Site Index - Home Personal: - Bio - Art - Interests - Musings - Links Digital Journal Digital Media: - Photography - Portfolio - Video Professional - Photo Services - Software Community: - COBA - Forums - People - Vienna Teng Site: - Feedback - Guestbook - Site Info - Site Map - Contact Me   Search:
Home / Digital Journal / 2003 / The Blair Hornstine Project

Blair Hornstine Project Comments

Previous Comments

To read comments from previous months, check out the following links.

• June 8 to July 7
• July 11 to July 23
• July 23 to August 18
• August 19 to November 3

Thanks for the link to the Inquirer story. Do you suppose BH has the slightest clue to JK's circumstance? How do you suppose JK might react if told of BH's circumstance?

Everyone, click on the link. Read the story. It will put all the concern with being number one into perspective.

Go Jasmine! May the force be with you. And a tip of the hat to her guidence counselor, Joe Gorman.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 15:36 pm EDT

Thanks, Wondering, for reading my posts. The column by Monica Yant links the girls together by virtue of both having missed their graduations. Like I said, a tenuous link but interesting due to their opposite life experiences. There is a nice little paragraph summarizing this with a couple of additional links to Jasmine stories at www.kimberlyswygert.com which is an educational weblog (Adam, hope it is okay to reference another site here but I think it is where I got the original link to you.) I tried to cut&paste the paragraph here but due to my technical abilities already displayed above, couldn't. You have to scroll down to her July 15 posting to find it.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 15:52 pm EDT

Amused - thanks for the pointer to Kimberly Swgert's blog.

She makes some interesting points: "...one of the possible explanations for this mess is that Blair is not really smart enough for the Ivy Leagues (and that's no real insult; I'm not, either), but her family has convinced her that anything less than valedictorian and Harvard isn't good enough. I mean, why do kids plagiarize? Either they aren't smart enough to do the work, or they're lazy, or they want to break the rules and get away with it. Blair doesn't sound like a risk-taker or rule-breaker, and I don't think she's lazy. I think she may be smart, but I think she may have been even more desperate to live up to her family's high standards (Joanne Jacobs [ goes so far as to say that it seems Blair might be "taking the fall" for her demanding family). Here's an ugly thought. If we accept that Blair is truly disabled, then what if, thanks to her disability, she just isn't capable of completing demanding schoolwork in the time available? (Again, I don't mean this as an insult.) One can imagine her parents encouraging her to accomplish a great deal, despite her disability - but I wonder if that turned into a refusal to lower their standards in a way that defies the reality of the situation. I mean, if I had a kid with an immune disorder, I'd encourage her to do her best, but I wouldn't expect her to get into Harvard, not if she couldn't get through her day at a public high school without having to come home to rest and be tutored. I'd be more worried about her health than her achievements." (http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/000084.html)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 16:40 pm EDT

I had read the column by Monica Yant Kinney, but had not read the July 13 story about the interview with Jasmine. One can't help but be struck by the juxtaposition of these two women: one suing because she was concerned about being the sole valedictorian of her high school class and on her way to Harvard; and the other in a tragedy beyond comprehension for most of us, bearing no anger at the hand life has dealt her and looking at the future as "a big, sunny place where specifics are not always clear."

Wow!

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 17:20 pm EDT

One can't help but think that both girls are going to bear emotional scars although for completely different resons. Jasmine's are readily apparent after a lifetime of neglect, deprivation and abuse. Somehow I can't help but still think that on some level Blair was, though not abused, at least let down by the adults in her life. The drive to suceed at all cost seems to have left her isolated and alone. Maybe she would have liked to attend a little more school and have some friends. Since Mrs. MM told us 27 seniors went to Harvard from that class, it doesn't seem that loosening the bit just a little would have jeopardized her future. I still can't imagine loving parents allowing a medically fragile child to endure the stress of the lawsuit and ensuing brouhaha.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 18:00 pm EDT

As I've said before I'm not really one to participate in these blogs, but I have to say there have been some very interesting points made here. I don't understand why everyone thinks that BH must be some poor, innocent, fragile girl just because she has a disease. Isn't it possible that she just wants to be the best and prove everyone else wrong because she has probably been made fun of at school due to her disorder, and that everyone has taken pity on her, she wanted to be number one at all costs...to rub it in everyone's face who ever told her she couldn't... How do we know that she isn't just some self-absorbed high school girl who plays the role of a helpless, pitifully distressed high school girl, who also happens to have CFS.

--posted by cows moo @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 18:18 pm EDT

For a portrait of a successful Ivy student, go to http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW01-02/16-0605/features.html
This is a feature article in Princeton's online alumni magazine, about Lillian Pierce, a recent valedictorian. This woman is intense, driven, and amazing. She is extraordinary, even at Princeton, but her story does show how intense the life at an Ivy League school can be. I agree with cambrigema, and Kimberly Swygert, in that I do not see how Blair could successfully compete at such a level.

--posted by MA reader @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 18:28 pm EDT

NewsofDelewareCounty.com has just published an editorial which strikes me as being the most badly written thing I've see so far. There are all sorts of errors.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1725&dept_id=45406&newsid=9888600&PAG=461&rfi=9

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 18:32 pm EDT

from above: "Since Mrs. MM told us 27 seniors went to Harvard from that class".

Actually, as I understand it from the various reports in the Harvard Crimson, three students (including Blair) were accepted into Harvard this year from Moorestown.

All three accepted the offer. Since Blair's acceptance was rescinded, only two (Kenneth Mirkin and David M. Toniatti) will be attending Harvard this fall.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 18:53 pm EDT

Sorry, maybe it was 27 went to ivy league schools. There is so much redundant junk on this page now I didn't go back to check my facts. But...isn't this board civil now with friendly people commenting and posting interesting articles for all to enjoy?

--posted by Amused @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 18:58 pm EDT

To provide some counterpoint, let me repost the following from the Weekly Standard article.

There are some who have questioned whether or not her "disability" status is real or one of malingering.

"Few people in town believe that she's really sick. This cynicism is fed by the fact that the Hornstine family guards its privacy and won't explain what her illness is, which is of course their right. (Through a family friend, Blair and her family referred my interview requests to her lawyer, who did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this story.)"I think that the view is there is not a genuine disability," explains a parent from the community. "And if there is any disability, it was inflicted by the father. . . . I think most people's view is that this man put so much pressure on his daughter to be perfect that she literally is a nervous basket case." One of Blair's former friends expressed similar sentiments to the Crimson: "From what I've seen and heard, I don't believe she has a disability that really prohibits her from going to school," said Allie McGuigan. "And I'm not sure whether it's all her, or whether it's her father. Knowing her and knowing her father, I think he owns this situation as much as she does." The cynics point to her activities. In 2000, Blair ran with the Olympic torch when it came through Philadelphia. The Inquirer reported in May that she works out at a local gym. She went on the senior class trip to Disney World this spring, and in the summers, she does intensive academic work. During previous summers she enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell. Last summer she spent eight weeks at Stanford taking classes in Expository Writing (A-), Psychology (A), and Philosophy of Public Speaking (A). Interviewed in July 2002, she told a reporter from the Courier-Post, "If I didn't lead a busy life, I'd be bored. And I hate being bored." In June 2001, Blair was given the Congressional Award Gold Medal. To qualify for this honor, students must complete and document 400 hours of voluntary public service, 200 hours of personal development, 200 hours of physical fitness, and a 4-day exploration. Kelly Fanning, from the Congressional Awards office, says, "For her physical fitness she did jogging, power-walking, and dance." Moorestown High School students, it should be noted, take roughly 75 hours of Phys. Ed. class per year.

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 19:01 pm EDT

And on a related note - the Weekly Standard mentions (a re-post, but helpful to those who may not have had the chance or desire to wade through extraneous, off-topic posts to locate this from above):

"But there's also a real belief that...Blair and her father did manipulate the system, and were acutely aware of every subtlety in the grading system. For instance, Blair took Latin 1 in middle school, over the course of 7th and 8th grades. Unusually, she then retook Latin 1 as a freshman--and got an A+. During her sophomore year, Blair was enrolled in AP U.S. History and was taking it at the school with a teacher whose policy is to never give A+ marks. But she dropped the course and finished it the following year at home, with a different instructor. She got an A+. Blair was enrolled in gym class in 9th and 10th grades (receiving an A and A+, respectively). Just weeks before the end of her junior year, she received a doctor's note waiving her from gym altogether. Still, an A+ for the class showed up on her transcript. Her father wanted the grade removed, and since she shouldn't have been graded for a waived class, it was. As Kadri explained to the court, an A+ in gym is worth only 4.3, and thus would have lowered her cumulative GPA, which was well above 4.3 by that point. At Moorestown High, the calculations for valedictorian are made at the end of the first semester senior year. Just a few weeks before that semester ended, Blair dropped AP European History--one of the two courses she was taking at the school--citing exhaustion. "The papers are killing her," Judge Hornstine told the child study team while trying to withdraw Blair from the class. At the time, Blair had an A- in the class. It would have been one of the lowest grades of her high school career.

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp)

From reading "Just weeks before the end of her junior year, she received a doctor's note waiving her from gym altogether." can I assume that Blair had been taking PE/gym up until the end of her junior year...and that her senior year was the time when her status changed to "disabled" and her credits for PE/gym were then covered by her submitting papers in lieu of physical activity?

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 19:12 pm EDT

I am not particularly computer literate, I apologise if the following if interested readers can not link to the following sites. I would appreciate a quick assist on how to link sites. Thank you.

The following is a column regarding the BH matter published in The Daily Pennsylvanian, the newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania:

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/07/17/3f164c649712a

The following are a series of articles, in chronological order, about recently settled disability claim by an elementary school student in South Jersey:

http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/may/m052203a.htm

http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/may/m052803d.htm

http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/may/m052903b.htm

http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/may/m053003c.htm

http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/july/m071603n.htm

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 20:28 pm EDT

I hesitate to take the "Weekly Standard" article as the whole story, only because the interviews must have taken place after news of the suit broke. The news that the suit sought $2.5 million in damages must have been terribly prejudicial. We also do not know if the high school students were interviewed separately, or in a group.

As far as the disability is concerned, I have known people with lupus. They have good days, and very, very bad days.

--posted by MA reader @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 20:37 pm EDT

I merely post the excerpts from the Weekly Standard as a resource for what has been reported. I, personally, have no direct information on which to base my opinion regarding Blair's health status.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 20:46 pm EDT

TM - thanks for links. I had not seen the "Daily Pennsylvanian" article. The Courier Post reporting on Steven Wark provides a point-of-reference regarding claims made for discrimination...and what settlement terms can be in such cases.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 20:51 pm EDT

I have to say that Eliot Sherman's editorial at the Daily Pennsylvanian is the most concise and insightful analysis I have read to date.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 20:58 pm EDT

The parties settled the Steven Wark action approximately two and a half weeks after it was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden), the same venue as the pending Hornstine action. One may reasonably infer from the linked articles that the overriding interests of Steven's parents were protection of his physical well-being and his prompt return to school, not national publicity or a hoped-for monetary windfall.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 21:07 pm EDT

Everyone:

I've moved comments from July 11 to July 23 to a new page:

http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/comments2.shtml

Now, let's keep things on topic. Please no more off-topic discussions.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 22:14 pm EDT

I haven't followed much of the previous discussion, but just to clear up the "27 going to Harvard" issue: it is an extraordinary class, but that's a bit of an exaggeration. In a graduating class of about 265-270, Moorestown '03 had at least one student admitted to every Ivy League school and a number of other very prestigious ones, and at last count I know of 2 (now) going to Harvard, 3 to Yale, 2 to Princeton, 8-10 to Penn (I've lost count), 1 or 2 to Cornell, 1 to Dartmouth, and 1 to Brown. One was accepted to Columbia but she is going to Duke, which makes 2 to Duke, 2 to Williams, and 2 or 3 to Georgetown. That's at least a couple of dozen to very selective schools, and I'm sure I've forgotten a few. To me this makes it all the more bizarre that Blair was so insistent that she be recognized as the cream at the very top of this extraordinarily accomplished group.

--posted by Motown '03 Mom @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 23:15 pm EDT

Truly an accomplished class at Moorsetown. From what I've read in the press - it is also a class which handled the controversy well - seeking to highlight the accomplishments of their class overall and empasizing the achievements of a diverse array of individuals - as well as numerous common efforts.

Regarding Blair's disability - I am wondering what accomodations will be made when she matriculates at a college/university? I'm curious as to what arrangements would have been in place for her if she had gone to Harvard.

When I was a student at Harvard, a classmate and friend was blind. He was also originally from Africa -and English was his third language - something he hadn't learned until after having emigrated to the U.S. He was able to manage the rigors of his four-years, relying on a minimum of official accompodations - his choice. His friends and housemates, for example, created a volunteer schedule to act as "readers" throughout his academic career. He eventually graduated with honors - and went on to complete a PhD. A marvelous achievement.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 7:19 am EDT

...accomodations....

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 7:20 am EDT

Mea culpa - I am so sorry all. The erroneous "27" quote comes from me in my attempt to make the point that Blair could have relaxed just a tiny bit and still achieved her goals. Looking back, I don't know where I got that number but realize how quickly an error can magnify on a board like this. What I did find as my probable source was Mrs. M.M.'s July 3 post stating that out of a class of 257, 3 were Harvard bound and the rest were probably going to ivys. I will be much more careful from here on out. I do not want to be the source of untruths or friction now that this board has become so civilized. But...at least I attributed in both my incorrect statement and my correction!

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 9:00 am EDT

An article I had not yet seen:

A POINTLESS SACRIFICE
[from Jewsweek]
http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El543&enZone=Opinions&enVersion=0&

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 10:44 am EDT

Further discussion going on at: moron.org ...

"Morons in the News: Girl plays system, loses" - http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=3655

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 10:50 am EDT

"The trend away from naming a single valedictorian is taking place against a backdrop of litigation that illustrates just how intense the competition for the top spot in a school can sometimes become."

from: http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/07/21ky/wir-front-val0721-10603.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 10:51 am EDT

Cambridgema, your story about the blind student and his accomplishments is everything Blair's story isn't. Most likely his friends helped him because they wanted to, not to build their resumes with charitable works, making it an uplifting story on both sides. He is probably the type of person the well-meaning but so badly misused ADA was written for so long ago. I have been searching the web for a story I recently read about the perversion of the ADA in public schools and could not find it. The theme was that kids with minor behavior problems where classified 'disabled' and then immune from any form of disipline, leaving them free to disrupt the class at will. It was written by a teacher who has given up, knowing that these kids had more power in the classroom than he did. I would guess Blair's use of the 'system' falls somewhere between these two examples.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 12:14 pm EDT

"To me this makes it all the more bizarre that Blair was so insistent that she be recognized as the cream at the very top of this extraordinarily accomplished group.

--posted by Motown '03 Mom "

Bizarre?That makes her even more "special" plus she is disabled (although you don't believe or understand). Since you are from M'town,instead of being a naysayer, befriend Miss H and family. You will then see how "special" she is and how "extra hard" she had to work to be on top. Then YOU might understand and be impressed.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 12:21 pm EDT

Enough, already, Mrs. M. M.! BH did not get all this notoriety for being the "good guy" in this drama. BH can score a lot of points with all those with whom she will live the rest of her life (meaning all of us) by simply withdrawing her law suit. She can end all of this any time she would like.

Why won't she?

If she doesn't, and presuming she will "win" something, what will she attain? Money? At the expense of all of the taxpayers of Moorestown who didn't do a thing to put her in this situation. Does BH and her family really need the money?

Vindication? Perhaps, but at what cost? Protecting the rights of the underprivileged? Tell her to drive over to Gloucester City and talk to Jasmine Karo, and see if Jasmine appreciates all of her efforts.

The Hornstines should, for the good of all concerned, drop the matter. I suspect, however, that pride will not permit that, and we will simply have to wait for developments to unfold. If BH "wins," some, like yourself, will say "that's great," and many more, like me, will say "that's too bad," and we will get on with our lives.

BH and her father, however, will live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. Their neighbors will always know them for what they did to the community (they will not consider what the community did to them - which I am sure would be your response). Do you suppose a future employer would look favorably at BH's propensity to sue for something that, in the course of a lifetime, is so petty.

Can you imagine how positively the rest of the world, and I do mean the world, would view a press conference where BH announces the withdrawal of the suit, explains that once starting her drive to be "Number One" she lost some perspective, and that the quest took on a life of its own? She could say that along the way she made some errors in judgement, and that it was never her intention to hurt anyone (which I am sure is the case), and that she is genuinely sorry for all of the misunderstanding and pain any of her actions may have caused anyone.

That would take guts, and a demonstration of maturity I am not sure she (or her father) has, but it is doable. Such an act would win the real admiration of a lot of people. It might not get her back into Harvard, but it would make it a lot easier for other really good schools to let her in - especially in next year's class.

Since you seem to know BH, and communicate with her and Dad, why don't you run the suggestion by them for consideration? It would be a win/win, and the whole thing would be over.

Give it a try - for all of us, including BH and Dad.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 13:11 pm EDT

Especially for BH and Dad!

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 13:17 pm EDT

Wondering: A great suggestion!

I "second the motion".

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 13:40 pm EDT

Wondering: Are you a social worker? Are you living in the "real" world? Or are you the type who is young and thinks he/she can/will change the world?

Blair IS the good guy. She does not need vindication. If you saw her in a wheel chair or without a limb, unable to talk or whatever, your entire demeanor about her would change. That just proves part of my points. What you don't know is hurting your judgment. (and you don't need to know anymore than we need to know your private matters) Her life will go on and get quiet. She will go off to university; she will graduate and probably will become a lawyer. The news will print a small blub when she graduates or begins law school When she begins works, marries or whatever her future holds, she will get no more publicity then you. Do you genuinely think that dropping the suit, "apologizing for doing something right", etc. will get the press and YOU off her back? You foolishly think so? Don't be so patronizing!

How many times have we seen the newspaper reporters comparing her to Jasmine? Columnists need to write new copy. They could find something in Blair's life or Jasmine's life to compare to you or me. If I were a columnist, I could "Probably" find something to compare you and Blair. That would be how I eat.


Blair is underprivileged. To you, underprivileged
means only money. She is underprivileged because she is being deprived of social and physicial conditions.

YOur "haughty taughty" attitude is as bad as the gossips. Blair Hornstine won her lawsuit fair and square. She was discriminated against....that is against the law that YOU follow and I follow.

When she goes on with her life and is able to graduate from law school, she will be in the biggest win/win situation of her life.

Guts,notoriety and maturity. If this young lady did not have all three, she could not have marched into city hall, the school board building, etc. and filed her papers. If this young lady did not have guts and maturity, she would not have gotten to be Valedictorian as far as the marks she got. If Blair did not have guts and maturity, she would not have originally been accepted in all the universities. If Miss H. needed more notoriety, she could have publicized her charitable work more. If Miss H. did not have guts, nortoriey and maturity, she would not have gone to China several years ago to aid disadvantaged children. If she did not have guts and maturity, she would not have been able to go to China because of the toll it took on her health.

Now shall we talk about the "good guys" who came out smelling like a rose after their plagiarism findings:
Teddy Kennedy, Martin L. King and so on. At least Miss H's plagiarism did NOT have anything to do with her school work, which this suit is based. Also, lets' hear it for the editors who did not do THEIR jobs and the computer programs designed to discourage and detect "someone else's" words.

I wonder if CALPROF was specifically referring to you when he said some people just like to see the successful suffer, the downtrodden further trampled on, the winners criticized by those who just can't make the grade, and the favored, lose.


Just remember what Judge Wolfson said "Without the imposition of temporary restraints, defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff because of her disability. Such conduct should not and cannot be tolerated by society. “New Jersey 'prides itself on judging each individual by his or her merits' and on being 'in the vanguard in the fight to eradicate the cancer of unlawful discrimination of all types from our society..." AND FURTHER " They have lost sight of the fact that plaintiff, unlike her peers, suffers from a debilitating medical condition, which has never been disputed by the Board, and that her accommodations were aimed at putting her on a level playing field with her healthy classmates." READ: DISCRIMINATING; DEBILITATING; NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE BOARD...

I also notice that no one here likes to post the words of Michael Smerconish, the distinguished teacher, radio host and commentator.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 14:47 pm EDT

Cambridgma: How EMBARRASSED will you be if Miss H finally goes to Harvard and/or its Law school? The pity party will be held on the "square" just for you and any other arrogant, cavalier, disdainful, high-and-mighty, insolent, lordly, overbearing, supercilious, superior, aloof, detached, distant, indifferent, reserved; egotistic; contemptuous, scornful individual. You will probably be ALONE!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 14:52 pm EDT

Does all of that mean you will not run the suggestion by BH and Dad?

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 14:58 pm EDT

And for all you Jeffrey Toobin (who lacks some facts) and Jonathan Lash fans (who is biased because of family, friends and Bar Mitzvah buddies) I raise you two Michael Smerconishs' (and I will print it out so you don't have to pull it up):

"Michael Smerconish | BLAIR GETS JOBBED, AGAIN
By Michael Smerconish
www.mastalk.com

EVERY dope who sat on his hands and seethed while the teacher's pet got the answer right is now exacting revenge by throwing spitballs at Blair Hornstine. Shamefully, Harvard is rewarding these idiots by revoking her college acceptance.

Blair deserves a break. Let's review.

She filed a lawsuit when she realized that the Moorestown school district, egged on by a bunch of South Jersey Gladys Kravitz types, was conspiring to deny her something she had earned - her claim to be the high school's sole valedictorian. Her suit earned her ridicule and scorn. Published reports say her house was egged and sprayed with graffiti. Death threats were received. And her disability was the subject of more urban legends than Area 51.

So fast and furious was the torrent of spite directed at Blair and her parents that it was initially hard to know the real deal. I confess to having dismissed Blair as a spoiled malingerer myself when the case first broke, but my view changed when a federal judge listened to the evidence and sorted out whether Moorestown should have more than one valedictorian.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson pulled no punches in a lengthy opinion. She ruled that Blair earned the title and that the school district was wrong to assume that somehow her disability had given her an academic advantage over other students. Judge Wolfson wrote that despite the whispers in the community, the school district never disputed that disability:

"Regrettably, this issue has polarized the graduating class and the community most of whom are uninformed about the facts and the law. In light of that, I want to make clear that the evidence in this case has shown that Ms. Hornstine earned her distinction as the top student in her class in spite of, not because of, her disability."

That's about as clear a conclusion as could have been reached. Too bad more people haven't taken the time to read Judge Wolfson's opinion online at

lawlibrary. rutgers.edu/fed/html/ ca03-1953-1.html.

Instead, the cyberspace treatment of the controversy has been focused at www.petitionon

line.com/blairadm/petition.html.

That's where you can go if you want to read such sickness directed to Blair as:

"She's fugly..."

"I hope a drunk driver kills both her mother and father."

