This is a challenging situation for everyone involved. Because the School is a party to an active lawsuit, our ability to comment is limited. It is important, however, that we take this opportunity to briefly explain the difficult decision we made.

All of us at Milton Hershey School are here to serve children. That is our mission. That is why we are proud to work at this special place.

It is crucial to understand that we serve a parental role for the nearly 2,000 students in our care. We are a full-time home and school. We take full accountability for our students -- feed them, clothe them, shelter them, and provide medical and dental care to them -- just as parents do. We also want to protect the children in our care, just as a parent does.

The Milton Hershey School serves a unique population. For more than 100 years, we have offered life-changing opportunities to children from families in poverty. Our children range from pre-k through 12th grade. They come from Pennsylvania and about 25 other states. All of our students come from backgrounds with some form of adversity.

The School is a unique environment. We are not like a college or university, which generally serves adult students. Our students are children. Likewise, we are not like a typical elementary or secondary school. Our nearly 2,000 students live as families in homes with 10 to 12 other students, where our houseparents care for them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, throughout the calendar year. Again, those houseparents and other School employees deliver medication, health care, and all the services listed above, with no cost to students' parents and guardians.

Unlike public schools, the Milton Hershey School is not required to accept every student. We can lawfully exclude students who do not meet our eligibility criteria or where we cannot meet the needs of the student in our unique environment. Under the ADA, we are not required to admit any student who would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others that cannot be avoided by reasonable modifications of the School's policies and procedures. This is the same legal standard that applies to students with active communicable diseases in public schools; the difference is our unique environment.

During the admissions process, the School gives careful consideration to any issues that can affect the ability of our children to learn, would require accommodations beyond the scope of our programs and services, or could impact the health and safety of our student body. When medical issues are identified, they are given careful review. We understand the law and we follow it.

The School decided that it could not admit the student who uses the pseudonym Abraham Smith due to factors relating to his HIV-positive status. This decision was not made based on bias or ignorance. We considered a number of factors relating to the risks posed to the health and safety of others, and our ability to reduce those risks and maintain confidentiality in our unique residential environment.

We know that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact and, thankfully, that universal precautions can address the concerns of transmission in a typical school environment. Our unique environment, however, also poses unique concerns. A significant concern is that HIV can be transmitted through sexual contact. We systematically encourage abstinence, and we educate our children on sexual health issues. But, as special as they are, our teenagers are the same as teens all across the country. Despite our best efforts, some of our students will engage in sexual activity with one another. Given our residential setting, when they do, they will be doing so on our watch.

We understand that the risks presented by an HIV-positive individual who is on medication are low. Taking all these and other factors in consideration, including the fact that we would be prohibited by law from informing our community of the young man's HIV-positive status, we concluded that the risk was significant, and rose to the level of a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Our first obligation is to protect the students already in our care. If we knowingly admitted a student with HIV, and that student ultimately had sexual relations with another student that led to the transmission of HIV, we believe we would have failed in meeting our obligation.

We believe we did the right thing in the instance of Abraham Smith, but we acknowledge this is a very difficult situation. That is why we were preparing to ask the court to address this important issue when the Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit and widely distributed a press release.

We look forward to the opportunity to put all of the relevant information in front of the court so that we can get a determination under the law as it applies to these unique circumstances.