Question

Hello,
This is a somewhat analytical question following a tractate conclusion.
When a person wants to settle a personal score with some figure who harmed him—or you could also call it revenge—especially when this is done not merely out of a vengeful urge, but also in order to ensure that that particular person will not continue harming his personal development (spiritual, intellectual, faith-related, and so on). But on the other hand, it is clear that this action will help that individual yet harm the public—how, in your opinion, should that person act? Is it proper to put the personal wrong aside, for the sake of everyone else, and not let personal feelings or personal motives “bribe” the higher considerations?
 
There are countless examples like this.
This question came to mind when I watched the program "Mehubarim," with Hanoch Daum. In the episode where he talks about the experience he remembered negatively from the yeshiva where he was educated, according to his description the living conditions there were substandard, and the education was very harsh—something that, by his testimony, caused him difficulties in faith and development later on as well. From a moral-spiritual perspective, is it proper to publicize a story like that, even if it might, broadly speaking, for example tarnish the yeshiva’s name and, indirectly, also cause people with potential for greatness and spiritual growth to get “stuck,” because they’ll leave or not want to study there and will prefer a lower-level institution instead? Michael Ben Ari said on a radio program where he hosted Hanoch together with Itamar Ben Gvir that a person who has doubts and falls in matters of faith should sit at home and keep his mouth shut, and not write books about it, because clearly this is about a personal need and personal release, and contributes nothing to anyone else. It could even give legitimacy to others who are experiencing faith-related doubts to dismantle the whole package. And I think there is something true in what he said, and that in cases where a person feels a need to cry out and speak, there should be thought given to whether he is crying out and speaking only for his own private benefit, or whether he is doing it in order to promote an idea that seems right to him.
I want to take that example and develop it also into more extreme cases. If in the past a person suffered terrible personal harm while studying in a yeshiva or some Torah institution—terrible physical harm, for example, which affected him later in life as well—or if someone spoke slander about him that prevented him from advancing to other high-quality institutions, out of the educator’s belief that this would motivate him toward discipline (and perhaps because it was not considered taboo in that period)—and today that same educator is an important figure who helps many people in faith, Jewish law, and thought, is it proper to publicize it? Or perhaps should one remain silent, because this could prevent many people from benefiting from him?
Would it, for example, be proper for a righteous convert who felt humiliated and that he was not being properly accepted because of sheer stigma and racism, and not because of improper actions (assuming he really does observe all the commandments), to publicize this? On the one hand, a clear Torah prohibition is being violated against him, and on the other hand making a public uproar over the case could fuel dispute among the people, cause desecration of God’s name even in the wider world, and so on.