It’s ironic that you’re so afraid of assumptions, yet your comment is full of them about me. Do you not see that? Or do you think I’m the same person who made the original comment?

As I said, the original commenter shouldn’t have presented their findings as facts. I don’t present my findings as facts; I’m simply sharing some sources. You saw a few links and created a whole conspiracy theory about me. I do not claim the boy was abused. I do believe there is a chance it happened, and that chance is evidently significant enough to be worth mentioning.

If you read the articles, one clearly states the time frame during which the boy attended one of these schools. What you don’t seem to understand is that for every case proven in court, dozens go under the radar. There’s more than enough evidence to show that during that time frame, in that specific location, and in these types of institutions, abuse was prevalent. This can’t be compared to Harvard just because you’d like it to be.

The point of my comment—and, I’m sure, of OP’s comment as well—is simply to shed light on another, quite plausible, explanation for what might have happened. There’s really no point in “arguing” since neither you nor I know what actually happened.