"I respect Harvard for having the courage to do what is right. They were and will always be the white trash from Wildwood."

These are the comments of just three of the close to 3,000 people who signed a petition encouraging Harvard to rescind its admission due to Blair's "petty, childish actions."

Unfortunately, beyond the suit, Blair gave her critics something legitimate to complain about.

Seems she published several stories for the Courier-Post while a student, albeit not as part of the school curriculum. The Courier-Post claims she "misused sources" in five stories she wrote. We're talking plagiarism.

Stupid stuff. Like when, the week of Thanksgiving 2002, she wrote a piece that lifted content from two of President Clinton's Thanksgiving proclamations.

Her explanation is that she cut and pasted her ideas and did not know that the newspaper articles required the "strict citation" found in a school assignment. "I am not a professional journalist. I was a 17-year-old with no experience in writing newspaper articles," she explained.

I will not defend her plagiarism - she should have known better. And if it turns out that she did likewise while in school, then she deserves Harvard's harsh treatment. But no one has said as much, and shy of such a finding, I see Harvard using the articles as a pretext for keeping an unpopular incoming freshman out of Cambridge.

If Blair were a suburban valedictorian with no disability and no lawsuit who was found to have quoted from a Bill Clinton Turkey Day address without attribution while writing in the local newspaper, would she have been shown the door? I say no way.

And yet that's what happened. Why? Because Harvard's view was jaded by the bad PR Blair attracted by filing a lawsuit - overlooking that the criticism was mean-spirited and unjustified, and that Blair was in the right. "



And for those who do not know Mr. Smerconish. I suggest you look up HIS background.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 15:00 pm EDT

Does all of that mean you will not run the suggestion by BH and Dad?

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 14:58 pm EDT


DOES THIS MEAN THAT YOU (I WISH I COULD UNDERLINE) ARE OUT OF YOUR TREE? DON'T YOU GET IT? ARE YOU BLINDED BY YOUR INSANE, BATTY, CRAZED, DAFAT, LUNATIC, MAD, NUTTY, SCREWY, ERRATIC, AND POSSESSED THOUGHTS that I would not only not suggest, bring up, etc this to them? I WOULD NOT, COULD NOT EVER IN A MILLION YEARS THINK THIS WOULD BE PROPER, CORRECT OR APPROPRIATE.

Do you get my answer? NO NO NO NO

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 15:10 pm EDT

Yeah, I've worked with kids who are underprivileged, just like Blair. They go to schools that can't afford toilet paper. They sit in classrooms of forty-five students, with teachers who come and go. They walk through metal detectors every day to make sure that nobody brings a knife or a gun into their school.

When I think of Blair Hornstine, formerly Harvard-bound, privately tutored in a wealthy area, of COURSE the first word that jumps to my mind is "underprivileged." Since young Miss Hornstine is such a philanthropist in her own right, perhaps she should donate some of the $2.7 million you're so sure she's going to get to the Camden school district, located less than a half hour from hers. Perhaps that money could purchase the Camden school district some computers that don't melt in the heat from the boiler room, or maybe that money could go towards cleaning up the thousands of pounds of sewage that flow through the city.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 15:21 pm EDT

So, how could it hurt, Mrs. M. M., to ask them to consider the idea?

By the way, why don't you think BH should drop the law suit? If you know that she won't, why won't she?

I know you have strong feelings (hey, sometimes I'm given to understatement) about this, but that is no reason not to at least give the Hornstines the opportunity to consider the ides. Isn't that called open mindedness?

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 15:28 pm EDT

Some people just don’t get it. "Blair Hornstine won her lawsuit fair and square." WRONG!

To repeat myself(once again)…

The Judge’s Opinion is an “interpretation” of case law – and it was her opinion that the plaintiff (in this case, Blair) would “likely prevail” in a future trial, thereby she granted the TRO.

The case now moves into the trial phase ("Hornstine’s case — and her request for damages - remains in litigation pending either a settlement or a jury trial. The two parties will meet before a judge August 13 to discuss further proceedings..." (http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/today/article348498.html); “The trial phase of Blair's lawsuit will unfold slowly over the coming months…” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp).

A judge and/or jury will hear evidence in the case; will then rule one way or the other. A finding for Blair would result in the jury agreeing with the judge’s opinion and the school system being found to be liable for discrimination. Whether or not damages would then be assessed requires a separate determination that the school’s actions did indeed “damage” Blair and that “damage” is deserving of compensation. It’s not always a clear-cut path from finding of discrimination to compensatory damages being granted. On the other side, a finding for Kadri/Moorestown School System would invalidate the judge’s opinion and would uphold the school’s prerogative to appoint multiple valedictorians.

…there has been no ruling, no guilt or innocence established, no right to damages yet assessed. A trial will determine all of that. We can all speculate as to how we think it might go; how we'd like to see it go ... but, in the end a judge and/or jury, having heard the case will determine the outcome, if a settlement is reached before this goes to trial...we'll never really know what a trial's eventual findings would be.

The parties are now in settlement talks. I suspect that the Horstines might want a settlement, so as to spare Blair – and themselves – from the intense scrutiny and interrogatory investigations that will be part of the deposition and pre-trial preparation – not to mention what lines of inquiry will be followed in court. I suspect that Kadri and the school system will also want to settle – to limit damages (which any insurance company holding a liability policy will advocate) and to get the affair behind them.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 16:24 pm EDT

If Blair is so mature, then she wouldn't have taken the valedictorian thing so seriously. She had already been accepted by Harvard. If she and her family are so above the townsfolk, then why did they feel it neccessary to start a legal battle over a Tin Cup? I'm not saying that she didn't have a right to complain about the school's decision, but the lawsuit seems like an unneccessary escalation.

Yes, there may have been some bending of the rules, but it is very hard for anyone to make the case that Blair was discriminated against in a meaningful way when one considers what real discrimination is. Her family and town had the resources with which to educate her and she was accepted to what is often considered the top university in the country, with scholarships to boot. If the school had refused to educate her or Harvard had refused to consider her application because of her disability, that would be the sort of discrimination one takes to the streets over. Instead, Blair and her family sued the school over a title.

Also, I don't understand why Blair felt she needed or wanted to address her class given that it seems she had little or no contact with them.

--posted by surlygrad @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 16:30 pm EDT

As a reference point … TM posted links earlier today regarding a discrimination lawsuit brought by an elementary school student who was suffering from a skin disease called epidermolysis bullosa that causes open wounds throughout his body. The family accused the school in New Jersey that it violated a federal disabilities law by keeping the boy out of class.

He was seeking $10,000 per day missed (he was out of school from May 12 through to the end of the school year); $10,000 in attorney’s fees – plus “other unspecified damages”. In the end, he and his family settled with their school district – as of July 16.

“Wark and his mother, Kelly Wark-Jankowski, are seeking $10,000 in attorney fees related to the case, plus other unspecified damages. They're also requesting Steven be compensated for lost educational time. They want the district fined $10,000 for each day he's not allowed to return under … [his] terms.” http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/may/m052803d.htm

The actual settlement impact to the school system was $7,000. “Under the terms of the settlement, the Woodlynne school district has appropriated $7,000 for the family of Steven Wark…” (http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/july/m071603n.htm) Other settlement terms were not released.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 16:42 pm EDT

Surlygrad - you said: "Yes, there may have been some bending of the rules, but it is very hard for anyone to make the case that Blair was discriminated against in a meaningful way when one considers what real discrimination is. "

Some agree with you. For one - Jeff Toobin - legal analyst for ABC, CNN and The New Yorker said in May before the TRO was granted...(and I repost once again so that others won't need to slog through the off-topic drivel to locate it):

"...this federal lawsuit, it seems to me, is absolutely ridiculous. Let's talk about some of the reasons why I think this story is ridiculous. First, don't make a federal case out of it. It's what parents teach their kids about all sorts of things. This is simply not a justified use of the federal court's limited time and resources. Second, no damages. What did she suffer here? She's the co- valedictorian. It is simply not something that the legal system should address, much less $2.7 million in punitive damages....And third, lack of gratitude. This school district, the taxpayers of this school district paid to have tutors sent to this girl's home, because she has a disability, which she's entitled to do, but it was a very expensive project for the school district. She shouldn't be suing....She's claiming that she's discriminated against because she's disabled. And I think it trivializes the very valuable Americans With Disabilities Act and that whole principle, because this is not what it's about. It's about keeping people out of jobs, it's about depriving people of money damages. I mean, that's the kind of thing the ADA was passed to correct. This is trivia and nonsense and it should be thrown out....she ought to do her lessons in school, not in court."

(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/08/ltm.10.html)

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 16:49 pm EDT

The other settlement terms that were not released could well have been substantially more, with the $7,000 merely being the amount of the insurance deductible amount. Whether the school board, as a public agency, can keep the other terms confidential once the suit is over, is a whole other issue.

One way or the other, however, the full amount of the award comes out of taxpayers' pockets, either as direct payments, or, over time and an aggregation of cases, as increased insurance premiums, supported by increased taxes. Would that juries in making damage awards recognize that.

In any case, I still don't see why Mrs. M. M., would not carry my suggestion, seconded by cambridgema, to BH and Dad. Perhaps we can have some discussion on the motion before there is a vote taken? ;)

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 16:57 pm EDT

Or ... Wondering we could craft an "open letter" - and send it to the Hornstines - along with copies to various newspapers.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 16:59 pm EDT

I am sure that if Blair gets anything near the $2.7, charity will be on her mind. If she settles with the MHS Board, that will be charity.

Obviously, the family IS VERY smart. They know their options re settling.

Cambridgema: RIGHT! She won what she set out to win - the Valedictorianship. Get off your high horse - the case WAS a TRO and she prevailed.Any Judge's ruling is a opinion. Even the Appeals Court renders "opinions."

The Board had several options: appeal the TRO, appeal the case or settle,and settling is what they are in the process of doing. No one said "likely to prevail". You are reading too many comic books or listening to Mickey Mouse type people who don't know a TRO from a GTO. It is obvious that YOU DID NOT get a law degree from Harvard or anyplace else. Whatever "legal" informaton you are gathering is not pertinent to this case. THERE WILL NOT BE A JURY TRIAL....Shall I repeat it?
There COULD be a trial for damages which Judge Wolfson will preside. NO JURY!!! The School Board of Moorestown COULD have appealed the TRO.The Board could request that this case go to court and could request that the Judge decide damages, but they will not. THE MOORESTOWN SCHOOL BOARD IS NOT, DID NOT AND WILL NOT APPEAL. This isn't "Law and Order" on TV. This is real life. Let's see how "The Practice" handles this case.

This case will settle shortly. Your paragraphs beginning with "The, The, A and...there" are as far off base as Iraq is from the Moon.

Blair has already beeen scrutinized, her Medical records were ACCEPTED by the Board and do not need to be opened. No further lines of inquiry, interrogatories and/or depositions need to be taken because MOORESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL,,,,,,nor will they!!!

Possibly, a TV show will let you rewrite this story to YOUR satisfaction. Fiction or Fantasy, it will be your choice, but NOT TRUE.

As long as you believe that the Weekly Standard and/or the Crimson are the 100% correct authoratative sources for your infomation, ...Can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge???



































fiction


Repeat after me: THE CASE WILL SETTLE SHORTLY. THE SCHOOL BOARD WILL SETTLE. THE SCHOOL LOST, LOST, LOST THE CASE.

--posted by MRS. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:00 pm EDT

Surly:The HOrnstines negotiated with the school for many months before filing this suit.

If your favorite sports team played their hearts out and received a higher score than their opponents, could you settle for the other team becoming the victors?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:04 pm EDT

Yes, stand in line..."craft an open letter"....then use it as toilet paper. I am sure that Judge Wolfson, Judge Hornstine, Blair and HER attorneys need your advise. Please craft this letter. I would like to deliver it PERSONALLY. Everyone can use a hearty laugh!!!

Then send one to Saddam Hussein...He's waiting for you.

Is age a factor here?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:08 pm EDT

Cambridgema: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE contact Jeff Toobin. He either retracted his article publically or privately because he read the AP and not the case originally and DID NOT GET THE ENTIRE STORY.

go get 'EM!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:10 pm EDT

I saw the Giants lose a chance at the superbowl over a bad call this year. Everyone agreed it was a bad call, but the game was over; end of story.

--posted by surlygrad @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:12 pm EDT

Cambridgema, I am sure one or the other reporters and/or research assistants for a newspaper is following this. We may well see it in an editorial someplace.

In any case, Mrs. M. M. has not told us why BH and Dad would not withdraw the suit. Or specifically why she will not pass it along to them.

Mrs. M. M. would ask why BH should drop the suit. I would respond because it is the right thing to do, and in the long run actually in BH's best interests.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:15 pm EDT

Surlygrad: I have attended the Philadelphia Eagles games for 30 plus years. It happens over and over. My point. The game is over. Blair won her case. She scored more points. Was it a bad call? Why did the School Board approve her courses, teachers and medical opinions? She won and the Giants lost. Happens every day. That is why there are refs, judges, etc. That is the legal system the good ole UsA is founded on.

--posted by Mrs. M. M @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:21 pm EDT

“A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is typically issued in circumstances where immediate action is called for. Courts often issue "TRO’s" based on affidavits from a person whose interests are about to be harmed. For example, if people with chainsaws are about to cut down your trees, the court would be in a hurry to act, before giving the other side a chance to reply."

"A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION is usually issued only after the other side has been given an opportunity to reply and be heard, and has either consented to maintain the status quo or not made a sufficient showing to defeat the plaintiff’s claims."

"A PERMANENT INJUNCTION is typically issued after a full trial of the merits, or on the consent or default of the other side.”

(http:www.law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/restraining_order.htm+%22temporary+restraining+order%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

In Blair’s case the impending graduation – and the desire of the Hornstines to have Blair be named “sole valedictorian” for the event was the driver of them seeking a TRO. A “temporary” restraining order – “temporary” … was issued (not a preliminary injunction; not a permanent injunction) and was based on the judge’s “opinion” – not “finding” or “ruling of law”. In a TRO case a judge will issue his/her opinion based on his/her interpretation of case law and precedent. Judges will issue their opinion on behalf of a plaintiff when they believe that plaintiff is “likely to prevail” in an upcoming trial. Since the school district has not had an opportunity to present their position and their interpretation of the law, they have the opportunity to reply and challenge the judge’s opinion. The judge’s opinion can be overturned. If so, the school district would be found not to have discriminated… and could at the prerogative appoint co-valedictorians. Discrimination has not yet been determined. Guilt or innocence has not been established "beyond a reasonable" doubt or any legal standard. No findings have resulted. Nothing is yet up for appeal. An appeal can only occur after a finding of law is established – after the jury rules.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:27 pm EDT

Wondering, There are opinions and letters to the editor every day in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily NEws, Courier Post, several neighboring county newspapers, etc. You can pull up a weeks worth, at least, that were printed in the papers. There has NOT been a day that has gone by since May that a Blair story/letter has not surfaced in the local newspaper. I would say that they are 60-40% against her. You would be suprised, I think by your verbalizing, how many support her issues.

Dropping the suit is NOT in Blair's best interest. I don't get it from you. She fought for what she believes is right. She believes that she "earned" the right to be Valedictorian. If you ever worked, I think you would believe you earned every cent that the place paid you. Same difference. She took the chance for her "self". She believes that she saw a "wrong" and tried to "right" it. Of course, I do believe that she did not believe how far this case would go in the media, but she knew it would be unpopular at MHS. "To your own self be true...."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:30 pm EDT

If a settlement is reached ... we will never know how the court (i.e. the jury) will have ruled. No guilt will have been established - i.e. the school will not be found to have discriminated.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:31 pm EDT

Hmmmm....last time I checked I wasn't a lawyer, but I do recall that I did indeed take many classes at Harvard Law School while in graduate school at Harvard.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:35 pm EDT

Cambridgema said:" In a TRO case a judge will issue his/her opinion based on his/her interpretation of case law and precedent. Judges will issue their opinion on behalf of a plaintiff when they believe that plaintiff is “likely to prevail” in an upcoming trial. Since the school district has not had an opportunity to present their position and their interpretation of the law, they have the opportunity to reply and challenge the judge’s opinion. The judge’s opinion can be overturned."

Judge Wolfson: " The Court held oral argument on May 8, at the close of which the Court read an oral opinion into the record, which granted K.M.'s motion to intervene, denied K.M.'s motion for adjournment, granted plaintiff's TRO, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss.See footnote 44
III. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED.
On May 5, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety based upon alleged procedural deficiencies. Specifically, defendants maintain that: (i) this matter is the subject of a Tort Claims Notice and is barred by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8; (ii) since the Board had not taken final action, plaintiff's claims are not ripe for review because no justiciable case or controversy exists; (iii) plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and (iv) pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19, plaintiff has failed to name an indispensable party. Before addressing the merits of defendants' motion, I find that the intervention of K.M. renders defendants' contention that plaintiff has failed to name an indispensable party moot. "



You say:"Discrimination has not yet been determined..."

Judge Wolfson said: "Without the imposition of temporary restraints, defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff because of her disability. Such conduct should not and cannot be tolerated by society."

A jury DOES NOT

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:48 pm EDT

A jury DOES NOT

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:50 pm EDT

A jury DOES NOT

--posted by Mrs. M. M. Try one more time @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:51 pm EDT

A jury DOES NOT

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:52 pm EDT

A jury DOES NOT, NOT, NOT have to rule. Please read the Judge's entire findings. I have just quoted in two places above to specifically answer your post.
The Board of Education tried to have this case dismissed. The Judge ruled against them. The Board had the OPPORTUNITY to appeal this ruling but chose not to after the oral arguments. One of the reasons, if you can read the transcript (not the findings) is that when the attorney for the Board stated a case which he, the Board Attorney, said was in his "corner" in other words backed up HIS case, the Judge almost laughed and said she was very familiar with the case and it supported the Plaintiff (Blair's) case. (no matter what side of this case you are on, if you were there or read the transcript, you will see that the Board of Education's lawyer was a buffoon.)

Besides appealling the TRO, the Board had an option to take this case further, but the ruling was so deadset against them that they had no leg to stand on. Why else, do YOU think they are trying to settle? They cannot win. They do not want to feed more oats to a dead horse....

You may not agree with what Blair did, but do I need to bang your head against the wall to understand that the Board would be the stupidest one in the country to appeal because they have NO case? The Judge cut them up, trampled on the pieces and then flushed them.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. Try one more time @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:53 pm EDT

This is it, Cambridgema: I don't know what you were doing at Harvard Law, but listening was not one of them....

defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff defendants would be discriminating against plaintiff

That is the last time, I will bang this into your head!

--posted by mRS. m. m. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:57 pm EDT

I was quoting Judge Wolfson above, not plagiarizing!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 17:59 pm EDT

I think the term "winning the battle but losing the war" applies here. Blair won her valedictorianship, but lost the support of 60% of her town, and much more than that of public support. And regardless of what some may think, Harvard is probably not going to reverse their ruling. Blair will never attend Harvard, or Harvard Law School. They don't want her. They've made that perfectly clear.

Your Hamlet quote, though incorrectly phrased, reminds me of another quote, from a better play:

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!"
(King Lear, I.iv)

P.S. -- Mrs. MM, did you ever meet Cretin at the Starbucks?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 18:02 pm EDT

I'm getting exhausted trying to explain this...

Before the TRO hearing started the defendants (the school system, etc.) "filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint", seeking to prevent the proceedings for consideration of a TRO. The judge ruled that she would go ahead and hear the plaintiff's complaint to determine in her "opinion" if a TRO should be granted. She heard the plaintiff's complaint and issued a TRO - temporary. The school district has it chance to present its case in a trial. If they don't want to proceed to a trial, no finding of "guilt" (i.e. that they were guilty of discrimination) will occur.

The judge merely denied their motion to dismiss the hearing for a TRO!!!

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 18:12 pm EDT

The case now moves into the trial phase ("Hornstine’s case — and her request for damages - remains in litigation pending either a settlement or a jury trial. The two parties will meet before a judge August 13 to discuss further proceedings..." (http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/today/article348498.html); “The trial phase of Blair's lawsuit will unfold slowly over the coming months…” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp).

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 18:14 pm EDT

Throwing his hands up in the air ... I give up on trying to convince a certain someone what is actually going on ... back to ignoring her obfuscation ... looking forward to meaningful, reasoned discussion with others...

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 18:14 pm EDT

Why will Mrs. M. M. not answer the question? Is BH looking for the money? The vindication? To fight for the rights of the underprivileged?

You might be surprized that I agree with the result of Judge Wolfson's opinion. It is not clear that the school was seeking a co-valedictorian, and the rules for the naming of the valedictorian are clear. BH should have been the sole valedictorian. The Hornstines gamed the system in my opinion, and should not take any pride in that. This case, however, should not have been the stuff of a federal case. The consumation of resources is way out of whack! (That is a legal concept I learned somewhere: there may be a wrong, but the wrong is not so wrong or harmful as to require the dedication of the resources of the court to right it.)

That is not the end of the issue, however. At one point Mrs. M. M. says that BH has already won, but there are still the issues of liability and damages to be determined.

The Judge and I part company when she discusses the element of "irreparable harm." The judge says: "If [BH] were forced to accept her award along with a non-disablede student, the stigma would likely be unshakable. She would doubt her own accomplishments, and questions the significance of being the 'disabled valedictorian.' . . . If plaintiff is not the sole valedictorian, she will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by money damages." Opinion at p. 40.

Both the judge and BH should interview Jasmine Karo to learn about irreparable harm. Is BH so fagile in her own view of herself that not being the sole valedictorian would be "unshakable"? Would she "doubt her own accomplishments"? Somehow, I doubt that very much. If it is so, then, more than ever, she should visit with Jasmine and ask her how to overcome such adversity. Spending a few hours with that young lady would provide BH with a life time of real education, if she were wise enough to listen.

I think that the odds are pretty clear that at the end of a lifetime BH will have more money, more toys, more high profile jobs than Jasmine. I don't think it is so clear however which will live the more fulfilled life (which is my definition of life success). I would probably bet on the poor kid from Gloucester City.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 18:15 pm EDT

Cretin never confirmed. I was there earlier today.

--posted by Mrs. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 19:04 pm EDT

No, I am getting tired of explaining this. I sat there for 4-5 hours. Except for the 15 minute presentation that Mr. Jacobs put on, the 1 1/2 minutes that Fran Hartman spoke, the 30 minute recess and the 45 minute that Judge Wolfson spoke, the DEFENSE, Mr. Comegno spoke or answered the Judge's questions for at least 2 1/2 hours. Please read the transcript. Mr. Comegno attempted to defend the position of the school. He was also asked directly if Miss H would be considered by the school to be a co valedictorian. After conferring with the school board president who was sitting immediately next to him, he answered NO.

