According to a 2025 report prepared by a law firm hired by the school to investigate the allegations, the “sexual abuse of students … [and] egregious patterns of grooming and sexual misconduct” by Rutledge involved at least five students between the 1990s and 2010. The investigators also noted that “third-party reports” indicated Rutledge “may have engaged in sexual misconduct with other former students who did not come forward.” Some alumnae noted his apparent fondness for international students at the school.
And yet this particular prosecution has been a long time in coming and almost didn’t happen at all.
In Massachusetts the age of consent is 16, allowing adults to have sex with teenagers and not face criminal charges, even when the power imbalance in the relationship is obvious and easily exploited.
It’s why Berkshire County prosecutors announced back in October 2024 that “while the alleged behavior [by Rutledge] is profoundly troubling, it is not illegal.”
The law firm’s report last year, however, helped prosecutors establish a pattern of behavior that they contend was criminal, and backed up allegations that Rutledge set out quite intentionally to groom Simon and Fares. Rutledge pleaded not guilty Wednesday.
But prosecution shouldn’t have been that hard — not when a teacher is involved and in this case someone who because he was also their faculty adviser had enormous power over their academic futures.
“He began grooming me when I was 15 years old, a student at Miss Hall’s School, and his abuse of me continued for years after I left that campus,” Simon said following the arraignment. “Matthew Rutledge was a dangerous man.”
“Massachusetts has to do better,” she added. “Educator sexual misconduct is an epidemic in this country, and this state is the only one in New England, and one of only 10 nationwide, with a loophole that treats 16- and 17-year-old students as capable of consenting to the teachers who hold power over them. At that age, we are still vulnerable and in need of protection.”
But a bill aimed at offering that protection has been languishing in the House Ways and Means Committee since September.
The legislation would make it criminal for anyone over the age of 21 and “in a position at a school of authority or trust over a student who has reached the age of 16” to entice a student “to engage in sexual activity or contact through abuse or sexual misconduct.”
The bill also includes a number of provisions aimed at prevention and better education of school staff and administrators — “mandated reporters” of abuse of any kind under state law — for the kind of behaviors to be on the lookout for.
In the case of Rutledge it shouldn’t have been difficult.
“Survivors, alumnae and current and former employees at Miss Hall’s spoke to Rutledge’s prominent presence on campus, describing him as a ‘god’ or ‘king’ at Miss Hall’s with a ‘larger than life,’ charismatic personality,” the law firm report noted. “Several individuals described Rutledge’s close relationships with leadership,” and that the former students believed that gave him “power.” They also described a school culture that “lacked education around boundaries, grooming, and sexual misconduct identification and reporting.”
Changing the law on consent is essential, but so too is heading off the next round of victims.
“Right now the law protects adults in positions of power,” said Representative Leigh Davis, a sponsor of the legislation whose district includes parts of Berkshire County. “This legislation protects the children in their care.”
Speaking after Rutledge’s arraignment, Davis said, “What Melissa and Hilary have done matters. What started with courage must lead to change. Justice should not be this hard.”
Davis is spot on. And for lawmakers to fail to act this year on changing the law and bringing Massachusetts up to what has become the national standard on consent would be shameful.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.
