s Board of Directors welcomes an investigation in the spirit of openness and transparency.” Ah! Here we are again! “In the spirit of openness and transparency” which means, of course, “we have the right not to be transparent at all.” Perhaps the RCM lawyers had them make that statement to avoid having to make public some vaguely promised future investigation. One can only imagine the RCM is scared of bringing in credible outside investigators who might finally reveal the truth of the allegations and show the RCM to be a truly awful school. Come on, people. Just commit to making the truth public.
Here’s an idea! Why don’t we ask them to show us, in their “spirit of openness and transparency”, the completed review they talk about in the third sentence! That would help folks to understand if they’re on the right track, at least.
The Board has been focused on identifying the appropriate experts to assist in facilitating a third-party investigation.
Hm, a quick google shows me plenty of expert law firms in the Toronto area which specialize in this. I’m not sure what “identifying the appropriate experts” means. Head scratch.
Our goal is for the external investigator to provide a safe, and confidential space for individuals to share accounts of sexual abuse and misconduct, ensuring they are heard with respect, care, and sensitivity. Okay, that sounds good. The only thing that does.
We will work with all relevant partners to determine the final scope and will inform our community promptly once a plan is formed.
Once again, a word salad. Which relevant partners? This problem belongs to the Royal Conservatory. What does final scope mean? And there is no timeline for the “plan” and therefore no promise of action to the community.
The RCM has comprehensive, zero-tolerance policies and procedures addressing harassment, abuse, misconduct, reporting, and student safety.
Well, one wonders if that’s very recent. Two years, perhaps, since the leadership change? Or has it been three months, since Lusiana’s article? Or, have they only had comprehensive policies since Jonathan Biss resigned a few weeks ago?
We regularly review our policies (Are you sure about that? And who is “we”? Internal institutional reviews rarely make any sort of improvement) and procedures and are committed to systemic, meaningful change — not only to understand what happened in the past, but to ensure no one in our community is harmed in the future.
Big words. Stand by them. For once. Until you do, they are empty.
Lara St. John
Solid Gold! I might take a go at trans-larating for the SYSO!
Having worked in media relations at a university, I can tell you that their statements—as you suggest—have attorneys’ fingerprints all over them. Lawyers of course provide many essential services to a university, but they’re not good at public relations.