Hear me once, hear me twice, you won't have to hear me again. THE SCHOOL BOARD MADE THEIR PRESENTATION AND DEFENSE AT THE TRO HEARING. The end...there is no more. Please, please, if you think you are so smart, read the transcript. It is available. You think you are a smart Harvard grad and know law, then I need not tell you where to obtain the TRANSCRIPT.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 19:13 pm EDT

Wondering: "To fight for the rights of the underprivileged", she has stated is what she wants to do after graduating law school. To fight for what she believes was her right and her freedom was the fight over the Valedictorian. Originally, she would have dropped the money like a hot potato, if she would have won and been able to go to graduation. Now, after all the "crap" she received from the township, the loss of her Harvard admittance, she "probably" wants the money for her further education or "maybe" she will donate it. I HAVE NO IDEA. As far as an eye for an eye, she deserves the money. I would "guesstimate" (and by all means, I am not quoting her or making suggestions) that if she wins, she will not keep the money. I will also guess that you will not know where the money actually goes. If she loses any scholarship money or if she would say "leave the country for school", I would think maybe she will use it. If she needs any special doctoring after this, maybe she will use it.

Jasmine having a mor fulfilled life? I tend to doubt it. If she does not get a "further education, " if she remains in her environment, if she does not get some medical help, I think she will be fighting for her life, monetarily forever. If she remains in the same economic bracket she is presently in, I do doubt that she will be more successful. I think she will always be fighting to put food on the table. More fulfilling? I doubt it. Blair, on the other hand, if she is educated and doing what she wants "helping others" will have a better, more fulfilled life. We will all see....

With the prom gown collection that Blair began and distributed, she met many Jasmines (and I don't mean killers).Why do you think she collected gowns for underprivileged girls? So, she could select one for herself? I don't think so!

"irreparable harm"? Aren't you telling me that she has? Gaming the system? The Hornstines only did what was allowed and approved by the School. If you think they took advantage, then someone at the school was very stupid. They approved everything over and over and over.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 19:33 pm EDT

Wondering: Another thought? Maybe the money she gets from the school will just pay the legal fees!!! Just a thought. Her legal fees could be $50,000 or more, knowing legal fees.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 19:39 pm EDT

Mrs. M. M.: why do you judge everything in terms of money? This is just an observation I have made about many of your posts.

--posted by surlygrad @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 19:49 pm EDT

surlygrad: I am sorry that money seems to be the evil that YOU think I convey on this blog. I am only saying that Blair, since she won her case and was trashed in school, township, here, etc., deserves to win. Money is the now the "prize" and I use "prize extremely loosely. She cannot speak at graduation, go to Harvard, walk down the street. Her house is damaged, etc. If you drive too fast and get caught, your punishment is a monetary ticket. I just put it in the same category.

What do you think she should "win?" another graduation; a free trip to Harvard; someone to clean her egged and painted house; you, Wondering and cambridgema taking her out to dinner? I didn't make the rules or the laws. Oh, I know, the School Board should have to stay after school.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:08 pm EDT

What happened to Cretin? After I said I would meet him today, he ran away....Where is Cretin? Where is Cretin?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:10 pm EDT

Well said Wondering. Cambridgema, you are closest to understanding the way the legal system works. I fear that while Mrs. MM "knows" everything, she "understands" much less. You need to understand the difference between "dicta" and "holding" in legal opinions. Cambridgema's "likely to prevail" language is essential in considering whether to grant a "TRO" and no one has read the "transcript" since we have access only to the "opinion" and these are not interchangeable. Mrs. MM may have been in court but judging from her biased posts, I can't rely on her observations. She is simply not sufficiently objective. Please go back and read my earlier responses on the federal and state court rules pertaining to jury trials: only the parties can waive the right to a jury trial. If they do, then and only then will a judge determine damages. But Mrs. MM is correct in asserting that this matter will most likely be settled and then none of us will ever know how the law would have been applied in this case. While Mrs. MM is frustrated with all those who do no agree with her, I have lost all patience with her unwillingness to learn anything from anyone on this blog.

--posted by DM @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:15 pm EDT

Surlygrad: Why are you such a know-it-all on your blog with topics like Witched Witch, Applied Math, Palestine, Iraq, Mr. Belnick/Cornell and Masturbation? My, my.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:17 pm EDT

Well, Mrs. MM, from the sounds of your post, the Hornstines are sending young Blair out of the country for college. I think that's wise--Europe hasn't quite caught onto Blair hysteria (yet). My guess is that she'll go to Cambridge, which is nice and big and will give her quite a bit of anonymity. A wise move, if that's what the Hornstine family has decided.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:25 pm EDT

I attempt to learn something EVERY day. DM. I understand the case, how it took shape, the hearing and what is not transpiring and what is. Because some columnist wrote that the Judge will decide something on August 13, some of these threaders seem to think that this is an unchallenged truth. I understand how the legal system is supposed to work. I understand that everything in this world, including the legal system, is not black and white. I understand that neither party requested a Jury trial. I understand that this case WILL NOT be heard by a jury. I understand the difference between a Federal Judge and a NJ Suerior court Judge. I understand that Judge Wolfson's "dicta" could have been overturned by an appeal. I understand that the Board of Education COULD have taken this case further. I understand that the Moorestown Board of Education did not challenge or appeal the ruling. I understand that the Board did not because they did not have a leg to stand on (especially if they continued to use their attorney). I have told you over and over and over that if this case does not settle, Judge Wolfson will decide the damages.....as you say, Mr. DM.

Your fight with me is not over legal matters, dicta, likely to prevail, etc. You do not like that I am a supporter of the underpriviledged, Miss Blair L. Hornstine, in this case. If you all stated that she was a wonderul, cute, smart young lady, you would have nothing to flap your gums about. Back to CALPROF statement, that most of you just want to see a successful person fall on his/her face. Get over it. I know what I am talking about ---with the facts and with the legalities of this case. Just tune me out. I will just answer what I feel free to answer, but you need not make comment. I don't accept that, though.I support this underdog. I am not envious or jealous of her brains and brawn.

When I am proven 99.9% correct, who willbe the first to step up to buy me coffee?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:34 pm EDT

Please Underprivileged, I did not suggest or commit to Blair being educated out of this country. I was just throwing up ways to use the money she might get from the MHS board. Please do not put words in my mouth.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:36 pm EDT

"If she loses any scholarship money or if she would say "leave the country for school", I would think maybe she will use it. If she needs any special doctoring after this, maybe she will use it."

"My guess is that she'll go to Cambridge, which is nice and big and will give her quite a bit of anonymity. A wise move, if that's what the Hornstine family has decided."

Does it look like I've put any words in your mouth? I made a guess in response to your guess, which as far as I know is not a problem.

However, I have to again note my disgust at your choice of the word "underprivileged" for Blair. She is not, in any sense of the word, underprivileged. She is a well-off, intelligent young woman who, from the information that you HAVE confirmed, will be attending a fairly well-respected university sometime soon. Nobody forced her or her family to press charges. As an educator (which I have a feeling that you are), you should've read the book "Savage Inequalities," by Jonathon Kozol. If you haven't, get ahold of it, and then you'll understand what underprivileged children are. Or better yet, hop in your car and go to Camden, which is less than a half an hour away from the Arcadia that is Moorestown. Although, you might want to wait until tomorrow morning, because some people feel uncomfortable visiting Camden at night.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:44 pm EDT

According to Merriam Webster Dictoonary - underpriviledged: "deprived through social or economic condition of some of the fundamental rights of all members of a civilized society"
( I believe her social well being by the community has put her in this category)

According to Merriam Webster Thesaurus:"
deficient in basic economic and social resources
Synonyms: depressed, deprived, disadvantaged
Related Words: handicapped; hapless, ill-fated, ill-starred, unfortunate, unlucky; impoverished, needy, poor
Idioms: badly off, in adverse circumstances, out of luck

(quite a few of the synonyms and related words relate to my understanding of the word. Shall we play semantics?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:54 pm EDT

My very educated guess is that she will NOT go to Cambridge!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:55 pm EDT

At least at this time...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:55 pm EDT

I am more than willing to play semantics with you. You said that sixty percent of the community supported Blair--therefore, she is not in the minority, and so by your own definition, not underprivileged.

And I wasn't aware that being well-liked was a "fundamental right of all members of a civilized society."

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 21:00 pm EDT

I'm newer, so you'll have to forgive me, but has the topic of Blair's lawyer come up at all? A Google search on his name shows that he's a Mafia lawyer.

"Jacobs, 51, has built a career on defending suspected killers, public officials accused of corruption and reputed organized crime figures in New Jersey."

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/capano/index27.html

Now, please, for those of us who are wont to fly into hysterics, I'm not insinuating a thing about Blair being a secret member of the Mafia, or what have you. However, this might be of interest to some people.

Discussion, anyone?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 21:09 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.: I'm a know it all on my blog because that's the point of having a blog; it's my personal soapbox.

--posted by surlygrad @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 21:11 pm EDT

Mrs. MM - My interests center on the legal issues and not the personal ones. Some of us have been trying to move this discussion beyond the personal, beyond the level of small-town gossip but you drag the conversation down to the petty, the bitter repeatedly. With you, there is no debate but only mindless attacks and foolish chatter. You will always be "right" on this topic because you don't understand how limited your view is. There is much more to learn about this topic and many of us have been trying to talk about substantive issues but we never seem to get anyplace. You have become such an irritant to me that I, like others before me, will simply avoid you and this blog. It is no longer fun for me. I did find many of the other posters articulate, bright and thoughtful. Thanks for the reference to the article on groups. It was very good.

--posted by DM @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 22:46 pm EDT

Cambridgema and DM have a correct understanding of the differences between and among temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions. They also have a good understanding of injunction practice in the overall context of litigation. BH is not a "prevailing party" and does not have a a judgment.

The district court entered an injunction to protect BH from immediate and irreparable harm. To what extent did arguably intemperate comments by the court, in dicta, further incite allegedly "uninformed" and "hostile" community reaction to the BH's claims, thereby contributing to the "stigma" the court expressly sought to avoid?

"Irreparable harm" is harm which can not be adequately compensated in damages or for which damages can not be compensable in money. If BH "won" her case at the injunction phase, by definition avoiding threatened irreparable harm, what are her compensatory damages and what is the basis for her punitive damages claim?

I also have a question regarding a slightly different aspect of this matter, suggested by a previous post. Why would responsible parents allow their child, a teenager with a "debilitating medical condition" who has difficulty attending classes at her local high school, make a trip to China that "took a toll on her health?"

--posted by TM @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:31 pm EDT

Thanks for the reference to the article on groups. It was very good.

--posted by DM @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 22:46 pm EDT

I know it is getting late, but I do not understand the above. Did I write something I do not remember?

Substantive issues:

Why did she use a Mafia known lawyer? Beats me. Yes, he has defended known Mafia players. Why is he defending Blair? Possibly because he appeared before Judge Hornstine years ago????? (Don't know this to be true, just guessing) Judge Hornstine thinks he is the best lawyer?????

Why does her Father push so hard and attempt to take advantage of the rules? Don't believe he does. Since in so many NJ schools, the oriental population ranks the highest in school (I am not being bigoted), are they overly "pushed?" Quality education is probably one of the best foundations one can give their children with the exception of love and health. Miss Blair has love....

Settlement? Both sides are presently working on same.
Should be done (if not today) very soon, prior to August 13.

Is she underprivileged? Yes, by the definition in the dictionary. Only because she is disabled and not able to do things most 17-18 year olds do.

Other legal issues? There aren't any at the moment.
Very possibly there won't be any. The TRO settled the problem. The parties accept the TRO decision as is. The defendants decided not to appeal, thus ending the legal challenge. What's to discuss? It AIN'T going any further! With the exception of settlement. My view is "limited" as you say because what's done is done. I repeat, it "AIN'T' going further. The TRO decision was accepted AS IS. What don't you understand? This isn't text book, but it's legal.

Ideas others want to discuss: One that was recently posted about writing an open letter to the Hornstines. I won't comment further on that one.

What is substantive to talk about that is real?

Irritants: Those of you who are changing the story to suit yourselves, gossip or suffer from schadenfreude.

I am not mindless and foolish, possibly not articulate, bright and thoughtful - you get what you get- but you can have your opinion about me, too.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:31 pm EDT

Mrs. M. M., I'll buy you coffee... you still haven't written....

About this blog, I have nothing to say at all.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:37 pm EDT

"I also have a question regarding a slightly different aspect of this matter, suggested by a previous post. Why would responsible parents allow their child, a teenager with a "debilitating medical condition" who has difficulty attending classes at her local high school, make a trip to China that "took a toll on her health?" "





--posted by TM @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:31 pm EDT

Answer: Parent went with her. She did not go with the "group." Went early . I believe the conference was for 3 to 5 days. She went a couple (?) days early. I don't remember if she came home early or a few days late. I do remember there was some concern over the amount of days she could participate. From my memory, I do not think she was able to participate all the days of the conference. She was very anxious to go because it was about deformed children. She had done some work with some of this kids. (probably raised money, too)

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:38 pm EDT

Mrs. MM. You make me sick.

--posted by observer @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:41 pm EDT

S. D-S: I did not forget you. I looked up your webpage and can only find a telephone number to call.
Is there a web address? I don't want you to reveal a personal one, as I do not want to do that here, either.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:42 pm EDT

Observer: You are a man of few words and opinions!
Take a couple aspirins and call me in the morning.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:43 pm EDT

Forgive me, but are you on any type of anti anything?

--posted by observer @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:48 pm EDT

You are a woman of many words, and opinions, yet lack social sense. take 2 of your prozac and call me in the morning

--posted by p.s. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:50 pm EDT

Well, cambridgema, I think I will join you. This is useless, and I can't take the feeling of nausea I get when I read Mrs. M. M.'s stuff. Perhaps I really should just skip the garbage she writes.

I thought I offered a reasonable way out for everyone, though it is all in BH's hands, but MM does not seem to like it. She never answered the question about why BH would not withdraw the suit, and she clearly does not know the difference between an interlocutory order and a final order (as they say, MM, "you could look it up"), or the difference between a hearing on a motion and a trial on the merits. I am no expert, but I have been involved in enough litigation to know that she hasen't a clue about what she it talking about.

And now she says: "Now, after all the "crap" she received from the township, the loss of her Harvard admittance, . . . " she can use the money for various purposes. Last time I looked, and while Harvard never announced why she lost her admittance, it was most likely because she plagiarized material on numerous occasions in publised articles she claimed as her own.

And as to why she did the prom dress thing, it was not because some really underprivileged young woman needed if for a prom, it was because sweet BH thought it would look good on her CV. That was not even an original idea. Folks in my part of NJ have been doing it for years, and the people who started it were already out of school and working. Our friend Jasmine could really have used a prom dress. Now that would have made a big difference in her life. Yeah, right!

In the final analysis BH is where she is because BH did the things to get her there. If her attitude is anything like yours (and I sure hope it is not) she deserves all of the ridicule she has gotten. If her attitude is really as self absorbed as appears, she will be dogged by the kind of reaction she has received here all of her life, no matter where she goes. There will be other incidents where she will react the same way she perceives that someone else does not agree that the world revolves around her. People tend to creat the world around them.

I look forward to the next development.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:53 pm EDT

Mrs mm, you can reach Steffe'n Douglas-Smith/ aka Steve Douglas Smith/ aka Steven Smith in Ohio at designwolf@designwolf.com; or feel free to call him at 937-427-0041 or reach him by snailmail at Designwolf Computer Systems, Stephen Smith, 3782 Skyline Drive, Beavercreek, OH 45432

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:56 pm EDT

Of course, Cambridgema, you know I was talking about Mrs. M. M.'s attitude.

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:01 am EDT

Everyone:

We could continue to go back and forth debating the same points ad nauseum or we could wait until the next development in the Blair Hornstine case rears its head (i.e. results of the settlements talks, around August 13).

Mrs. MM:

How many people were at the court hearings? I'm curious to hear the reactions and opinions of the people who were present like yourself. Since we don't have access to the court transcript (you don't have access to it, do you?), we're only hearing one side of the story.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:04 am EDT

Hey dothecrimedothetime, Mrs. MM could also ask an alien to give him the message that she is trying to get in touch with him.

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=view_feedback&id=21157

Just an example of the caliber of the person

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:06 am EDT

That is my point, exactly. You " look forward to the next development. "

--posted by Wondering @

Your life is dull; you suffer from Schadenfreude. You just want something to "bitch" about. You can find some compatriots to join the "bitching." It is funny that most of the intelligent people like CalProf and S.Douglas Smith have given up on this blog, because most of you don't want to get it. SCHADENFREUDE!

--posted by Mrs M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:09 am EDT

Underprivileged - the topic of the lawyer the family chose to represent them has come up before. A stellar example of someone steeped in education law and in defending others facing compelling issues of discrimination (smirk ... read satire here): "The case immediately made headlines, and not just because of the eye-popping price tag. There was also her choice of lawyer. Instead of hiring an expert in education law, Louis Hornstine hired Edwin Jacobs Jr. Jacobs is something of a legend in Jersey legal circles. He first rose to prominence in the mid-'80s defending Nicodemo "Little Nicky" Scarfo, a legendary Philly mob boss. With a practice in Atlantic City, Jacobs has represented a colorful array of organized crime figures along the Broad Street-Boardwalk corridor. How good is he? In 1998, he represented Philly drug kingpin Louis Turra, accused of plotting the assassination of underboss Joseph "Skinny Joey" Merlino. Jacobs never got to show his stuff on that case--Turra hanged himself in his cell before the trial started. But just three years later, Jacobs was defending Skinny Joey, who needed help beating a rap for three murders, two attempted murders, and a murder conspiracy charge." - taken from Weekly Standard article.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:22 am EDT

schadenfreude

malicious satisfaction [syn: gloat, gloating, glee]
see: Mrs. MM

nar·cis·sistic

Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, LACK OF EMPATHY, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits.
See S-D-S, Mrs. MM

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:26 am EDT

S-D-S can't seem to keep away. Like a moth to the flame!

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:34 am EDT

At the hearing were three lawyers at the plaintiff's table. For the defendant, there was Comegno, next to him the President of the School Board, Fran Hartman, attorney for Kenny Mirkin and Dr. Shangold, Kenny's Mother. Behind this table was another with Kenny doing his homework (to look good??) and either a Junior member of the law firm or a paralegal.

The "audience consisted of several unknown people, a couple friends of either Kenny and Mother or the school board. Two young boy friends of Kenny. Two disabled persons, one in a wheel chair. (I hate to describe them thusly, but in this case I do not have names and am trying to give you a fair accounting). Then there were two of us. We sat between Cathy Gondolfo from WPVI (channel 6), Edie Huggins from channel 10, a reporter whose name escapes me from the Fox network (dark hair man) sat on the other side of Miss Gondolfo (spelling?) with another reporter whom I did not recognize. Behind me was a young lady and her camera man from Channel 17. There were maybe a half dozen print reporters whom I did not know. During the time that Judge Wolfson was out, we all talked. I find it amusing that what they said to me in discussing the case was not what they printed. I know that sounds like sour grapes, but it's true. At the end of the hearing, ALL the reporters got together on the side of the room to get the quote from the Judge correct, the one about"putting her on a level playing field" and especially (they could not seem to all get this straight) about winning in spite of not because of her disability.

After the hearing and so many used the rest rooms, Mr. Jacobs stayed on the court house steps and answered questions for the media. They also ran after Comegno who had no comments.

Adam: I do not have my own copy of the transcript. It cost several hundred dollars to get one. That is how court reporters earn a living. There are a couple floating around.

As far as the opinions at the people (25-35ish present), we sat around talking during the break when Judge Wolfson went out to write her opinion.(about 45 minutes) I truly feel that the people I spoke to felt the same way that I do. Even the reporters....despite the opinions they expressed were not exactly the same as in their reports. This is the second time in my life that I have seen first hand a news report that was not what happened.

The first time was when I was in my beach home during a hurricane. Cameras came down the streeton high log carriers and in small boats and took a picture of my home (with me in it with family they could not see)for a live feed on TV. I was watching the TV when they said " ......is deserted, everyone has left the town.". They were showing my house. I will never forget it. All my friends were in their homes around the corner, up the block, etc. From that day on, I must say I never have trusted the media.
I am sure you did not want to hear that, but it was the only way for me to get my feelig across.

Aren't you sorry you asked?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:39 am EDT

There doesn't seem to be much happening in this case, so I'll check back occasionally when there are developments. I'm now more interested in the Kobe Bryant episode as my "moral issues case of the month," i.e. a legal battle that highlights social and ethical issues.

It is interesting to see how the Bryant accuser is being attacked so passionately, much like the attacks on Blair Hornstine. If we look back on our society, so often have we gone after young adults and teens who have misbehaved in some way: JFK Jr., that NYC preppy killer and his "rough sex" victim, the parricide Menendez brothers of Beverly Hills, the Columbine boys and their high school's cliques, Monica Lewinsky and Chelsea too, casino-homicide bystander David Cash, desperate skater Tonya Harding, and now 24-year-old Kobe and his 19-yr.-old accuser. These young people become the focus of our social concerns about how parents are raising their children, and about the decisions we make regarding morality, sexual behavior, risk-taking, crime, madness, and selfishness versus altruism.

It's sad that the young person is usually hurt, often destroyed, by being the brief target of these moral crises that attract so much public attention. But society can grapple with these issues as we debate each case, much like the mythology and cautionary tales of traditional cultures. The public is fascinated with these young people who tend to be affluent and attractive, but with some flaw such as being too aggressive, too selfish, too ambitious, or too poorly socialized by parents.

I'll drop by again when there's been some news such as a settlement.

--posted by Calprof @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:39 am EDT

And skinny Joey is in jail for at least ONE life term.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:41 am EDT

ARE YOU CRAZY TO THINK THAT CRETIN WOULD SHOW UP WHEN YOU ASKED HIM TO MEET YOU AT STARBUCKS?

SDS THREATENED TO RUIN HIM IF HE KEPT SPEAKING HIS MIND. AT THE SAME TIME, SDS ASKED YOU TO CONTACT HIM. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD A KID SHOW UP TO MEET A CRAZY WOMAN THAT WOULD CONFIRM THIS KID'S IDENTITY TO A THAT PERSON.
YOU REALLY HAVE A LOT TO LEARN ABOUT SOCIETY AND THOUGHT. PEOPLE WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU ON A TOPIC. AND THAT'S OKAY. BUT YOU SHOULD JUST LASH OUT AT PEOPLE WHEN YOU DISAGREE. UNTIL YOU LEARN THAT, YOU (mrs mm) MAKE ME SICK.

(I use caps because mrs. mm uses them when she feels that a person doesn't listen unless she uses caps).

