Should lawyers for municipal insurance companies refer to students as inmates?

Below is a letter that I sent to executives at Massamont Insurance concerning a comment by a lawyer they have retained in the Avery Doninger case.

Dear Sirs,

Today is day two of a preliminary injunction trial in U. S. District Court in New Haven Connecticut concerning the case of a student who refered to members of the school administration with an offensive and derogatory term. The case asserts that her civil rights have been violated and the ACLU has filed an amicus brief on her behalf in the case.

The case is gaining national attention and a local television station quoted the defense attorney as saying,

"If we get to the point where a class officer can call the superintendent an (expletive) and it's OK, then we've turned the keys to the asylum over to the inmates. It's not OK,"

The Bristol Press reports,

"Attorneys Thomas Gerarde and Katherine Rule of Howd & Ludorf suddenly emerged as part of the defense team on July 26, when they filed appearances and a motion to have the case moved from state to federal court.
While Chinni referred to the hiring of the Howd and Ludorf attorney's as "a private matter" and denied the existence of any retainer agreement last week, Gerarde said on Thursday that the Region 10 Board of Education's insurance company, Massamont Insurance, was paying the firm's attorney fees. He also said Howd & Ludorf has a retainer agreement with Massamont Insurance for the Doninger case."

Does the characterization of schools as asylums and students as inmates reflect the values of Massamont? Does Massamont believe that pursuing this case through the U. S. District Court is the most effective method of loss control?

I look forward to any insights you can share into the thinking by Massamont executives as this case unfolds.

Aldon Hynes