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:41 am EDT

shouldn't lash out

--posted by correction @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:42 am EDT

"Adam: I do not have my own copy of the transcript. It cost several hundred dollars to get one. That is how court reporters earn a living. There are a couple floating around." LOL - so Mrs MM thinks that court reporters make a living hawking transcripts. What planet is she living on? In any court proceeding a stenogrpaher is there to record . The transcripts are available for free at the court house. Public access. Mrss MM continues to demonstrate her ignorance...her totally lack of understanding. I am so, so tired of hearing her rants...so tired of her twisting ... based so much on her bias.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:46 am EDT

Observer: LASH out?? You have your chocolate and vanilla mixed up. To you crazy equals disagreement.
Hope you feel better soon.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:46 am EDT

Mrs .MM:

Why should I be sorry I asked? Like other people who aren't directly connected to this case, I'd like to see as much information as possible.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:47 am EDT

Please, please, please look at all of the facts of the case, read the transcript, and look outside of your computer room window and realize that Blair has been involved in some shady stuff. The shadiness began with her "illness" and how she could miraculously partake in selected activities, and goes on today with the the selection of her attorneys (there was a lot more in between including the class dropping sh*t). Do you honestly think that she is what she say she is? I mean Blair, not Mrs. MM.

--posted by Observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:49 am EDT

Do the crime: You are 300% wrong. You will hear that. Court Stenographers are paid, yes paid to type up the transcripts. Each transcript that is given to the parties in the case is PAID for. Talk about ignorance. I am sure you will soon find out that transcripts are indeed paid for by the lawyers in the case. There is no doubt they are not free to the lawyers and participating parties, press, etc.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:50 am EDT

Oh my ... it's like pissing in the wind when dealing with Mrs MM.

Access to public proceedings ... to transcripts...to court records is available to all.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:52 am EDT

Our tax dollars pay for all court proceedings ... pays for the judge .. for the stenogprapher ... for the bailiffs ... for the lighting ... for the HVAC ... there is no "private market" for transcripts ... for access to rulings, etc. Mrs MM ... it is time that you realize you have lost a grip on reality.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:56 am EDT

Yes, you can go to court and look up records like opinions and results. Possibly they have transcripts that you can view by micro film,(not a copy for you) but for AN INDIVIDUAL, ATTORNEY, INTERESTED PARTY, ETC TO GET A COPY OF A TRANSCRIPT, YOU PAY PER PAGE TO THE TRANSCRIBER. That is how he/she makes a living. Look up Court Stenographers on the internet, if you don't want to take my word.

Watch that wind, your face is getting wet!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 0:58 am EDT

Federal courts usually have a court stenographer with each judge and they used to be on salary. However, copies of the transcripts still cost the lawyers, etc. Other courts get the Pick of the liter. Often a lawyer will want to use a particular stenographer. Now Do the crime....tell me, when a court stenographer takes a deposition , who pays then?

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:01 am EDT

Why do you feel the need to attack EVERONE that disagrees with you, or that hasn't read the case in your eyes? Again, YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!! I am not attacking you for making valid points that I disagree with. If I disagreed, I would respectfully tell you. However, you are trying to belittle people until they actually think that they are "ignorant". GUESS WHAT!? YOU ARE ABOUT AS IGNORANT AS THEY COME!!!!! It is a poor person's legal right to get wellfare if they meet certain requirements for it. If you want a close example, take a look at how easy it is for a someone to qualify for earned income credit (EIC) on their tax return. Just because something is someone's legal right, don't think that people aren't going to be critical when they take it. If a friend of yours sat around the house all day, played basketball, and worked 11.5 hours a week at minimum wage, wouldn't you be pissed if the got $3,888 dollars from the government every year? You would be. That is why people are pissed at the Hornstines. I honestly beleive that Blair is not disabled to the point where she should be given special priveledges. If I am wrong, than I am sorry, I am wrong. However, if that same guy shooting hoops at the main street court really can't get more than 11.5 hours at work, than I am sorry for him too. He just fits the "social parasite" mold and is subject to criticism. Thats were we stand.

--posted by Observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:01 am EDT

How many people do you know who work the minimum amount of time then collect unemployment for six months or more? How many people who have summer jobs fudge the jobs to add a couple weeks to the schedule so they can collect unemployment? Did you know that a divorced woman can collect social security from her ex husband? Did you know that the government will pay that social security to ALL of that individual man's EX wives....All? Do you know that many people coming her from other countries can collect social security just because they are from "certain" countries and never worked a day in their lives here?

I don't make the laws, Sir.

I didn't not prepare the doctors' reports for Blair. I was not a doctor for the Board of Education who examined her, reviewed and approved these reports. I did not make the rules about all eligible children at age 5 in the US get an education. I certainly did not devise IEP schooling. I know you hve heard it over and over - Life is not fair.

We live in the US where you can vote to select the people who make these decisions. Don't take it out on me. Use your vote, if you are old enough. Make a difference.

"they" say that rich people pay less taxes than the middle class because "there" are ways to hide money. Ain't my fault, either. I do not make the laws. I do try to vote for people who don't give the store away.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:10 am EDT

Mrs. M. M. has repeatedly said that at the hearing (of which we don’t have access to a transcript) Judge Wolfson determined that the school board was trying to prevent BH from having any valedictory honors – they weren’t even offering her a co-valedictory position.

However in the immediate report of the hearing ( http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/5818942.htm ) There is the quote:

"If forced to share the award, the stigma would likely be unshakable," the judge said. "She would be seen as 'the disabled valedictorian,' not 'the valedictorian.' "

So as far as the judge is concerned it was a “sole” vs. “co” issue. Mrs MM still insists it was a “sole” vs. “no” issue and “co” wasn’t even considered.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:11 am EDT

Like so much of this affair ... Mrs MM is so much off-base ... she waves her arms .. she protests ... she has no basis of fact ... she's adrift in an ocean of her own.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:15 am EDT

That is true what she said, but she also asked Mr Comegno ( and most of you don't want or just don't believe) if the Board would consider having Blair as a co-valedictorian. He leaned over and asked the School Board president (or at least spoke to her) and then told the Judge, that they would not consider her. You do not pull up on the opinion the part where the Super sent ONLY Kenny a letter advising him that he was being considered.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:15 am EDT

Do the crime: Please show me anywhere where court stenographers give away the transcripts.....They have to eat, also.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:16 am EDT

Do the crime: Pull up this website. It might give you some insight to how a court stenographer earns a living. You will see that it is not Free. http://www.lareporting.com/services.html

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:20 am EDT

For someone who didn't "write the Doctors' reports for Blair", you sure "know" that she is disabled. To add to the merit of this discussion, you should make us all privy to the facts of your reasoning. So far, all I have heard from you is that she is disabled BECAUSE YOU KNOW SHE IS. To me, that means nothing. So far, I beleive almost nothing you say in regards to this case. The only thing you have done is let us all know that you have more priveledged information regarding the specifics of this case, and that WE are all wrong. Again, YOU MAKE ME SICK!

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:21 am EDT

You would be the first one to criticize me for divulging information about someone's physicial condition. There are privacy laws. Have you been to the doctor or to the pharmacy recently? Have they given you a piece of paper with the laws and asked you to sign them?

Try the aspirin remedy.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:24 am EDT

"Few people in town believe that she's really sick. This cynicism is fed by the fact that the Hornstine family guards its privacy and won't explain what her illness is, which is of course their right. (Through a family friend, Blair and her family referred my interview requests to her lawyer, who did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this story.)"I think that the view is there is not a genuine disability," explains a parent from the community. "And if there is any disability, it was inflicted by the father. . . . I think most people's view is that this man put so much pressure on his daughter to be perfect that she literally is a nervous basket case." One of Blair's former friends expressed similar sentiments to the Crimson: "From what I've seen and heard, I don't believe she has a disability that really prohibits her from going to school," said Allie McGuigan. "And I'm not sure whether it's all her, or whether it's her father. Knowing her and knowing her father, I think he owns this situation as much as she does." The cynics point to her activities. In 2000, Blair ran with the Olympic torch when it came through Philadelphia. The Inquirer reported in May that she works out at a local gym. She went on the senior class trip to Disney World this spring, and in the summers, she does intensive academic work. During previous summers she enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell. Last summer she spent eight weeks at Stanford taking classes in Expository Writing (A-), Psychology (A), and Philosophy of Public Speaking (A). Interviewed in July 2002, she told a reporter from the Courier-Post, "If I didn't lead a busy life, I'd be bored. And I hate being bored." In June 2001, Blair was given the Congressional Award Gold Medal. To qualify for this honor, students must complete and document 400 hours of voluntary public service, 200 hours of personal development, 200 hours of physical fitness, and a 4-day exploration. Kelly Fanning, from the Congressional Awards office, says, "For her physical fitness she did jogging, power-walking, and dance." Moorestown High School students, it should be noted, take roughly 75 hours of Phys. Ed. class per year.

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp)

--posted by Person impersonating Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:28 am EDT

One of you comedians posted the above article from the weekly standard under my name. That isn't plagiarizing, but that is downright lying and being untruthful.

If you think this is a game, you win. I am not playing. Do you do these things to hear me gripe? Then here is the gripe.

Adam, THE POST AT 1:28 A.M. IS NOT FROM ME. YOU CAN VERIFY THAT YOURSELF. I do play fair. I do not cheat or lie. Obviously, I cannot say that about everyone who posts here.

--posted by The real Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:32 am EDT

On the Internet ... no one knows your a dog!

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:34 am EDT

[you're a dog]

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:35 am EDT

So it was you that put my name to that posting that I did not submit. I knew that if I waited long enough, I would find out.

I am sure that Adam will not be happy. He likes to keep this blog honest with honest, honorable people. Sorry, you do not fall into that category. This is what you criticize Blair for - not being honest and honorable. Move over Blair...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:38 am EDT

Everyone:

In an ideal situation, we would all identify ourselves so we know who each other is.

Since this comments section allows for anonymous posting, people can pretend to be people they are not. I really don't want to police this board, so please refrain from impersonating others.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:38 am EDT

Please remove the posting that is not mine. YOu can determine who wrote it if you choose. You do not have to let me know,just remove what is not mine. You have my IP, so you know. Thanks.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:40 am EDT

The point that I am trying to get across to you, is that you are more priveledged to certain information than other people are. The information that we get may be a little different from that of which you have gotten.
You have a lot of interesting "facts" that you beleive to be true. How do we know that they are true if you will not tell us how you know this information? I just won't beleive it until I see it and I am sure that you are the same way.
If you are getting ready in the morning and your child says that they are too sick to go to school, you ask what is wrong and check symptoms then, make a call to either let them go or not to go to school. If you let them stay home and feel bad for them, you would be really pissed to find them playing in the yard when you got home from work. Well, Moorestown is the parents and you are Blair's friend in the yard. I'm sorry, I just really disagree completely with the fact that she is "disabled".

Mrs MM's Predicted response:

"I know what I know because I know what I know, YOU observer, cambridgema, do the crime, monkeybrains, glad, cretin, wondering, etc., are wrong because I say you are and that means you are.

ha ha

Cretin- I miss your random yawns with a passion

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:40 am EDT

Listen, this is an open blog. Make up your own name or go away. Everyone knows who mrs. mm is and if you use her name for something that against, it gets passed over because we know that she didn't say it.


Thank you for wasting our time, Dick.

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:44 am EDT

sorry, typed fast. ...for something that she is against, than it gets......

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:45 am EDT

Observer: I understand what you are saying. It would be totally unfair for me to divulge someone's personal life.

Kids do get sick in the a.m. and are fine in the p.m., but that is not the answer you want.

I do know that Blair was sick several years ago. She was prodded with needles and innumerable tests. Most of her tests for some debilitating disease were positive. Then she developed another condition for which she needed hospital/doctor treatments EVERY day for months. The speciaists in this condition were at Washington University in St. Louis. They were consulted. She may have even taken a trip there. I forget. Were they connected? I do not know. Does SHE actually know what is wrong with her? I do not know. Could her parents be protecting her and not telling her? Possibly. Does she get flare ups? Yes, indeed.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:50 am EDT

How are you so sure, if SHE is possibly not so sure. If SHE was not so sure, than how could SHE have her lawyers fight for her? Just a thought.. goodnight.. I'm tired..

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:57 am EDT

She knows how she looks and feels. I just said that possibly the parents and doctors do not tell her the truth. goodnight.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 1:58 am EDT

Just one last thought before bed. IF her parents and doctors are not telling her the truth, how is she telling her lawyers the truth. If she isn't telling you or her lawyers the truth, than how is the "truth" ever getting to those who are going to use it for decision making? The only 2 ideas that we (the ones who aren't privy to the "truth") have to answer that question are:
1. her father is the one behind it ALL
2. the "truth" doesn't exist

goodnight

--posted by observer @ Friday, July 25 2003, 2:09 am EDT

MM,

designwolf@designwolf.com

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, July 25 2003, 2:28 am EDT

I'm only going to say this: Dot, get a life. There is no "Steve or Steven" in Stephen, my given name is Steffe'n, but most morons can't pronounce it, does the shoe fit? Thanks for the plug for my business, I have refrained from doing that here, and have never posted the address of phone number, because unlike you I have character, class, and a brain.

I haven't commented because you, CambridgeMA, and a few others have decided that this is your blog, and whatever you say goes. Your actions exceed any of mine, in that while I can do something, and have discussed that with Adam, I have done nothing. I've not posted anybody's name or other information, but you think it's okay, why not. And observer, I find it interesting that you think because I allow my systems to be used in Berkleys SETI research that I have somehow lowered my personality. Well, that's okay, because you know, 3 million plus other willing folks can't be wrong. We're just different. Last time I looked that was okay, but hey, maybe the Patriot Act has changed all that.

You don't have to like, and frankly I don't care if you like me or not, but I'll leave you with this:

"YOU give humans a bad name. YOU are the reason why there is rape and murder in this world. All you do is attack attack and attack some more. You have no idea what logic is, and why it is important to keep personal attacks out of your arguments. These strategies didn't work for your hunter gatherer ancestors, and they will not work for you.

You will continue to prove my points until you do us all the favor of leaving this Earth.

If you continue acting the way you have acted here, someone may come to the decision that it is necessary to put you out of commission. Permanently.

And quite frankly, I wouldn't blame that person one bit.

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, July 19 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

This implied threat on my life from your favorite idiot, (Cretin does after all mean idiot), is what pissed me off. Of course none of you little snipers said a thing about that. How magnamimous of you. Look, see, this came first. Maybe you'd like it if someone threatened you or accused you of being the reason there is RAPE AND MURDER in the world. I don't, so figure out the truth and then get off of my back.

As for the blog, and this subject, I'm watching, but I've nothing to say... may I suggest that you weasels keep my name out of it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, July 25 2003, 2:48 am EDT

I could paraphrase it like CambridgeMa likes to do:

"IF YOU CONTINUE ACTING THE WAY YOU HAVE ACTED HERE, SOMEONE MAY COME TO THE DECISSION THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PUT YOU OUT OF COMMISSION. PERMANENTLY."

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, July 19 2003, 22:40 EDT

Amazingly, it's still an implied threat... maybe now, since you can easily verify this as a correct copy, you folks who take such pleasure in twisting everything you THINK you know, when you know NOTHING, will either A.) Drop it, or B.) Let it go, or C.) continue to attack and attempt to discredit someone for no other reason than because you THINK you know something. You don't know half as much as you THINK when it comes to me, and my suggestion, and it's a fair one, is to use option A or option B.

I let it be, and you continued to push... go push someone who won't push back. Enough is enough.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, July 25 2003, 3:05 am EDT

I’ll agree with Mrs. MM that Kadri may be an idiot. However the written opinion by Judge Wolfson says: http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html

“Kadri sent a letter on May 6 to K.M., the non-disabled classmate who defendants apparently wish to name as valedictorian along with, or instead of, plaintiff, informing him that he ‘certainly will be considered for the valedictorian award.’ … Moreover, despite plaintiff's [BH’s] higher weighted G.P.A., Kadri did not send her a similar letter informing her that she will be considered for the valedictorian award. … Kadri does not disguise the fact that the proposed policy amendment to award multiple valedictorians is directed at plaintiff.”

Note the Judge’s hedging in the phrase “name as valedictorian along with, or instead of, plaintiff”. This indicates there was dispute over this in the hearing and the Judge decided it was a non issue for the purpose of her decision.

Now there are two interpretations of this letter and non-letter. The charitable one is where everybody knew that BH was considered for valedictorian and Kadri wanted to let KM know that he too was then considered (because of ex post facto rule changes). Many schools have multiple valedictorians without a “co-” in their title and the assumption was that both BH and KM would be valedictorians. A paranoid interpretation is that BH did not get a letter because she was dropped from consideration because of the rule change.

But then the Judge goes on to accept that the policy change is to award multiple valedictorians which makes the previous wrangle moot. And she clearly expresses in her immediate media comments that she considered it a “sole-” vs. “co-” issue.

[ PS. To ADAM: the decision at http://inquirer.philly.com/specials/2003/blair/ is more readable than your local copy ]

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Friday, July 25 2003, 3:10 am EDT

Anger is not good for your heath and clouds your judgement. It begets anger in return. It is why people grow to dislike you and avoid you. You really do create the world around you. Smile and others will smile back. Treat all others well and you will be treated well.

Adam, thanks for keeping us updated on developments. I will be back in mid-August to see what has happened, if anything.

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, July 25 2003, 7:53 am EDT

"If you act in life as you do on this blog, one day, sooner than later I should think, someone like me will put your teeth down your throat so far that when you smile your feet will get the view. "
--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, July 19 2003, 22:01 pm EDT

Notice that this was posted BEFORE this:

"If you continue acting the way you have acted here, someone may come to the decision that it is necessary to put you out of commission. Permanently."
--posted by cretin @ Saturday, July 19 2003, 22:40 EDT

Thus, I was only engaging in defense of my self.

Get the full story. Read the archives...

--posted by cretin @ Friday, July 25 2003, 8:27 am EDT

If a third-party truly "knows" the detailed circumstances of BH's medical condition, presumably because of her friendship with the Hornstine family, has BH waived the doctor/patient privilege or any privacy or confidentiality rights?

If BH puts her emotional state at issue in the pending action, presumably requisite to establish her damages, does she waive the doctor/patient privilege or any privacy or confidentiality rights? Is this an impetus to settlement?

BH is a legally competent adult. Why is there any possibility that "SHE may not know actually know what is wrong with her" or that her parents or treating physicians may not have "told her" about her medical condition?

Fortunately, I do not have to resolve the inherent contradictions in many aspects of BH"s "public" life. However, the pending legal action has devolved into its essential purpose, a monetary settlement at the point of publically brandished and essentially inflated charges of discrimination.

I am not sure any reasonably forseeable settlement of this action is worth the stigma attached to BH's name, not to mention the undeniable distress associated with the pubic recision of a college acceptance just weeks after a missed opportunity to attend high school graduation ceremonies.

I have raised the question several times in recent days, what is the projected settlement value of this action? Under the circumstances, how much money would you give to BH if you were the defendants? The most interesting time to weigh in on this issue is before the parties announce an anticipated settlement.

--posted by TM @ Friday, July 25 2003, 9:05 am EDT

Teeth vs Death

In the world of Weighted GPAs and lawsuits I think teeth get you two cents...

Death, well that's a permanent condition... it warrants a more caustic approach...

Do read the archives... do indeed, from the beginning...

Children will expose themselves...

Now, I am done, defense of bullshit regardless, is still bullshit...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, July 25 2003, 9:24 am EDT

yawn...

--posted by cretin @ Friday, July 25 2003, 9:27 am EDT

Good morning....Hey Cretin, I missed you yesterday.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 9:47 am EDT

TM, I only brought up the fact that possibly Blair does not know her complete medical condition as a thought....often a doctor or family do not tell a patient the extent of his/her condition to protect a patient, for instance a dying one.

I AM NOT SUGGESTING OR INSINUATING THAT BLAIR HAS A FATAL DISEASE....please don't read into this.


Hi S.D-S. Nice to hear from you again.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 25 2003, 9:50 am EDT

I still fail to see how Blair is underprivileged in any way. She has an illness, but it's clearly not preventing her from leaving the house, visiting China, filing major lawsuits, etc. The illness is definitely a hurdle she has to overcome, but that does not make her an underprivileged child! Continuing to do so cheapens the term and takes away from actual underprivileged children. You know, the kind who don't get to eat.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Friday, July 25 2003, 9:58 am EDT

For people who I assume are not being paid billable hours for posting on this website, all of you are doing a remarkable job impersonating prosecutors and/or defendants. It really makes you wonder when people are so vigorous with regard to their defense or condemnation of someone so insignificant as Ms. Blair, while apathy vis a vis things of genuine importance is so widespread.

--posted by Matt @ Friday, July 25 2003, 10:01 am EDT

Disgusting hypothesis, Mrs. M.M..
You yourself are skating on ignorance if you believe that we would actually even think that Blair isn't aware of every aspect of her "disability". According to her credentials, of which I have limited access to, she is a very bright girl. I disagree with you when you say that there is a possibility that she is kept out of the loop when it comes to her own health. I don't think that she would allow that to happen. If it were a real disability, don't you think that a girl with her brains would be doing some research to try to make it better? If not, than I question the disability. If so, than your argument is invalid.

--posted by glad @ Friday, July 25 2003, 10:05 am EDT

just couldn't stay away, this blog is like crack to me

--posted by glad @ Friday, July 25 2003, 10:06 am EDT

I assume you mean "why" and not "when," since your sentence doesn't make sense otherwise. I think it's rather poor judgment to assume that people can only be passionate about one cause--S D-S, for example, is a vocal advocate for Native American rights, and I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU who lobbies in Washington, DC and in Ft. Benning, GA to close SOA/WHISC. I can't speak for any of the other posters here, but I'm sure that they all have their own causes to support. We're actually multifaceted people, Matt--not one-dimensional caricatures who live for nothing but to argue over a New Jersey teenager.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Friday, July 25 2003, 10:07 am EDT

First, I did mean "when", as in the phrase, "It makes you wonder when...".
Second, I'll grant that everyone here has other interests and causes. I didn't mean to offend or imply that you were all Blair-obsessed. I merely wished to point out that the *level* of interest and the depth of the postings (citing transcripts, for example), perhaps was not proportional to the important of the underlying issue.
I visit many blogs, webboards, etc., everyday and when a discussion over a litigous NJ teenager has the most thorough and researched postings, that really indicates something to me about our society.

--posted by Matt @ Friday, July 25 2003, 10:13 am EDT

Oftentimes, I find that there are intelligent people on any board, but there are also a lot of idiots, too. Once the general public stops being obsessed with an issue, only the people who are willing to do the research, those who have a vested interest in a story, will remain. Since general interest in Blair has started to wane, the zealots are the only ones who remain. An issue like the Iraqi war, or the search for WMD, is still foremost in people's minds--and still drawing the fools who obscure the people who take the time to research.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Friday, July 25 2003, 10:21 am EDT

Plagiarism has its rewards! There's a future for fabricators.

Jayson Blair to write for Esquire
"Jayson Blair, the former New York Times reporter who resigned amid accusations of plagiarism and fraud, has been commissioned to write an article for Esquire, the magazine said Friday. Blair...will review the movie version of the Stephen Glass story, 'Shattered Glass'....The movie tells the story of Glass, who left The New Republic in 1998 after editors learned he had fabricated stories for their magazine and others where he freelanced...'We thought it was a clever way to do a movie review, to have the most infamous fabricator review another infamous fabricator,' said [David] Granger, [Esquire's editor-in-chief]." http://www.msnbc.com/news/944046.asp?0cv=CB20

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, July 25 2003, 14:05 pm EDT

After reading all this I still wonder why I should feel sorry for someone who plagiarized in such a blatant way.

Meanwhile, what is legal is one thing, what is right is another.

There is a wise saying that I have utilized in my child rearing endeavors-"You need to choose the hill you die on." In my humble opinion this child and her family went to war over something that in the long run was an insignificant thing. Whether or not the school system was right or wrong, the sequence of events that was set into play by this lawsuit have to be at the very least damaging in the extreme to this girl's health, much less her reputation and future.

Mrs M.M., for you I have two thoughts. One, if these people have not told Blair her true physical condition, she is certainly old enough to ask her doctors herself and legally they have to answer.

Second of all, I find it extremely hard to believe that accomodations could not have been made for her to participate in her PE class even in a limited form. With all the other things she accomplished, this would have been doable as well.

Thirdly, if you are a true friend of this family, you will help them regain their perspective in life. It's not too late for Blair to have a wonderful life, but this lawsuit is not furthering that goal in the least.

My son was not even in the top 20 of his graduating class, but after one year of a prep program (one of 100 individuals selected nationwide for this particular program) he will be entering a school that is considered one of the top ten in difficulty of admission. Possibly he could have gotten in directly if I had helped him orchestrate his AP classes a bit differently, but in the long run he still got in his school of choice and has a bright future ahead of him.

Interestingly this kid forgot to pick up his "honor cords" for graduation, and marched across the stage with no visible tokens of his achievements. He couldn't have cared less.

--posted by connie reagan @ Saturday, July 26 2003, 14:47 pm EDT

After reading all the comments on Blair including some of my comments and the reactions that follow, I have come to the conclusion that the Blair Horstine Project is dead. Blair is not going to Harvard University at all. SHe will spend the next year, reassessing her goals as well as handling the pending legal issue gainst the school district.

The best thing this person needs is total privacy in order to reconnect with herself and to reasssess her needs. Settling the lawsuit against the school district with both sides admitting to no liability is a first step. The dollars involved will be a topic of interest unless it is for a nominal sum like the time when a federal court judge awarded the United States Football League the grand sum of $3 for antitrust damages in 1985. That sum of money is all that is worth of Blair's lawsuit against the school district.

In the meantime, it is time for people to stop their vitrolic attacks and to let the issue die in its own anonymity. And it is time for her most fervent defender Mrs MM to cease and desist from posting on this site because the more she posts, the more she stirs up people and the more cretins she attracts to the site. Any lawyer worth his or her salt on the Horstine defense team would not want Mrs MM to be defending Blair from every vitrolic comment as that is not her job, only the job of the lawyers to do so. And the lawyers will not respond to anonymous internet postings as the only venue they will respond to is in a court of law.

When we ignore the issue and when we stop posting on the site, we will allow the issue to fade from public knowledge and for those in the Horstine camp who revel in such attention to get the straight and brutal message that they have to get a life and to go on living as the world changes with new issues popping up every day.

If anybody is bothering to look, there are new kids coming into school with high hopes and plans, that is where the focus should be placed on, not Blair Horstine who has graduated and is on her own to find her own way in the journey of life.

Jim

--posted by James Goodwin @ Saturday, July 26 2003, 23:03 pm EDT

Jim

I think the point is not what will happen to BH, but rather, what made this story newsworthy in the first place. It is the most extreme example of how far from the intended consequences of a system designed to permit those who are disabled to derive the full benefits of our educational programs can go.

It provides commentary on us as a competitive society, and raises the question of whether we shouldn't make modifications in both the awarding of recognition of individual students, and in the identification and classification of special needs students. These are sensitive and difficult matters that really do need to be constantly examined and reexamined.

While some here, including myself, are somewhat chagrined at the behavior of BH and those who surround her, the issues are really much larger. It really is not in the public interest to have the issues fade from public knowlege, as you suggest.

As to BH, she does, as I have said before, have the ability to control her own destiny with respect to the suit and all that surrounds it. My post above suggests that she can withdraw it, and it will be over. The underlying issues, however, should be addressed. I have already asked the school board in my town, in light of this case, to take a look at its policies with regard to the issues raised. I don't take a strong position, but believe that this case can provide the impetus for some much needed review of existing policies.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, July 28 2003, 12:03 pm EDT

"Wondering" raises some interesting points. I too think that the trials and tribulations of Ms. Blair are indicative of a certain strain of our society that has perverted the concept of academic achievement, and, with it, the experience of adolescence in general. Not that Ms. Blair ought to bear the cross for these societal flaws, but her case does raise issues that must be addressed. As has been discussed ad infinitum above, the case also raises questions with regard to learning disabilities &c., that also cannot be simply "forgotten" because the case of one particular New Jersey young woman has been rendered moot.
As for the lawsuit, it would be stand-up (classy?) for the lawsuit to be dropped. Need I say more?

Matt

--posted by Matt @ Monday, July 28 2003, 14:38 pm EDT

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. What follows is from the Moorestown High School Student Conduct and Consequences Handbook. Modes of behavior and conduct surely apply in one's life outside of school, particularly when attempting to "wordsmith" the words of others and attempting to pass them off as one's own in such a public forum as a newspaper.

"Academic Dishonesty / Cheating
Learning requires that students assume full and personal responsibility for their work. Unless otherwise directed, all assignments must be independently completed. Any student identified as having or using unauthorized aid, falsifying or providing false information and or copying other’s work will receive a grade of “O” for that assignment and/or may lose credit for the entire course at the discretion of the teacher and administration. Plagiarism, the failure to acknowledge the ideas of someone else, and submitting work that is not your own is considered cheating. It will not be tolerated in any school work. In a course requirement (i.e., junior English research paper), cheating will result in a failure for that course and may forfeit your right to enroll in the same course in summer school." http://www.mtps.com/hs/handbook/chandbookx.stm

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Monday, July 28 2003, 16:08 pm EDT

Do the crime: Get it through your head...the Plagiarism had NOTHING to do with her school work or the court case. The school DID NOT find any of her work that did not meet the proper criteria for school work. And if there was no court case, the articles in the Courier Post would never have been reviewed at this late date.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 17:42 pm EDT

And dear old Jim: You can shut me up when the freedom of my speech is removed.

And furthermore, I assume you must know ALL the lawyers in the world when you state they would not want me defending her on the internet or in the newspaper, etc. That statement of yours is so irrelevant and ridicilous. Do I look like I am in a court of law? And who says that the lawyers are interested in reading any comments, by me or you on the Internet. That paragraph of yours is mixing oranges and apples.

Schadenfreude, jealousy and guilt are the only reason that this case has received such notoriety.

It will fade, but will I????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 17:54 pm EDT

I think we all understand that Blair's plagiarism had nothing to do with her school work...and with her legal case vis-a-vis the school system. I merely point out that her defense (i.e. I didn't know I was supposed to give attribution to authors whose works I lifted word-for-word in five newspaper articles) - and the defense of others (like Mrs MM) that she should not be held responsible for plagiarizing - is groundless. It is likely that Harvard rescinded her acceptance based on these incidents of plagiarism.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:04 pm EDT

"Modes of behavior and conduct surely apply in one's life outside of school, particularly when attempting to "wordsmith" the words of others and attempting to pass them off as one's own in such a public forum as a newspaper."

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:05 pm EDT

It is at least a 50-50 deal that Harvard's action were precipitated by the plagiarism. Since you agree with me, publishing info from MHS handbook is not appplicable to the law case. So why add insult to injury?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:12 pm EDT

But it has NOTHING to do with the court case

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:12 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

Looking at your recent posting to dothecrimedothetime got me thinking. Let's take a look at some 100% indisputable facts:

A: Blair is a student at MHS
B: All MHS students must follow the guidelines in the MHS Student Handbook

A ^ B -> Blair must follow the guidelines in the MHS Student Handboook

C: Blair is a plagiarist
D: Any MHS student who plagiarizes in his or her schoolwork will be assigned an F to the course and not be eligible to enroll in the same course in summer school.

The following is *NOT* true:

A ^ D ^ C -> Blair will be assigned an F to those courses in which she plagiarized and not be eligible to enroll in the same course in summer school.

This is false because we do not know if Blair has plagiarized in her schoolwork. We do know that Blair has plagiarized in her Courier-Post articles, but those are, as you so vehemently repeat, not part of her MHS coursework.

What dothecrimedothetime is pointing out is that plagiarism has serious consequences, such as:

E: Harvard will rescind admission because of plagiarism

C ^ E -> Harvard rescinded Blair's admission.

Historically, this has been proven to be the case. There may be exceptions to this rule that we have not heard about, but Harvard is pretty strict about their academic rules and regulations.

From the two examples that we have, we see that plagiarism is a serious offense with serious consequences.

Now, if it is come to be known that:

F: Blair is a plagiarist at MHS

A ^ B ^ D ^ F -> ???

I think it's safe to say that Blair would be stripped of her valedictorian award and the court case would be thrown out and no damages awarded to Blair.

If there's a chance that the school district would lose $2.7 million dollars from this court case, I would expect the school board to go over Blair's schoolwork over the past four years. Blair's plagiarism has EVERYTHING to do with the court case and her valedictorian award.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:21 pm EDT

Adam: I know you have a chip on your shoulder about Blair, but her plagiarism "probably" denied her admission to Harvard. If you read the story in last Sunday's New York Times in the New Jersey section, (I was unable to pull it up on the net)you will note that the President of the School Board said that the school was or did look into Blair's work. As a result of their investigating, no improprieties were/have been found at this time. I have recently read an article (again, I cannot find at this time), that the school board IS admitting their fault in this case and is negotiating with the family.

You would be able to knock me over with a feather if Ms. H. received anything in the neighborhood of $2.7 but stranger things have happened.

I have it on 100% accurate authority that the school board will pay something.

Plagiarism is a serious offense, but it will not rear its ugly head in settlement conferences with the MHS Board.

The plagiarism issue in this case is similiar to a rape case where the victim's prior sex habits are not permitted to be discussed in a trial. One has nothing to do with the other. No is No. Plagiarism in the Courier Post is not in school or a school activity.

Now, how long must this scenerio of Plagiarism in the Courier Post be held over her head? One year? Through four years of college? Forever?

Will she have a right (saying she earned it academically now or in the future) to ever attend Stanford?????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:39 pm EDT

It would be appropriate for Blair to acknowledge her plagiarism...and take responsibility for her actions. It will take some time and doing for her to reestablish credibility and trust.

--posted by dothecrimedothe time @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:46 pm EDT

" I hope that others learn from my unfortunate, unintentional omissions." (http://www.courierpostonline.com/static/st060303g.html). Hardly, taking responsibility. More like avoiding the situation.

--posted by dothecrimedothe time @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:48 pm EDT

I believe she acknowledged. She did not give a mea culpa, as some believe she should. She believed that she was doing the right thing when writing her pieces and found out afterward that she did not. People do stupid things all the time. What do you want her to do? Beg for mercy? Some people would not even want that or accept that.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:49 pm EDT

One of the best begging for mercy scenes I've seen was Hans Gruber in Die Hard. Of course, that involved two counts of acting on the part of Alan Rickmann playing Hans Gruber, but it was certainly believable on screen :)

In all seriousness, as dothecrimedothetime said, it would take some time and action on her part, but it is possible for her to move on with her life.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:56 pm EDT

I *do* think she should give a mea culpa. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and when she found out that she was incorrect, she should've offered up an apologia. Nobody's asking her to "beg for mercy." And again, your allusions are offensive, Mrs. MM. Rape and plagiarism should not be compared, ever. One is a violent act perpetrated against another person, and the other is an act (willful or not) of no violence, where there is no "victim" but the guilty party.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, July 28 2003, 19:55 pm EDT

My comment on plagiarism was misphrased. What I meant to say was that there are no negative repercussions for anyone but the guilty party--there are, of course, victims in plagiarism, namely the readership of a newspaper, the original authors of text, and, in an academic setting, people who have earned their accolades as opposed to those who steal them.

(Preemptive shush to Mrs. MM. I never used Blair's name. Please don't plan on insinuating that I think Blair's a thief, or whatever it is you've cooked up this time.)

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, July 28 2003, 19:58 pm EDT

I am not cooking up anything but truth and justice. If the readership of newspapers are victims, then so are friends, family, etc of the guilty party and/or suspect in a violent crime.

There is NO crime in Plagiarism. Plagiarism is not proper, not nice and not the way to go, but at last look it is neither a violent, criminal, civil or motor vehicle crime. I don't believe that a plagiarizer can even get the equivalent fine of a parking ticket. Even J-walking is considered a fineable breach of law.

How, my goodness, did M.L. King, Kennedy, and on and on survive this viciousness of plagiarism?

Again, I repeat. I do not condone plagiarism. That "crime" has had its payback. It is just not the reason that MHS can overlook their responsibility to suffer the consequences of the Valedictorian controversy.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 20:27 pm EDT

::De-Lurking::

"Now, how long must this scenerio of Plagiarism in the Courier Post be held over her head? One year? Through four years of college? Forever?"

I should think that at least through four years of college. If I were a professor of hers, I would certainly be very suspicious of anything and everything she ever turned in.

Those are called 'Natural Consequences".

Consequences which are probably worsened because she took no responsibility. There is no way she could be as intelligent as you claim she is, Mrs. MM, and not know she has to cite works.

She claims that she knew plagirism was wrong, and new other's words needed citation, but didn't know how it was done in newspapers, so simply /chose/ to contain /entire paragraps/ of other's words with no citation.

When someone is truly intelligent, they know how to ask questions. They know how to clarify. /Especially/ when they know how important an issue plagarism is. If she didn't know how to properly cite, she could have asked. It's irrelevant that she wasn't told by the paper...that excuse doesn't hold water when the girl is said to be so incredibly intelligent. She knew she was lacking in the proper knowledge, and chose to remain ignorant and simply do as she wished.

Now, unless this CFS of hers renders her incapable of asking questions, your defense of hers vis-a-vis the plagarisim is as ridiculous as her excuses. And if all the adults in her life are treating this issue the same way, I would trust her even /less/. Because clearly she doesn't accept that she did wrong.

The 'mea culpa' that is so sorely lacking would indicate she had.

And, do check the title of this web-page. It's called the Blair H Project. It's not called "We'll discuss only issues relevant to the law suit and valedictory Project."

To quote your own, typically nasty, comment to Jim-"We'll stop talking about her plagarism when you take away our right to free speech."

Blair has intentionally chosen to make herself a public figure. Hence, people can and will discuss anything about her that they like.

That's a natural consequence of making oneself public.

Perhaps that's a concept not taught by her tutors.

Pity.

Dee

--posted by Dee @ Monday, July 28 2003, 20:58 pm EDT

Dee: I sure hope you are a Moorestown Mother and taxpaper. You are ignorant, moronic and don't kow your A** from your Mouth. Ooops.. Sorry they are twins!

Pity

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 21:57 pm EDT

The MHS defines plagiarism as "cheating." BH did not "unintentionally" avoid attribution. Even she does not say that. She merely says she didn't know make the proper attribution in a journalistic piece. In other words, she confesses to ignorance.

Now, do you really suppose that anyone really believes that? I doubt it. Her defenders (rather the defenders of her conduct) say, in effect, that plagiarism is not really so bad, and, besides, she didn't do it on a school assignment, so it can't be used against her.

First, I (and, likely most others here) don't believe for a minute that BH did not know how to make proper attribution in her articles. That she made a conscious effort to pass off the material as her own, is best evidenced by the fact that she changed a few words in an effort to disguise her copying. If that was not the case, why did she make the changes?

Secondly, is it not possible for MHS to deny the honor on the grounds that BH has demonstrated such a lack of intellectual integrity as to not be deserving of such an award? Whether written in the policy or not, it seems that there is an inherent ability to deny on those grounds. Suppose someone were qualified in every way to be the class valedictirian in whatever high school, except that that person was found guilty of some crime unrelated to his/her work in school. Would Mrs. M. M. argue that the person would, nonetheless, be deserving of the award? Perhaps, but I don't think she would succeed if the school were to deny the award.

Same here. While BH has not committed any crime of which I am aware, she did engage in an activity defined in the MHS student manual as "cheating."

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:13 pm EDT

Does that mean BH is an ignorant cheat? Sounds pretty harsh.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:14 pm EDT

Two of the essays were submitted to contests. If the essays won the contests, then every other honest entry would have been harmed.

--posted by MA reader @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:16 pm EDT

Stated above: "...you will note that the President of the School Board said that the school was or did look into Blair's work. As a result of their investigating, no improprieties were/have been found at this time."

How is it possible to review a student's four years worth of academic undertakings? I know of no school that maintains an archive of a student's submissions - essays, papers, projects, etc. Under normal circumstances a student submits work to a teacher; it is graded, handed back. I think any claim of a thorough review of Blair's past is hard to substantiate.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:20 pm EDT

Blair's essay on North Korean nuclear arms (March 29, 2003) was awarded "essay of the month" by the Courier Post.

Steve LaMontagne, the senior analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation who wrote the original words, told the Burlington County times that :..."he was startled to learn...that embattled Moorestown High School valedictorian Blair Hornstine appropriated his work without attribution in an essay she wrote for a Cherry Hill newspaper....'I remember writing that,' LaMontagne said. 'It won an award?' "

from: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-06082003-103732.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:26 pm EDT

Once again a certain someone resorts to regrettable behavior on this blog, attacking someone who happens to have a differing opinion and view of the situation: "Dee: I sure hope you are a Moorestown Mother and taxpaper. You are ignorant, moronic and don't kow your A** from your Mouth. Ooops.. Sorry they are twins!".

Civility suffers!

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:28 pm EDT

In an academic setting, plagiarism is a big deal. Many of the leading schools, whether secondary schools, or colleges, have honor codes, and they do try to live by them. Tolerance for plagiarism must breed a climate of distrust; scholars would need to check every assertion in every article they read, before citing it in their own work. This is a world in which your word is your bond. A proven plagiarist does not enjoy the good reputation of a student who has not abused others' trust. Were I a professor, I would also be very wary of agreeing to mentor such a student.

The argument that "adults at the newspapers should have caught the plagiarism" is ludicrous. The editors had no reason--at that time--to suspect that a leading student at a good high school would do anything so patently stupid and self-destructive. BH warranted that the essays were her work; they took her at her word. No one will trust her in that way again.

--posted by MA reader @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

Adam:

I have a suggestion – and refer once again to Clay Shirky’s insightful presentation regarding online conversations/dialogues: "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" (http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html).

As Clay states in his essay and elsewhere, there are frequently participants in any “open” forum (one which is based on anonymity and is marked by a lack of accountability) who will resort to base human behavior (i.e. insults, attacks of character, etc); who will often obfuscate and misdirect any meaningful discussion at hand. From years of experience – and examples set by other online forums (i.e. The Well, etc.) it has become clear that a moderated discussion is often needed – and/or a forum which requires some sort of “membership” and “accountability”. I suggest that you consider implementing such guidelines – by either moving this discussion to a “members-only” log-in or moderating postings.

I was impressed with the most recent postings – those which appeared today. They raised novel and interesting points; posed fascinating questions. Unfortunately, a certain participant – who constantly seeks to inflame discussion – and often resorts to personal attacks (as evidenced by her vitriolic comments directed at Dee) once again forces this blog off-track. The frustration level of those who seek a civil discussion yet again is elevated. May I suggest that we consider some standard rules of “behavior”; rules for “posting”?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

After perusing the posts here it would be fair to say that apparently Mrs. MM is playing the part of a troll. Whether or not she truly knows the family or is just blowing smoke would be difficult to prove as well.

I am a simple person. When I observe that someone plagiarizes-in a public venue-and more than once-I do not consider that a mistake. I consider that deliberate deception and intellectual theft. My opinion of Blair would be improved immensely if she would quit making excuses and simply admit that what she did was NOT out of ignorance. To believe that it was is ludicrous.

--posted by connie @ Monday, July 28 2003, 22:56 pm EDT

BTW – Mrs MM, let me remind of your words of Saturday, July 5 2003, 18:00 pm EDT: “I, too, do not understand how ALL four years of work was reviewed.”

At times you claim that Blair’s high school work has been thoroughly reviewed (“It is something that I have from a solid source.”); other times you demur. Fancy foot-work.

I venture to guess that no review of her four years is possible.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, July 28 2003, 23:16 pm EDT

Regarding many handicapped students under school districts that are protected by the tenets of the ADA and accorded every opportunity to keep up with their classmates by way of special tutoring, longer test taking times, very few disabled students are able to earn a perfect GPA of 4.0 and to be named valecdictorian in an intense competitive environment. Most disabled students end up with C's or D's and end up socially promoted untill they receive a hs diploma which will not help them much in the world of work. That depends on what school district they go to. There are some who are able to get a A or B average and they succeed in college with proper support provided, but these numbers are very small.

I am not going to argue BH's elgibility under the ADA and whether or not she took advantage of this. But, I will say that what happened was something she and her father never dreamed would happen when they took action in the legal system to get back what they thought was righfully hers. They never thought that it would turn the whole community, state and country against them and result in plagarism being discovered on BH's part and her admission to Harvard being rescinded.

If there is a settlement to BH's lawsuit and if MM is right on good authority, the only reason it will be settled is to save on legal fees and the only place paying the settlement will be the school district's insurer. Whatever settlement is paid will not be disclosed publicily.

Harvard was sending BH a not too subtle message to clean up her mess with the school district before they would even consider her for admission. I find it interesting that BH and her lawyers did not even bother to run to the judge to ask for a restraining order to force Harvard to accept her in the freshman class until this matter is resolved.

Jim

--posted by James Goodwin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 0:52 am EDT

Jim: Very well put. I personally think that the issue of plagiarism was the reason that Blair's admission to Harvard was rescinded. It would be difficult for the college to "square" such behavior with the admissions policy and code of conduct on campus.

BTW - it's interesting to note that on hearing about Harvard's rejecting Blair's admission, her attorney Edwin Jacobs said that Blair had decided to withdraw her application/admission to Harvard. To me it smacks a bit like "you can't fire me, I quit". And - as he had stated her reason for not attending her graduation at Moorsetown High School was due to a "hostile environment" ... he cites such as the primary reason for Blair's voluntary election not to head to Cambridge this fall. Once again - no accountability is taken for her own actions. She's cast as a victim ... and "others" are to blame for her predicament.

"Hornstine’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs Jr., says the rejection was mutual. 'Blair had decided to tender a withdrawal of her application simply because of the rabid, negative publicity on that campus,' he says. Harvard won’t comment, but accepted students are always told that admission can be revoked for behavior that questions 'honesty, maturity or moral character.' .... 'Blair has been exploring other alternatives, namely campuses less hostile than Harvard,' says Jacobs." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938181.asp).

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 7:47 am EDT

I wonder if the Board of Education can keep the terms of a settlement confidential. Once the matter is over, what justification is there for keeping the terms from the public? The BOE is a public body and its business is the public's business. There is an Open Public Records law in NJ which permits access to most public documents. Also, there is a long tradition in the public's right to know what those it has elected has done with its money.

Can anyone shed more light on this? I think, if really pressed, the BOE would have to make disclosure of all of the terms of the settlement, even the amount of the settlement provided by insurance.

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 9:07 am EDT

Mrs. M.M.: “There is NO crime in Plagiarism. Plagiarism is not proper, not nice and not the way to go, but at last look it is neither a violent, criminal, civil or motor vehicle crime. I don't believe that a plagiarizer can even get the equivalent fine of a parking ticket. Even J-walking is considered a fineable breach of law.” --posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 20:27 pm EDT

-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_what_is_plagiarism.html:

- It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse.

- If a plagiarist receives more than $2,500 for copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail!

http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_faqs.html:

Legal Punishments

Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.

Plagiarism can also be considered a felony under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail.
-------------------------------------------------------
Check these out for more info: http://www.plagiarism.org/index.html & http://www.turnitin.com

--posted by onlooker @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 12:01 pm EDT

Connie: Since I am not a drawf or giant living in a cave, and you use the noun "troll" to describe me, I
assume you believe that I am attempting to use a line to lure you into my thoughts. Okay!. I agree! I will not comment on your being a "simple person."

Cambrigema: I said "I" did not understand how the school would review all (4 years) the work. I further said that the "School Board President" SAID that they would review all of Miss H.'s work.

As I know you are proud that Harvard rescinded the admission, please also understand that Miss H's brother was besieged with 250-300 e mails a day (yes 250-300) commenting on his sister and/or looking for interviews/information, etc. His e mail address was easily accessable through Harvard edu. Possibly in order to give her brother some space and peace besides her own sanity, Miss H. had decided to "tender her withdrawal" for this September.

SHE caused her predicament by the law suit filing and the plagiarism. OTHERS are to blame for the hate mail,petitions, blog pages,comments, property damage, threats, etc. To this date she is still receiving "hate mail", like letters hoping she will have to suffer through community college because she is a ..... or hoping she gets AIDS. I did notice that previous posters here had the identical sentiments. I wonder, I wonder...

I will ask you the same questions that I asked Adam: When is enough a enough? How long must she wait it out (pending continuing good marks, etc.) before you believe she can go to Harvard? When do YOU stop punishing an eighteen year old? A week? A Year, Two years? Forever?

P.S.
Have any of you noticed that KYW 1060, Michael Smerconish of 1210(?) and a columnist for the Daily News rescinded their "original" comments after reading the transcript and/or Judicial opinion. They, too, noted that the AP sent some erroneous information over the wire. Food for thought and your disagreement, I am sure.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 12:15 pm EDT

There is a particular Internet meaning for the word "troll." I assumed everyone here would be familiar with it.

--posted by connie @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 12:26 pm EDT

Onlooker: Miss H. did not get paid for HER work. Therefore, this is a moot point, as previously pointed out.

Now how about some statistics that go to show that Miss H. is probably in the majority of students, not the minority and certainly not one in a million:

.

Plagiarism statistics

According to surveys in U.S. News and World Report***
80% of "high-achieving" high school students admit to cheating.
51% of high school students did not believe cheating was wrong.
95% of cheating high school students said that they had not been detected.
75% of college students admitted cheating, and 90% of college students didn't believe cheaters would be caught.
Almost 85% of college students said cheating was necessary to get ahead.
Professor Donald McCabe, leading expert in academic integrity, in a May 2001 study of over 4500 high school students, found the following:****
72% of students reported one or more instances of serious cheating on written work
15% had submitted a paper obtained in large part from a term paper mill or website
52% had copied a few sentences from a website w/o citing the source
90% of the students using the Internet to plagiarize had also plagiarized from written sources.

In a sample of 1,800 students at nine state universities:*****
70% of the students admitted to cheating on exams
84% admitted to cheating on written assignments
over 45% admitted to collaborating inappropriately with others on assignments

TURNITIN.COM and other programs are used by universities and NEWPAPERS all over the country to prevent the Courier Post/Blair Hornstine situation. The newspaper and/or editors were very negligent in not using one of these programs in overseeing a student's work. IT DOESN'T excuse Miss H , but it sure does not bode well for a respectible newspaper and their staff.

The statistics only prove that "she" got caught. Like driving over the speed limit....one in how many get caught?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 12:28 pm EDT

Connie: I do not troll the internet; normally have more important things to do. I do not live in a cave. I don't know all the internet "lingo". However, I bet a buck or two that you are not calling me a beautiful, intelligent and wonderful human being. Guess what? I am. My arm does reach so I can pat myself on the back.

Connie, I am so glad that you are "bright" enough to know all the lingo. Tell me, how about the dictionary and thesaurus, are you familiar with them?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 12:32 pm EDT

So if eighty percent of the people who egged Blair's house were not caught, would it be the police department's fault or the eggers' fault that the house was egged?

You're actually refining your method, Mrs. MM--you ignore the actual issues presented to you in lieu of personal attacks. If you can't find an answer, or if you can't come up with a piece of witty repartee that puts your dear Miss Hornstine in a good light, you will attack the person's grammar or spelling, insinuate that they're intellectually slow, or simply ignore their postings altogether. Your credibility would be greatly enhanced, I think, if you stopped posting until you had something substantive and relevant to say.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 12:45 pm EDT

Substantive and relevant - witty repartee? There is no doubt that I meet that criteria. It sure does bug the s**t out of you and some others that I just don't want to put this young lady down and am standing up truth and justice. It sure does bug the same ones that my info is correct, my opinions don't agree with lots of you and my credibility is genuine. When I am proved 100% accurate without an iota of doubt, how many mea culpas will be forthcoming from this blog?????

AS LONG AS I BREATHE, I WILL DEFEND INJUSTICE AND ANYONE, ESPECIALLY B.L.H., WHOM I BELIEVE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WELL BY THIS INJUSTICE.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:05 pm EDT

roflmao!

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:39 pm EDT

So, if the majority cheats - that makes it okay to cheat?

Newspapers trust that their writers, correspondents and columnists are presenting their own words. I know of no newspaper - or school - that reviews each and every submission. The costs and turn-around time would be prohibitive. There would be no possible way that they could meet deadlines to getting their publications to press. Online tools (i.e. Google, Turnitin.com,. etc.) are new (what did editors do before the Internets rise in 1994/1995 - go to the public library and search the card catalog and stacks?) - and often resorted to when there is reasonable suspicion that someone has plagiarized. It is facetious to infer that it was/is the responsibility of the Courier to prevent their writers from submitting plagiarized works. What Blair did was wrong. She suffers the consequences ... and hopefully ... over time will be able to reestablish credibility and trust. Any attempts to shift the blame, to recast the sitiation into one in which Blair is the "victim" is ludicrous.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:47 pm EDT

ROFLMAO!!! not as much as I did when you did not show up at Starbucks, dear Cretin.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:51 pm EDT

correction:

[before the rise of the World Wide Web in 1994/1995, following the introduction of the first popularly available browser - Netscape Navigtor]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:51 pm EDT

Mrs. MM - you have represented before that you were (are?) a teacher - and one who (if I recall correctly) taught at a community college in NJ. Did you (do you) undertake the laborious process of searching for lifted words, phrases, etc. from your students' work? What resources did you utilize?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:58 pm EDT

Considering I wasn't even in town that day, I don't know how anyone could have actually expected me to show up at that Starbucks.

Maybe you can teleport, but I can't.

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 13:59 pm EDT

To provide some perspective: Turnitin.com was the first Internet based plagiarism detection service and was launched in 1996; Google was launched in 1998.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:02 pm EDT

..ma: All the MAJOR universities and most newspapers (some advertising agencies) use one form or another of these programs to discourage or prevent plagiarism.It only takes a few minutes to review these words. Why do you think they were "invented?" Plagiarizm like "sh*t does happen. This is year 2003 - less and less plagiarism is normally now seen. Your dear old alma mater uses same when reviewing applicants' applications papers and other works. No one is given a license to lie, cheat or plagiarize, but there are "ways" to check up on people who submit work.(No different than employers or some colleges that do credit and criminal checks) Why would good old Harvard use such a vehicle if they think that the wonderful applicants for admission would not do such a thing? Cheating, running red lights, etc. happen. I can not right a wrong, but I can support injustice.

You didn't answer "MY" question. How long will you crucify her? How long before YOU allow her to go to Harvard?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:02 pm EDT

BTW - Mrss MM - Turnitin.com only has clients in the academic arena - and currently have 22 clients...Boston University, California International Baccalaureate Consortium, California State University System, Duke University, Florida International Baccalaureate Consortium, Georgetown University, Houston Independent School District, Manakau Institute of Technology, New Zealand
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, Swarthmore College, The Citadel, Trinity College, Tulane University, University of California, Irvine, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, San Diego, University of Leeds, UK, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, University of Western Ontario, US Military Academy, West Point, Wesleyan University,

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:05 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

I don't think anyone on this blog can allow Blair to go to Harvard. Had Harvard not rescinded her admission, no one was stopping Blair from attending the university but herself (or her family and lawyers). Yes, there would likely have been controversy and criticism, but why should that have stopped her? She's certainly shown that she has a lot of fight in her and is willing to go to extremes to get her way.

Many people will continue to be critical of her until she shows some genuine remorse at her actions. Up until now, she hasn't done that.

You no doubt think of Blair in a different light. I recognize your opinion but I disagree with it.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:17 pm EDT

cambridgema:

I may switch the discussion to my forums board in the future. It's not as bad as it was before, thankfully, so we'll give it a try for a little while longer before a decision is made.

Thanks for the suggestion.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:19 pm EDT

It doesn't bother me at all that you don't just want to put down Blair. It bothers me that, in the time I've been here, you've spent less and less time making substantive comments, and more and more time making crude, ineffective, insulting analogies, as well as personal attacks. You're not contributing anything any more. You're just mourning what you see as a perceived slight against Blair, when in reality there's not a thing any of us can do to get Blair into Harvard. Including, might I add, you.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:27 pm EDT

"Noun
Definition 1: Reference to a person who enters internet chat rooms and forums for the sole purpose of creating havoc, controversy, and discontent. The word stems from the fishing term "trolling," which involves slowing pulling your line behind a boat in hopes of catching some unsuspecting fish as "bait" moves past them. In a similar manner, an internet troll makes posts or comments that he/she hopes will catch the interest of others and create the havoc that they crave."

I think Blair should accept the fact that her actions caused Harvard to reject her. That would be the mark of a mature person, and for all I know that may be the conclusion she has arrived at.

There are other schools. There are other ways to develop what is obviously a very fine mind. And this character lesson, harsh though it may be, may actually turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to her in the long run. Life is more than the classroom, and this lifechanging point could very well serve as the thing that enables Blair to reach her highest potential as a human being.

--posted by connie @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:30 pm EDT

Adam: Ever? A public apology in 5 years would bring this entire mess up again. That would be a little ridiculous, don't you think?

..Ma: Turnitin is ABSOLUTELY not the only ship of this kind. I did previously mention "use one form or another". With that I meant this program or a competitor. I believe there are more than a half dozen of these good systems available at this time .

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:35 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

> Ever? A public apology in 5 years would bring this entire
> mess up again. That would be a little ridiculous, don't you think?

Where did I say 5 years?

Uh, that's why she should apologize *now* rather than 5 years from now. That would not absolve her completely in my eyes, but it would lay a small foundation for her future absolution.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:43 pm EDT

You did NOT say 5 years. I was just posting a premise or asking a question...like do you think she will have served her time in 5 years? If she doesn't "apologize" in your terms (I "think" she feels she "Did" in her terminology - not debating that, how long does her "punishment" last?

--posted by MRs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 14:56 pm EDT

UVa has expelled 48 students for plagiarism. Here's a link: http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/27/3de4cbfebbfe4

Headline in "The Daily Tar Heel": 48 Expelled as Cheating Trial Ends

--posted by MA reader @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:01 pm EDT

I have not influence on Blair getting into Harvard. I am confident that she won't be attending Harvard College for her undergraduate studies. Who can say when/if she will attend any graduate programs.

BTW - Mrs MM...I will check with my friends in Byerly Hall to see if Undergraduate Admissions submitted the essays from all 19,609 applicants this past year to any electronic screening for plagiarism. I'm willing to bet that they didn't.

You continue to amaze me in your attempts at obfuscation - and purported "inside" knowledge in so many domains.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:02 pm EDT

[I have no influence]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:03 pm EDT

Why did it take the prof so long to catch the plagiarism? Shame on him! It must be his fault it happened in the first place, right?

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:05 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

> If she doesn't "apologize" in your terms (I "think" she feels she "Did" in her terminology - not debating that, how long does her "punishment" last?

Everyone has a different opinion on how long her punishment should last and what form such punishment should take. There's no use in asking everyone here what they think, because you'll get a different answer everytime (unless you want more stuff to debate).

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:11 pm EDT

Please check with your friends in Byerly Hall. I am anxious to hear the answer. I did read the article in the New York Times a week plus ago where the "spokesman" for the Admission office (I forget her name and exact position - I think it was spokesman) said that Harvard did or does check admission applications of future students for plagiarism.

I DO know what I read. I certainly am not attempting to obscure anything. Quite the contrary. I have been for weeks attempting to set the
perspicuousness in this case.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

No, I certainly wouldn't ask everyone. I just ask you and ...Ma because of your feelings for your alma maters, Stanford and Harvard...two schools which will some day possibly see BLH.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:20 pm EDT

Has anyone done research to discover if Harvard, or any other big-name schools, have ever admitted someone whose admission had formerly been rescinded? I wonder if there's a precedent for this sort of thing.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:25 pm EDT

"Stanford and Harvard...two schools which will some day possibly see BLH."

Your sense of humor continues to amuse me. Keep it up!

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:25 pm EDT

Cretin: Talk about flamming and trolls. Your post does not make the least bit of sense. What "prof"? "His fault" for what?

Isn't the post of yours a true definition of flamming and trolling? Trying to incite? self hatred? depressed? Abusive? It sure is NOT ME.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:27 pm EDT

Who knows? Blair may indeed enter one of the graduate programs at Harvard in the future. Fine with me. She's obviously a bright, intelligent person with significant potential. I've never quibbled with such. I do think she is paying the price of not being allowed to matriculate at Harvard College as a result of her plagiarism. Assuming she takes responsibility for her recent actions - and she is able to excel in another academic setting - she'll likely find herself on track for a number of first-rate graduate programs at many quality institutions.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:27 pm EDT

BTW - Mrs MM - and others in NJ ... I do understand that the New Jersey section of the New York Times did have an article on Blair in its Sunday edition (July 20). As we've all noted - it is not available online. I am wondering if there is some other resource online which has made reference - or, excerpted - from it. A Google search reveals nothing. Are you aware of any public access to it? I'd welcome the opportunity to read it.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:31 pm EDT

Tufts. Gina Grant. Nuff said.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=6354

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:31 pm EDT

Where do we rank Cambridge University among Harvard and Stanford? The one in the United Kingdom (England).

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:31 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... cretin's posting ("Why did it take the prof so long to catch the plagiarism?") refers to the professor at UVa mentioned in the article whch MAReader referenced at: http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/27/3de4cbfebbfe4. He was being ironic.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:33 pm EDT

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/27/3de4cbfebbfe4

Mrs. M.M., if you had read this, you would have known what I was talking about.

I want to know if it is Prof. Bloomfield's fault for not having discovered it sooner.

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:33 pm EDT

Thanks, cambridgema. You're quicker than me. ;-)

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:35 pm EDT

I hope Bliar (hmmm, Freudian slip!? - I'll leave it for posterity...) does go to Cambridge. Let the Brits deal with her.

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:38 pm EDT

The article you posted could be slightly changed to reflect BLH's situation. Change the name and the crime.

I did note that Tufts said ""It is our view that having paid her debt to society, she should not be denied the opportunity of pursuing a college degree," Van Camp said. "We aim to do all that we can to help her achieve this goal. We are, after all, a just and fair society, and Tufts is a caring and forgiving institution."

I also noted that most of the student body did not care that she was in attendance. One or more only complained about the reporters, etc. If the student newspaper did not go around and do interviews, most people there would not of or could not have cared...or yet, even known. And that was in 1995. Where is she now? Does anyone care?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:38 pm EDT

I think most people consider Cambridge, Oxford, the Sorbonne and St. Andrews to be first-rate institutions. Heck - they have many more centuries of history behind them than does our oldest institution of higher education (Harvard - 1636). I think Blair would benefit from studying overseas. The anonymity that she will likely be afforded should allow her to focus on her studies.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:39 pm EDT

Gina Grant's admission to Harvard was rescinded not because she killed her mother, but because she failed to disclose that she had spent time in a juvenile detention center. She had doctored her past. This flew in the face of full disclosure. Her acceptance being withdrawn caused a lot of controversy in the Boston area - with people supporting the University's decision; others decrying it.

From a commentary on the situation:

"Harvard says that Grant's lie prompted the rescission of her acceptance. Harvard does reserve this right; they usually use it when high school seniors forget they still have classes and become C students. Grant, though, was no mere C student. Whether based on the killing or the lying, Harvard made a moral decision. It is in this context that one hopes for the rebirth of an era of strong leadership at Harvard. Once again, the media did not intimidate the University. Once again, somebody was willing to cry out, "This is wrong." Someone at Harvard actually stood up to public outcry and stood by an unpopular decision, without once wavering. The event is all the more remarkable because it required Harvard to initially admit that it was wrong. Someone conceded that accepting Gina Grant was incorrect. Harvard took responsibility for an error."

also ...

"Some people question the propriety of the decision. The Puritans who founded this college must laugh in their graves at such protests. A Kennedy was kicked out for a year for cheating. People have been expelled and expunged from Harvard's records for plagiarizing. Harvard rejects thousands of applicants every year, for arbitrary reasons. The school is the most competitive in the country. And we're worried about the morality of rejecting a girl who killed her mother? If she had plagiarized in high school, would Harvard accept her? Not likely. If she were a boy who had raped a girl, would America care about the acceptance being rescinded? Hardly. And in none of these cases should we feel remorse, guilt, or concern about the rescission. Harvard's admissions policy does not guarantee anyone's acceptance. Harvard is a private institution. It decides who can come here and who can not."

http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~salient/issues/950424/page6.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:48 pm EDT

...ma and Cretin: No I had not read the article, but I was sort of familiar with the situation. I had heard it awhile ago. Do you two really think that plagiarism does not go on day in and day out? Do you think that these kids were the first or the last to be thrown out because of plagiarism? Discovering it sooner? Without these new "programs" it was easier to plagiarize. The internet almost became a license to plagiarize because more sentences were at everyone's disposal. Thus, along came the anti-plagiarism programs. Is it too late to banish King and Kennedy? Shall we take away their honors, Positions, etc? Do you like them or hate them any more or less because they plagiarized? The truth is most people don't give a damn.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:48 pm EDT

The last time I checked, King and Kennedy hadn't filed lawsuits for exorbitant and undeserved sums of money.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:51 pm EDT

So it really is the almighty buck that is bugging you!!
Get over it. Money will never buy YOU happiness. You are obsessed with it. Move on...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:58 pm EDT

No, money won't ever buy me happiness. I'm happy enough as it is.

The person you should be telling this to is Blair. I'm not trying to get something for nothing here. I didn't plagiarize, I didn't press charges. Maybe it's you who should move on.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 15:59 pm EDT

...I just read the Gina Grant info. So Harvard was correct you feel? Okay...but she did the crime and paid. Where is she now? Isn't it time that we just let her fade into the wind? So you think Harvard did right? They can obviously do what they want...private institution. She is not the first felon who was educated at Harvard. The Crimson college has hosted other student who have previously or as students, lied cheated or did the criminal deed. How do we chose which ones we will criticize? Ah ha...the ones we know about.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:01 pm EDT

So - if others are plagiarizing, then it makes it okay for Blair to plagiarize? So, I guess you feel that her only "crime" was "getting caught"? Does the actions of others before her absolve her of responsibility for lifting complete paragraphs, consciously massaging them a bit and then publishing them in a publication intended for reading by thousands?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:02 pm EDT

I didn't say whether or not I felt Harvard was correct in the Gina Grant case. I do recall that it was of considerable interest to many here in Boston - particularly in that she was a local student (coming from Cambridge Rindge and Latin) - and had been through a horrible ordeal.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:04 pm EDT

>>Ma:

"I think most people consider Cambridge, Oxford, the Sorbonne and St. Andrews to be first-rate institutions. Heck - they have many more centuries of history behind them than does our oldest institution of higher education (Harvard - 1636). I think Blair would benefit from studying overseas. "


Now again, how would you feel if you were an alum from any of the above? Bet you would change your feelings.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:04 pm EDT

I don't "like or hate" anyone who plagiarizes. I do think, though, that it is wrong to plagiarize - and that those who are guilty of such deserve their "just desserts".

I have no opinion on Blair personally - as I have not met her - nor have I had a chance to dpend anytime with her.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:07 pm EDT

[to spend any time with her]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:08 pm EDT

How about quoting the rest of the line, Mrs. MM?

"The anonymity that she will likely be afforded should allow her to focus on her studies."

Not every post everyone makes here is trying to ruin young Blair's life. Sorry.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:08 pm EDT

...Ma: Many here want to compare BLH to Jasmine Karo, who recently killed her abusive Father. Some posts here (especially Cretin) and many local newspaper articles compare the two because of age and not being able to attend their high school graduations. Cretin, I believe was the one, suggested that both of these young ladies go to the local community college. IF Harvard was wrong with Gina, then could Harvard again erred with Blair? If Gina was given unfair treatment, why is Jasmine given very popular treatment? Again, food for thought..

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:09 pm EDT

Well, I did also study at Oxford ... and do believe that academic standards do need to be enforced. In the case of Harvard, they make it very clear that plagiarism will not be tolerated. The degree of tolerance may differ for other schools and programs.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:10 pm EDT

BLH will have anonymity by November in any college she goes to. Wherever she goes, her name will spring up again when she graduates or goes on to grad school...then it will be a postscript in the newspapers...probably after the Classified.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:11 pm EDT

But is plagiarism at Harvard for a graded paper, the same as plagiarism in the school newspaper? Just wondering. I know p is p. But would a small blurb that is not the authors in the Crimson, be grounds for removal from the university Again...wondering

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:14 pm EDT

How can you be sure? A large number of college students are aware of Blair's name and her story. She may not spend her undergraduate career with as much animosity directed towards her as she has now, but it's unlikely that she'll just fade into obscurity.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:14 pm EDT

Oxford is to Cambridge as Harvard is to Yale? Oxford is to Harvard as Cambridge is to Yale? Therefore....is plagiarism, plagiarism?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:16 pm EDT

Do you know where she is presently? My point exactly.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:16 pm EDT

If she went to my university, I'd know.

My point exactly.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:18 pm EDT

I don't know yours, but she could be at someone's. Where do you matriculate?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:20 pm EDT

I am not familiar with the Jasmine Karo situation - and do not know enough about her situation ... nor the particular details about Gina Grant's full affairs. I don't think I am in any position to judge if any one - or any institution - is being fair ... or someone is being given unfair treatment. I think that Harvard's rescinding Gina's admission based solely on the fact that she had lied about her past is enough to enforce the institution's code of conduct, etc.

In the case of Blair, though, I do think that Harvard was right in rescinding its offer of admission - based on the repeated instances of plagiarism. Harvard needs to maintain its academic standards - and would potentially set a poor precedent by allowing one to be admitted after such a public display of dishonesty. I suspect students who had been expelled prior to this event would want to seek redress ... as well, future candidates and students caught plagiarizing could cite the Blair affair as reason for protesting any action against them. The University needs to maintain its academic policies. After all ... the motto of the university is Veritas!

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:21 pm EDT

Plagiarism is plagiarism. And - under all circumstances it is wrong.

I would be ashamed for an institution that sends the message: "Harvard doesn't accept plagiarists, but we do!".

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:23 pm EDT

I'm sorry (honestly), but I don't feel comforable revealing that information online. It's a nationally respected private university that is, while not an Ivy, a highly competitive and challenging school. I would place it in the Tufts-Stanford-Carnegie Mellon sort of tier, but that's just me.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:26 pm EDT

I never argued the point that Harvard should not have rescinded the admission. I had mentioned to family and friends of mine as soon as the plagiarism was "discovered" that she was in trouble with Harvard and possibly the result would be damning. I also know that Harvard "supposedly" considered rescinding another of MHS 03 grads. Obviously, he was allowed to keep his admission. I never said that Harvard did not have the right to decline her either. I do think it was a shame, but not suprising.

I just keep asking the same questions: Since her plagiarism had nothing to do with school work, when is enough a "nuf?" If she goes to Oxford and gets all A plusses, works with AIDS children, travels to Afghanistan with water for the refugees, teaches the Somalians hygiene, cooks for the ..., teaches English to ....etc. etc., will you support her for Harvard next year????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:32 pm EDT

Tufts and Stanford and Carnegie on the same tier? Interesting? I bet some will challenge that? Adam???

I truly understand you do not want to reveal your school. Then I say again, doesn't Blair deserve privacy? Or is it just because you didn't plagiarize (or at least get caught) that you deserve privacy and not BLH?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:36 pm EDT

Mrs MM … you pose an interesting scenario.

The Harvard Crimson is an independent student publication (founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967) with no official affiliation with the College and University. Any plagiarism in the Crimson would likely result in removal from the staff – as it obviously seeks to maintain its “rich tradition of journalistic integrity”.

I suspect that plagiarism in the Crimson – while having been committed outside of official academic work – would be grounds for disciplinary action by the College against a student.

The College and University make it clear under the “Standards of Conduct in the Harvard Community”: (under Honesty) “The College expects that all students will be honest and forthcoming in their dealings with the members of this community….All students are required to respect private and public ownership; instances of theft, misappropriation, or unauthorized use of or damage to property or materials not one's own will ordinarily result in disciplinary action, including but not limited to requirement to withdraw from the College.” (http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student.2002-2003/chapter4/conduct.html)

Thus … Using others’ words as one’s own would likely qualify as the “misappropriation, or unauthorized use of…materials not one’s own….result[ing] in disciplinary action, including but not limited to requirement to withdraw from the College.”

While it applies to academic submissions, the College makes it clear that: “Students are expected to be familiar with the booklet entitled Writing with Sources, available in the office of the Allston Burr Senior Tutor or Assistant Dean of Freshmen….Students who, for whatever reason, submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to its sources will be subject to disciplinary action, and ordinarily required to withdraw from the College.” (http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student.2002-2003/chapter2/academic_performance.html#preppaper)

I would expect such standards of academic conduct also apply to the expectation of “honesty” outlined for all in the Harvard Community.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:48 pm EDT

...Ma: I had an Uncle who was a big deal, very big deal at a Ivy Medical School, whose name shall remain nameless. He told me that when a "dad" offered a mightly sum of money to get his kid into the school, the kid was admitted (not telling you anything you don't know or belive, I bet). The Board's feeling was that the school could use this money wisely, the kid will become a doctor somewhere and why not take the money because education, medicine and other young people might benefit from this money. Do you think Harvard would ever do THAT? Would you lose respect for Harvard if they DID? Would you be upset that maybe that money cured cancer? That young doctor became a curer of cancer?

--posted by Mrs.M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:49 pm EDT

Again, you would "expect" but since they are independent columnists, you wouldn't be up in arms if they were not expelled? Just suprised and possibly angry? But your misappropriation does not spell out plagiarism? Again, a high school senior does not have these handbooks or is required to be familiar with or subject to the rules.

If Crimson Columnist Joe is caught plagiarizing and is not expelled, but disciplined in other ways, would the treatment afforded BLH be unfair to her?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 16:55 pm EDT

"Legacies" often get admitted to leading independent schools, colleges and universities. Family history, previous alumni status - and, yes, financial support sometimes "weighs in". Heck, look at George W. Bush's mediocre/poor academic record at Phillips Academy/Andover and subsequent performance at Yale. Far from stellar, but surely eased by family history. The world isn't always a meritocracy. The world - even in our leading democracy - is not 100% fair.

I do, personally feel, though that blatant dishonesty - in Blair's case, plagiarism - is deserving of its consequences.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:07 pm EDT

I don't disagree. I just want to know from you when enough is enough? IF the scenario I proposed above about Oxford would be true, would you "support" (although not actively) her readmittance, albeit a year late, to Harvard? two years?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:11 pm EDT

Would you go off the wall if Judge Hornstine contributed $10 to Harvard so that BLH could be a freshman this September?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:12 pm EDT

That should be $10 million...sorry

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:13 pm EDT

Ah ... but Mrs MM ... you state above: "Again, a high school senior does not have these handbooks [outlining appropriate behavior and standards for conduct] or is required to be familiar with or subject to the rules." WRONG!!!

Blair's high school makes it very clear in its student handbook (http://www.mtps.com/hs/handbook/chandbookx.stm)under "STUDENT CONDUCT and CONSEQUENCES" / Academic Dishonesty / Cheating : "Plagiarism, the failure to acknowledge the ideas of someone else, and submitting work that is not your own is considered cheating. It will not be tolerated in any school work."

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:16 pm EDT

No amount of money could erase Blair's act of dishonesty.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:19 pm EDT

[repeated acts of dishonesty]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:19 pm EDT

..."not be tolerated in any school work" You know what I am about to say....Spare both of us.

Again, when is a 17-18 year old's act of dishonesty released from her record? When can she go to Harvard?
You avoid the issue. Remember the Oxford scenario...
Would you allow her in with $10 million if you were on the Board? Might buy a cancer cure...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:23 pm EDT

The Hornstine's $10 million would be considered "tainted money"...if not an outright "bribe". Harvard would never accept such.

While not on par with or in the same category [and, my apologizes - way off topic]... your comment recalls the controversy of the "tainted" donation from the Bin Laden family.

"Harvard University received millions of dollars in donations from the family of Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s. And there are now calls for the university to give similar sums to charities supporting the victims of attacks on the United States....the university says that it has already promised $1m in support for scholarships for victims' families. And it says that the Bin Laden family, which has disowned terror suspect Osama Bin Laden, had only given $2m to the university....The money helped to fund visiting fellows in Islamic architecture at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and visiting professors in Islamic law at the Harvard law school....Harvard's donation of $1m to victims' families, announced by the university's president Lawrence Summers, will provide 'scholarship assistance for the children and spouses of victims'. 'These scholarships will be based on need and may be used to attend colleges and universities across the country.'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1564428.stm)

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:27 pm EDT

People are way off. Money topic is not. Tainted money? How much tainted money has Harvard, Yale, etc. received? Kennedy, Bush, Bin Laden, Hornstine? Unfortunately some of this "tainted" money has provided for lots of good. Is it worth a cure for cancer or some such greatness to let Blair, GWB, etc. go to school. Should Yale take away Clinton's diploma?

For the umpteenth time...Again, when is a 17-18 year old's act of dishonesty released from her record? When can she go to Harvard?
You avoid the issue. Remember the Oxford scenario...
Would you allow her in with $10 million if you were on the Board? Might buy a cancer cure...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:34 pm EDT

If I were on the Admissions Committe - or even on the Board of Overseers - I would publicly reject any offer of money from the Hornstines. The acceptance of such - to let in a daughter whose admissions was rightfully rescinded for having betrayed the tenets set forth for all pending first-year students ("honesty, maturity or moral character.") - would be distasteful and morally reprehensible. With an endowment approaching $19 billion, I'd be happy to turn away a $10 million bribe.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:36 pm EDT

And do you REALLY think that if Harvard was not so flush with money, they would have "generously" donated $1 million of BinLaden's money? Don't you think that $1 million was a coin or two when compared with the amounts of money they have? You did tell me way, way back here how much money Harvard had at their disposal.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:37 pm EDT

Okay, we don't need the money...only BinLaden's. Now how long must she sit outside the Square and repent before you allow her inside? Don't forget, she spent weekends in Afghanistan...etc

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:39 pm EDT

Hey, ma, can she go to YALE???????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:39 pm EDT

oh, 'cuse...they gave an entire $1 million of Binladen's money away when they have $19 billion. Generous. I think I will give you a quarter allowance.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:41 pm EDT

"When is a 17-18 year old's act of dishonesty released from her record?"

I have no idea. Whose keeping records? God? The U.S. government? The court of public opinion?

Facetiousness aside, Blair has paid the price for her plagiarism. She has been rejected by Harvard. As such she has forfeited the chance to matriculate at Harvard College.

How long will she suffer consequences from her actions? I have no idea. There is no "rule of thumb" for dealing with the consequences of one's dishonesty and misbehavior.

The key is: has she learned from this affair? Will she correct her behavior moving forward? I suspect so. As I said before it will take time for her to regain trust and credibility. She has a long life ahead of her...and has potential to flourish. In what places and in what ways is still to be determined.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:46 pm EDT

"Harvard doesn't accept plagiarists, but we do! Go Eli's!"

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:47 pm EDT

BTW - Mrs MM ... I thought it was made clear that Blair has chosen that she doesn't want to attend Harvard...so your point is moot.

"Hornstine’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs Jr., says the rejection was mutual. 'Blair had decided to tender a withdrawal of her application simply because of the rabid, negative publicity on that campus,' he says. Harvard won’t comment, but accepted students are always told that admission can be revoked for behavior that questions 'honesty, maturity or moral character.' .... 'Blair has been exploring other alternatives, namely campuses less hostile than Harvard,' says Jacobs." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938181.asp).

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:49 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

>For the umpteenth time...Again, when is a 17-18 year old's act of dishonesty released from her record?

Never. Her dishonesty will *always* be on her record.

> When can she go to Harvard?

She might go to grad school, but not to undergrad.

> You avoid the issue.

We're not avoiding the issue. You don't like our responses, so you repeat the question hoping to get us to say something you will like.

> Remember the Oxford scenario...

Oxford is used as an example because it is overseas. Media scrutiny will be less there than if she attended an American institution.

> Would you allow her in with $10 million if you were on the Board?

No.

> Might buy a cancer cure...

Or it might not. Remember, Blair wants to be a lawyer, not a doctor. Her "donation" would probably go to the Law School before anywhere else.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 17:50 pm EDT

BTW - Mrs MM ... you have to recall that the Bin Laden family donations were made in the 1990's - 10-years before the horrible events of late. Many upstanding members of the Bin Laden family studied and lived in the Boston area. As a matter of fact, one of Osama Bin Laden's 22 brothers was affiliated with Harvard Law School - and was foremost in attempting to get his family to publicly disown and condemn the actions of his distant half-brother. The negative actions of one family member should not besmirch the positive actions of others. Just as Blair's deplorable actions should not take anything away from the positive accomplishments and contributions of her successful brother, Adam.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:10 pm EDT

Sorry Ma and Adam that I was playing the Devils' Advocate. The point was and is moot. I just wanted to really hear when Blair is off the hook for her crime. After all, first time criminals often have their records expunged after a year. Or what she and/or family would have to do to get back in YOUR good graces or at least acceptable ones.

I don't think she really wants to go to Harvard at this point. I am not sure she ever really had her heart in going there anyway. That is not sour grapes, it is a strong opinion of mine. Now Stanford...that could be another story. Adam, I trust you will do your best to keep her out, if she chooses that one. And ...ma, will we hear from you in 3-4 years when law school is determined?

Interesting discussions ...ma and Adam.

--posted by Mrs. M. M @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:12 pm EDT

Okay - time to get the discussion back on track ... and away from the hypotheticals, from the what-if's, from the distractions posed by some. Where were we?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:13 pm EDT

I think Harvard did a diservice to the BinLaden family. I do not blame them for that idiot of a brother. I think Harvard looked negatively on the family by donating $1 million of "their" so-called contribution to others. I think that was demeaning (and cheap for a foundation with $19 billion) on a rather successful and prominent family. You wouldn't donate money from the Kennedy library because some of his original money came from a illegal liquor runner.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:16 pm EDT

Blair doesn't have to get back in my good graces - or anyone's...other than her own. In the grand scheme of things - my opinion has no impact on her life, on her journey ahead. I honestly have no idea what she needs to do in order to move forward - other than to truly take responsibility for her actions and to learn from what has happened. She doesn't deserve to wear a "Scarlet Letter" (in this case a "P" - "oh we got trouble ....and that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for...') all her life. She can seek to erase it by positive steps forward. In what time frame? I have no idea.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:22 pm EDT

..ma: I am just where I have always been. #1. I want BLH to be healthy. I want her to go on to be successful. I want her to have some privacy. I want her to go to college wherever she chooses.

I still believe she earned her valedictorianship. I still believe that she plagiarized, but that her other accomplishments should not be taken away from her. I believe she should be given somewhat of a benefit of a doubt when understanding her "explanation." I still believe that the Courier Post newspaper had SOME reponsibility to their readers to check on a students work.

The End.

Call me whatever. You and I will never agree. That is what makes this country, this country. You know--"three sides to every story", freedom of speech, half full and half empty.....and on and on.

All I ask is for some patience and understanding and allow a smart young lady who has overcome many obstacles to retain some dignity and be happy, healthy and successful.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:23 pm EDT

Harvard never claimed that they were donating the Bin Laden money elsewhere. They acknowledged that the $2 million had been used in 1993 to fund various Islamic programs on campus.

Harvard's donation to the families of victims of September 11th. was one in many, offered as humanitarian support.

There was no direct correlation between the source and giving of funds. The BBC article - to which I referred - makes no claim.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 18:27 pm EDT

As an aside, I know that the Oxford/Cambridge angle was used as a hypothetical example, but I do not know if that would be a dependable sanctuary for BLH. American newspapers and t.v. reporting have NOTHING like the British tabloids.

Blair Hornstine has placed herself in an unenviable position. A quick google search on college plagiarism makes clear that schools generally take pains to not reveal offending students' names. When will the taint be expunged? No one knows. How long is the internet's memory? In 20 years, will an internet search on her name dredge up "old news"? Probably.

I personally feel that she deserves to prevail in her suit against the school board, although her refusal to attend graduation puts a value of $0.00 on the valedictorian issue. Had she not asked for damages, her suit may not have garnered the publicity and ill will it did, and her plagiarism may not have come to light.

--posted by MA reader @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 21:50 pm EDT

Thre are a few besides me:

"To Hornstine: Good luck

Perhaps some Moorestown residents will see themselves in a June Newsweek article titled "She's the girl they love to hate," about Blair Hornstine.

A young man who bragged that he made her cry in grade school is mentioned by name. I won't give him more fame by identifying him here.

One of Blair's faults apparently was that she was not "popular." She would rather work with underprivileged children or try to make sure that some of them had prom gowns, which would otherwise be unaffordable for them. She did not cavort with other girls at the mall.

My, how you made yourselves look exemplary by reading aloud at graduation the class resume listing all of your accomplishments, as though to denigrate hers. How phony.

I heard a young man on a call-in radio show say that a "protest" was planned for graduation. If Blair had appeared, students intended to turn chairs and backs to her. Is this the "genteel" Moorestown in which I have lived and raised my children for 38 years?

To the editors of every newspaper that used their linguistic expertise to savage this quiet, unassuming girl, you made me cringe. You never did "get it."

Blair's goal is to become a lawyer and work with underprivileged children. She will never find many of them in Moorestown, will she?

Plagiarism? Read about how Thomas Jefferson lifted paragraphs from fellow planter George Mason, who had drafted Virginia's declaration of rights. It was commonplace then, and considered a compliment.

Best wishes, dear Blair. Heal yourself now and go off to college and be the Blair whom I know. You will achieve your goals. You have that determination, born and bred. Many of us wish you well.

Anne Bush

Moorestown"

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 22:16 pm EDT

Um, MRS MM, did you just sign you message as Anne Bush

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Anne+Bush%22+moorestown+&btnG=Google+Search

A woman who was suspended from the AKC for submitting false puppy registrations?

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 22:45 pm EDT

Blair has lost her chance at Harvard, period. When she takes true responsibility for what she did, she will be a better person, but that does not erase the consequences of her actions. She has no one to blame for this but herself. I imagine she knows this by now.

What is so incredibly anointed about Harvard? Especially in light of her health problems, she might be better suited for a small school anyway.

Where they can keep an eye on her.

--posted by connie @ Tuesday, July 29 2003, 23:30 pm EDT

Mrs. MM copied and pasted a letter, it is in quotes, and properly attributed. This business of trying to discredit posters here is exactly the reason this blog degenerates to the levels it does. All your computer savy MonkeyBrains, and you still miss the boat when it comes to reading a simple little post. Mrs. MM did not sign her post as Anne Bush, she posted a letter from Anne Bush, who, suspended or not from the AKC has nothing to do with her opinion on the BH situation.

You will call it credibility, but you question credibility on every level. Is this perhaps to turn away questions regarding your own credibility. After all you do use a name generally reflective of a lower, and less intelligent species.

Your posting of information on this blog does nothing to enhance the quality of the blog, rather it serves to once again move the subject from the point of the blog, to the posters, who not only are not the point, but whose opinions are every bit as relevant as yours, even if you don't agree with them, or don't personally like the person who posted them.

What you think of individuals here is pointless, and I think we can all learn a lesson from my own little war on this blog, whatever purpose it had, wasn't germain to the blog. Regardless of what you think of me, or Mrs. MM, or what we think of you, or anybody else, the fact remains that what we think of you and those, or what you think of myself or Mrs. MM, is not only irrelevant, it is pointless.

As for the Anne Bush post, may I point out that even I, with what you consider an obviously flawed intellect, can see that she (Mrs. MM) was quoting a letter from Anne Bush, not claiming she was Anne Bush. Pay attention.

And as Adam has repeatedly said, stop posting personal information here. It serves no purpose, and it certainly does not validate your supposed computer savy, anyone can google search, apparently, however, you have more time to do so. Proves nothing, and has no merit in the subject at hand. Get back to it.

It's BLAIR HORNSTINE. Just so you know.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 0:49 am EDT

a quick search of google shows monkeybrains.net as a possible site, extorting corporations of a minimum of $10.00 for alleged compromised email accounts passwords and information. could our monkeybrains be the brain behind that?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=MonkeyBrains&btnG=Google+Search

or is this monkeybrains a shortterm blogger named Lance Gilstrap?

http://monkeybrains.blogspot.com/

is monkeybrains Rudy Rucker Jr. the infamous extortionist from monkeybrains.net owner of the not so world famous, hosting provider monkeybrains.net, also known as ns1 and 2 monkeybrains.net, but with an IP number for the Icestorm Network, also located in San Francisco?

who can say who monkeybrains is? will the real monkeybrain please stand up, or is it a case of mistaken identity or incomplete information? maybe monkeybrains is that herb guy in brooklyn newyork from the monkeybrains.com site...

inquiring minds want to know, who is monkeybrains?

--posted by google fanatic @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 2:27 am EDT

Hi S.D-S.: Welcome back. Did you get my mail?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 7:45 am EDT

For all you inquiring minds, whomever this Ann Bush is, she is one of the hundreds of people who have sent positive letters to the editors of newspapers (including me) with copies sent to the Hornstine home advising them of their support. It is amazing though that most of the letters that the papers printed were not the positive ones. Yes, As bad as the number of terrible negative, threatening, crank letters sent to BLH were, there were HUNDREDS of positive ones, also.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 7:49 am EDT

P.S. Negative letters and threatening phone calls besieged several newspaper letter writers who wrote to the newspaper in support of Miss H. As is their policy, the newspaper call the letter writers and verify that the signee and address are correct before publishing. It is/was unfortunate that many of these "supporters" received the slings and arrows of kooks who didn't agree with them.

Nothing like that happens here.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 7:55 am EDT

Here is a copy of the July 20 NY Times (Jersy section) story that wasn’t on line.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=bfnlt9%246v4%241%40news.monmouth.com

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A17F735580C738EDDAE0894DB404482

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 7:55 am EDT

There is, indeed, another article too. The one that mentions the "spokesman" for Harvard and the Board of Ed president.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 8:22 am EDT

No, maybe I erred. I thought this one had the statement from Cyndy Wulfsberg about reviewing BH's work. Sorry

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 8:27 am EDT

I spoke with a friend yesterday afternoon about this case. He is on our local board of education and commented that he was aware of the whole BH thing and read Judge Wolfson's opinion. He said he found the whole thing repulsive, but thought that the MHS rule left no room for the awarding of the valedictorian honor to anyone else than the person with the highest GPA. He also said he understood the superintendent's effort to respond to the complaints of others.

The high school in our district has a rule that is essentially the same as the MHS rule. While our high school has not had a situation as over the top as the BH matter, he did say there were some similar confrontations in the past.

As a result of this case, he told me that it is likely that the school board will look at the policy and probably revise it. One thought he had was to select the top 10 or 15 (on the basis of GPAs) and choose the valedictorian through a panel made up of administrators, teachers, and students on the basis of the submission of proposed validictory addresses which would be identified only with a coded number, so that the panel was not aware of whose paper they were reviewing.

I can see some problems with this approach, but such a policy would have allowed MHS to avoid the mess they are now in. I am wondering if anyone posting here has had any ecperience with such a selection process, and what thoughts you might have about it.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 12:02 pm EDT

Why call it a "valedictory" address, if it's the address which most appeals to a committee? Why restrict it to a handful of students, on the basis of GPA? If the valedictory system leads to problems, then scrap it. Don't fool around with half measures.

Have an open contest for the entire student body, and have a committee choose the best essay or essays. It might be a good idea for the committe to be composed of Juniors, and a few advisors, on the theory that it could be a favor the rising seniors can do for the new graduates.

--posted by MA reader @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 14:30 pm EDT

A few things:
1. Someone asked whether any settlement that the School District makes with Ms. Blair would be public. It is my understanding(I am *not* a lawyer) of freedom of information-type acts (FOIAs or FOILs) that the settlement amount and possibly the terms would be public knowledge if requested in the proper manner, which media outlets would certainly do.
2. If my institution (which you all can check out in my email address) accepted Ms. Blair, the newspaper would most certainly write an article about it. I know of several alums and current students, including myself, who would email the newspaper as soon as Blair or someone similarly notable were offered admissions.
3. Re: valedictorians. I did not attend Regis HS, the presitigous Jesuit institution in NYC, but I heard that they do not simply select the student with the highest GPA to be valedictorian. Rather, to qualify one must be in the top x% of the class. Then, the valedictorian is chosen by students *and* teachers. Seems like a better system to me than fighting over tenths of grade points and double weighting on AP classes.

Matt

--posted by Matt Peller @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 15:20 pm EDT

The point of making a Valedictorian is something almost barbaric to me. Even though Blair won the honor because of the school rules,(and we all know that I think she won fair and square because of the school rules), I do hope that the school changes their rules as Judge Wolfson hinted with the incoming Freshman class. I am not sure the new rules will effect the class of 2004, 2005 and 2006- at least that is how it appeared to me by the Judge's comments.

When I went to school "in the stone age," our High school awarded 4 graduates speaking roles. I cannot remember that far back, but I do not believe the four were the top four in GPA's (then again, I am not sure we had GPA's). I do remember one was our Class President and a top athlete, and one was a very smart, book worm type girl. Possibly "our advisors" selected the speakers from among the top students, top athletes and class officers and threw them into a mix and out came 4. There are many ways speakers can be selected. Top GPA's almost sound tasteless to me in many ways when hundreds of a point are involved. Gold tassels distinguish honor students in many schools. I cannot say that I favor that either. Everyone knows who the top students are. I feel that graduation is for everyone who made the grade. I think that gold tassels disciminate against the student who may be on the cusp, who just did not have the brain power, handicapped, etc. Many high schools do not have any student speakers any longer. Because of long winded principals, superintendents, honorees and Board of Education Presidents, the ceremony is tedious not joyous.

Now we get into college with Phi Beta Kappa, summa, magna, and so on.....When should it stop??

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, July 30 2003, 22:01 pm EDT

I couldn't agree more

--posted by glad @ Thursday, July 31 2003, 8:01 am EDT

I agree that the tassels and hoopla degrade those on the cusp. However, I do think that these distinctions should still be given.

--posted by glad @ Thursday, July 31 2003, 8:08 am EDT

How? Some kids are so close and so degraded by not making Honors or honor society that they "hurt" themselves physicially or suffer forever. Competition between their peers, older siblings and possibly their parents have caused worse situations than the BLH one. Even college kids, when they think they are disappointing, becaue of not making a certain grade have been known to do something serious. I am sure most of you can post a horrendous story.

I know we live in a competitive world, but do you think there is a time in school when such competitiveness like honors should start? Normally, every student in a high school class knows who is A, and who is B. Is it necessary to share it with the world? Even in grade schools, we have honors programs where the top students get extra classes. I, for one, don't like it. Kids that are on the cusp suffer such intimidation and discrimination. Did you ever see a bright 8 or 9 or 11 or 12 year old cry and not want to go to school because his/her friends have this extra course, and he/she were left out because only 10 kids got in and he/she was 11. Do you know what it can do to their marks? The following year? Competition in some schools start soooo early. Situations like the BLH one grew from Kindergarten on. I am one that doesn't like it!

You can argue that someone always has a bigger boat, etc. in adulthood. But when does this competition begin and how old should a "child" be when subjected to it?

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Thursday, July 31 2003, 8:51 am EDT

When I went to high school, I really liked the way that we did honors cords. There was a list of qualifications (GPA, extracurriculars, 12th grade proficiency scores, AP courses taken, electives taken) that a student would have to meet a majority of to earn the cords. That way, even if someone's GPA was lacking, or if someone else hadn't taken as many AP classes, it wouldn't knock them out of the running. It gave honor to well-rounded students, instead of just those with high grades--it was a symbol of all-around achievement instead of pure academic prowess.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, July 31 2003, 9:50 am EDT

It has been traditional to honor the "best", but the best at what? I don't think high school, or any educational program, for that matter, is or should be all about academics. Clubs, sports and other extra curricular activities contribute just as much, or more, to a young person's education and development.

The activities where team work and collaboration among a group of students teach much more than one can learn in the classroom. Almost all require group effort to accomplish whatever goals are set. Whether it be the production of a play, a successful season for a sports team (notice I didn't say "winning" season), the production of the yearbook, the accomplishment of a community activity, or whatever, the emergence of natural leaders and the revelation and recognition of talent in things other than academics, almost naturally flows.

Business and industry, including the professions, accomplish things best with group effort. In school, we tell kids that it is individual effort that gets rewarded.

There are exceptions, of course. I am aware of a situation in a local high school where a number of years ago a very talented AP biology teacher became ill during the middle of the school year. Kids were concerned that they were not going to cover all of the material with a substitute, and organized a large study group - every kid in the class was invited. They organized assignments for teaching each other. They met in their homes two evenings a week, and whenever else they thought necessary. Their goal was to have as many in the class max the AP Bio score as possible.

Almost all of them did it. Along the way they became friends and found that each had something to contribute. They even entered a team in the school's intramural basketball tournament and won. Turns out that one of them was a varsity player who taught and coached the team. Those that were pure bookworms found that they could, indeed, enjoy sports and achieve something positive from it. They found that being smart could also be an attribute in sports.

There was a lot of real education going on with this group. Because there was no competition for individual honors, they were able to help one another without the pressure of giving up some advantage over other kids in class.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, July 31 2003, 11:06 am EDT

It's also a lot to do with the parents - mine have brought me up to understand that there is *always* someone better than you out there at whatever you do, and that the only real meaningful competition is with oneself. I think it's necessary to recognise one's limits from the beginning because life is not fair in the sense that equal amounts of effort will not produce equivalent results.

In the end, honours have nothing to do with desert; no one truly 'deserves' anything because what we're born with was not of our own doing. Instead, we recognise excellence because, whether it derives from hard work or from natural talent, it represents a standard that we can all personally strive *toward*, rather than a benchmark we all have to reach. Needless to say, it's a positive reflection on human nature as the level of honours rise with our collective improvement in all sorts of areas.

--posted by bystander @ Thursday, July 31 2003, 11:45 am EDT

Mrs. M. M. said "I still believe she earned her valedictorianship. I still believe that she plagiarized, but that her other accomplishments should not be taken away from her. I believe she should be given somewhat of a benefit of a doubt when understanding her "explanation." I still believe that the Courier Post newspaper had SOME reponsibility to their readers to check on a students work." Was Blair billed as a student columnist? Was that part of the deal that the newspaper made with her - she would have all of her work checked for proper citations? I was an honor student and I hope someday my children (ages 5 and 7) will be. I knew that anything I wrote should have proper citations as a high school freshman. I just find it odd that it didn't occur to someone as obviously bright as Ms. Hornstine that the phrase "as Bill Clinton (or whomever she was quoting)" should be included.

--posted by A NJ mom @ Friday, August 1 2003, 7:22 am EDT

From CambridgeMA: Once again a certain someone resorts to regrettable behavior on this blog, attacking someone who happens to have a differing opinion and view of the situation: "Dee: I sure hope you are a Moorestown Mother and taxpaper. You are ignorant, moronic and don't kow your A** from your Mouth. Ooops.. Sorry they are twins!"

I have noted that she has a tendancy to attack other posters (While bemoaning the fact that she percieves herself to be attacked) when she can't find any defensible counter to their opinions. I'm gratified to see that this behavior has been calming down of late.

I find the recent discussion of honors, and their place, or lack thereof, in society, interesting.

Regarding the tassels and honors, and those on the cusp:

I was one of the students on the cusp, in high school. I was never close to being valedictorian, but I was very close to being in the National Honor Society. Unfortunately, because I didn't cheat, and many of my classmates did, in one particular class my Freshman year, my final GPA was just a tad too low for the gold tassels. (The tests were graded on a curve, making my grade one of the lowest in the class, hence lowering my grade in the course to a C.)

It doesn't matter at all to me now. Nor did it then, really. Certainly not enough to put up a fight over it. When there was a time when such things did matter, in graduate school, when I begged to retake a class because I had recived a B rather than an A, I was blessed enough to have a much wiser advisor who did not allow it.

However, I agree with 'Glad' that the honors should be given. Athletes get gold medals, actors get awards...why not students whose focus is academics? Should the pursuit of knowledge, from which comes our great discoveries be any less important than a perfect Axel or brilliant scene in a play?

I believe they give some students something to work toward. The culture of 'entitlement' has been brought up from time to time on this blog. It's a problem all too familiar these days. Last year I was talking with a mother in my now seven year old's first grade class. She was lamenting the fact that her daughter was never made student of the month. She complained that the teacher was terribly unfair, only choosing well behaved, helpful children. (Which was entirely the point of the award-it was meant to encourage honorable behavior.) She admitted her child was poorly behaved in school, and that the boy was hard to control. But he shouldn't have been 'left out'.

Something is quite wrong there.

The pressure which causes children to 'do something horrible' because they don't get a particular award isn't the fault of giving awards. Or, imo, the fault of the student, in most cases, but rather the fault of those around them who put far too much emphasis on them. I'm sure many of us *could* cite a horrendous example. But I'm sure we could cite many more examples of people who, like me, thought it was a shame they didn't get that award, but moved on with our lives. Michelle Kwan comes to mind. I also find myself wondering if more advisors, today, would have allowed me to retake the class to get the A I so desired?

However, the solution to the problem of too much empasis being placed on accolades isn't to remove them, certainly. I would not relish life in a Harrison Bergeron type universe.

Dee from Toledo, who has been moving and only just got internet turned back on this evening.

--posted by Dee @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 0:18 am EDT

Off topic, but related (as there are been discussion before about journalistic ethics and integrity)and of interest to some...

The New York Times has released its internal report and review of the Jayson Blair affair: (PDF file): http://www.nytco.com/committeereport.pdf

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 10:50 am EDT

[as there has been discussion...]

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 10:51 am EDT

From Dee: "It doesn't matter at all to me now. Nor did it then, really. "

It does still bother you,Dee or else you would have forgotten it. Unimportant things are most often forgotten over time. Time has passed for you from high school. Many new things have entered your life, but you do still remember the slight you received in High school.

I bet you want your 7 year old to "student of the Month." You can't say this is unimportant to you either...you would not have mentioned it...especially if your child had NOT been selected.

Too much competition starts TOO early. Parents are often to blame for the pressure being put on youngsters from prior to Pre-school on. "Johnny can tie his shoe." "Melissa makes on the potty." They are all forms of pressure and honors we put on our children.

--posted by Dr. M. M. @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 12:39 pm EDT

Another university rescinds its offer:

"National University has rescinded its job offer to a Pennsylvania State University professor after administrators had misgivings about his being on parole for killing three men in Texas when he was a teenager...'While the university recognizes Dr. Krueger's efforts to rehabilitate himself in the years since the conviction, his employment as a faculty member would be inconsistent with National University's institutional values and the best interests of its students, alumni, faculty and staff,' National's business dean, Shahram Azordegan, said in a statement." http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030801-9999_1m1natu.html

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 17:20 pm EDT

No, it really doesn't bother me. I hadn't thought about it for years, until the recent discussion came up about awards and such. But to forget it entirely? Perhaps I'm still too young, but I still remember things from when I was three years old-the color of the wallpaper in the apartment, pulling the dog's hair, playing badmitton in the back yard. None of which are of any importance whatsoever, but still things clear in my mind.

I never felt slighted not to make NHS. Dissappointed, yes, but it never occured to me to feel slighted. I made a choice not to cheat, and it cost me the gold tassels. By then, there was nothing I could do about it.My best friend was third in our class, and had to write a speech for graduation, as I recall that was far more important. That, and how to get a job to pay enough to save money for college.

I did want my 7 year old to make student of the month, because I want her to show the aspects the award recognizes. I want her to be a good kid. I want her to share, to be helpful, especially to be kind to others, and I don't want her to be a trouble-maker to too much of an extent. I also dearly want her to think for herself, be confident, stand up for herself, and develop interests that please her, and can carry her through life. If they are similar to my own, all the better.

I never pressed her to 'get student of the month'. But I do try my best to teacher to *be* the kind of child that makes student of the month. And yes, if someday she's valedictorian of her class, I'd be very happy. But I can't see myself trying to pressure her into doing whatever is necessary to get such an award. Heck, she's far too much like me, pressuring would never work with her anyway.

--posted by Dee @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 18:37 pm EDT

For those of you that doubt or disbelieve Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, please read the article in this week's People Magazine about the author of the book Seabiscuit (that is now a movie). She couldn't leave her house, etc. for years. Still has lots of trouble with the physicial part of her life. Very interesting. I am sure someone here will be able to find it on the net.

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 19:03 pm EDT

I doubt that *Blair* has CFS. That's different from doubting whether or not the disorder exists.

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 19:39 pm EDT

FYI. Individuals love to show me and the world letters to the Editor.....Here's another for this readership.

Letters to the Editor



7/31/2003


Valedictorian Earned Her Title and Did It Fair and Square
Your readership would have been much better served if Jonathan Tobin (A Matter of Opinion: “A Pointless Sacrifice,” July 17) had read Judge Freda Wolfson’s published opinion (http:// lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/fed/html/ ca03-1953-1.html) on the Blair Hornstine case, and familiarized himself with the facts and applicable law rather than basing his views on the Weekly Standard article by Jonathan Last.
Like Tobin’s, Last’s article was distressingly uninformed.

One can only hope that parents of any ethnic origin would support their child’s desire not to be deprived illegally of something she had won fair and square.

Tobin’s comments are better addressed to the behavior of the salutatorian, Kenneth Mirkin, who was the real crybaby here, and whose whining that he deserved to be valedictorian was correctly dismissed out of hand by Judge Wolfson.

Since the school superintendent was prepared to do Mirkin’s dirty work for him, Hornstine was forced to litigate to defend herself.

Just think of what we’d say if the school board had behaved professionally by not attempting to change the rules, and Mirkin filed a lawsuit claiming that he — the nondisabled student — deserved to be valedictorian.

It’s the behavior of that student and his parents that Tobin should be lamenting (if not decrying) as excessively goal-obsessed. They conspired to secure something that under the law and school policy was Hornstine’s alone.

However, I guess joining in the feeding frenzy at Hornstine’s expense was the easier way to go.
Steven Kudatzky
Marlton, N.J.

P.S. Cretin: Hopefully Blair ONLY has CFS and NOTHING else more serious. Don't bet the house and the car that she doesn't have CFS...you will be in a tent and walking.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 2 2003, 23:21 pm EDT

The "letter to the editor" that Mrs MM just displayed is not one from the general public.

In a June 13 story, Steven Kudatzky of Marlton NJ was identified as an attorney serving as a "Hornstine family spokesman", and I think it was dishonest not to reveal that in the letter.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Steven+Kudatzky%22+Marlton&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/june/m061303e.htm

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 3:23 am EDT

I don't know why that you considered that "dishonest."
He is an attorney. He does not represent the family in any legal matters. He happens to be a graduate of Harvard and attempted to act as a go between between the family and Harvard. Plus....many here are looking for an attorney/legal opinion of the case besides mine...so here you be.

Mr. Kudatzky was also lamenting one of the statements that I had previously posed: That many columnists/ reporters were just following other columnists' views(like "plagiarizing" incorrect opinions) and not getting the "facts" themselves before commenting. It's the old "whispering down the Lane" game.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 9:50 am EDT

Let's not forget the previous statement by Steven Kudatzky ... and attorney Jacobs, respresenting Blair...

Steven] Kudatzky told the Harvard Crimson, "I am confident that, at the end of the day, Harvard will see that this is a non-issue, and quite frankly, something that is another example of Blair being singled out and victimized." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp; http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348380)

"Jacobs, their lawyer, told the Associated Press, 'It was a whole lot of nothing. She wrote some fluff pieces for a kid-chat column. We have more important things to deal with.' (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp)

A whole lot of nothing? Fluff? Guess Harvard saw things differently!

--posted by CambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 10:59 am EDT

But Ma, the "fat lady has not sung" when it comes to Miss H. Graduating from Harvard. Don't put your money on Harvard....


And again, you are getting your apples and oranges miixed up. Mr. Kudatsky wrote about Harvard, the article you posted on hm is the weekly Standard one, which Mr. K. refers to in his letter that I posted.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 13:35 pm EDT

No confusion here. My apples are apples.

Steven Kudatzky made a statement to the Harvard Crimson (Thursday, June 5, 2003), not the Weekly Standard.

His words exactly:

"According to Steven K. Kudatzky ’72, a close friend of the Hornstines and a self-proclaimed family spokesperson, Hornstine sent word to the admissions office informing them of her sourcing problems....Kudatzky, however, defended Hornstine. “I am confident that, at the end of the day, Harvard will see that this is a non-issue, and, quite frankly, something that is another example of Blair being singled out and victimized,” he said."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348380

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 14:05 pm EDT

Guess Kudatzky misread his alma mater. Harvard seems to have had issue with Blair's plagiarism. Not the most reliable fortune teller, I'd say! I've got my money on Harvard.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 14:08 pm EDT

I referenced Kudatsky's and Jacob's previous comments merely to illustrate that they are far from being objective voices for the situation - whether it be for the valedictorian issue, the plagiarism, and Harvard's decision to rescind Blair's offer to attend. The comments of these two attorneys - whether or not in the role of counsel or spokesperson - are replete with "spin".

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 14:16 pm EDT

Mr. Kudatzky is a somewhat recent graduate of Harvard Law. He can't be objective? Why not? What does he have to lose? Why did he have to lengthen the noose around his neck to further go out and write a current letter? He is not getting paid, doesn't need any favors, etc. He did not represent Miss H. in her lawsuit. He was "a go-between" between Harvard and the Hornstines. A Harvard grad supporting Miss H. Breaks your pride.

Next. Don't bet the house and the car that Miss H will not get her undergraduate degree from Harvard if SHE chooses to get it there. Do, please remember, that the newspaper article and a letter addressed to Miss H. apologized for allowing her admission recision to reach the public before reaching her. You will remember that the school ANNOUNCED in newspapers and by letter to Miss H. that the "situation" was being reviewed by Harvard legal counsel. There was no doubt in even glorious Harvard's opinion that Miss H. had her privacy invaded by Harvard. Please make sure that you keep in touch with me. We will DEFINITELY talk prior to 2005.

Also, Ma., please check with your friends, etc, at Byerly or wherever about "famous" students matriculating there under an alias....especially movie stars, their kids, etc. IT has been done and will be done in the future. Check out the present incoming freshman class CAREFULLLY.

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

Has Mr. Kudatzky ever appeared in his capacity as an attorney before Judge Hornistine?

--posted by Wondering @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 18:44 pm EDT

[Hornstine]

--posted by Wondering @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 18:45 pm EDT

The traditional concept of a valedictorian, based solely upon a cumlulative grade point average, has little meaning or value in the contemporary public secondary school. Rather than a "standardized" curriculum, students typically choose from core, elective, honors, advanced placement, and college level courses with wildly different grading standards and scales. In a mobile society characterized by burgeoning exurbs, an increasing number of students matriculate at more than one high school, for that matter often in different districts, states, or countries.

The many and varied accomplishments of the typical high school graduating class are therefore seldom embodied or reflected in the product of this Byzantine system. The annual spate of "valedictorian scandals," of which Blair Hornstine is the regretable epitome, logically argues in favor of a broader and more meaningful recognition of academic and personal achievement, a function once fulfilled in part by the baccalaureate service.

A "Rube Goldberg" GPA and a cardboard box filled with "paper" credentials is not, and has never been evidence of education, character or experience. Unnecessarily public litigation and an array of attorneys, go-betweens and apologists can not syncretize a glaring, and under the circumstances, inexcusable failure to provide mature guidance and advice to a young adult, however intelligent. The talismatic "victimization" of Ms. Hornstine, for the selfish benefit of some in her family and at the expense of others, is a personally painful valedictory she did not initiate and should not have been forced to give on a public stage.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 20:57 pm EDT

Why this obsession with Harvard? Is it the "ultimate prize" for status-minded parents? Or has no other school of comparable stature volunteered to accept BH--and the storm of (negative) publicity?

The Crimson discovered--somehow--that Blair Hornstine would not attend Harvard. I don't see how the fact that the newspaper knew before the Hornstines were informed gives the Hornstines any leverage to force Harvard to reconsider their decision.

Harvard made the decision to rescind the offer of admission. The clear evidence of repeated plagiarism left the institution no choice. While there is no evidence that the student ever plagiarized coursework, the plagiarized articles do raise that possibility. Harvard would be very short-sighted to admit such a student, due to the threat of a lawsuit. It would set a terrible precedent, as Harvard could then expect to see every one of such admissions decisions challenged in court.

As far as I know, Brooke Shields, Jody Foster and other celebrities attend(ed) college under their own names, having nothing to hide. It would be a neat trick for an alumna of Moorestown High School to attend Harvard anonymously, as other graduates are currently enrolled at Harvard.

--posted by MA reader @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 20:59 pm EDT

Hasn't Blair made public (through Jacobs) that she has no intention matriculating at a campus so hostile?

Also I cannot see how Harvard, who has made a point of rescinding her offer because of her proven counts of plagiarism, can reconsider. It would be blatantly against the admissions code.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 21:44 pm EDT

No one on this site has referenced any specific evidence regarding the nature and extent of alleged hostility towards Ms. Hornstine on the Harvard campus. Perhaps the complaint in the contemplated invasion of privacy action against Harvard will shed some light on the issue, assuming of course, that the college does not allow Ms. Hornstine to matriculate anonymously less than two months after rescinding her acceptance.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... you stated: "Mr. Kudatzky is a somewhat recent graduate of Harvard Law" ... Recent? Harvard Law graduate? Wrong on both counts.

As listed in the Harvard Alumni Association Directory (http://www.haa.harvard.edu/haa/index.html)...Mr. Steven K. Kudatsky (who lives in Medford NJ and works in Marlton NJ) received his AB in 1972 from Harvard College. According to Harvard records he did not receive his law degree from HLS.

I'll bet my house and my car that Blair will not attend Harvard under some assumed identity.

And "bystander" has it right ..."Hornstine’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs Jr., says the rejection was mutual. 'Blair had decided to tender a withdrawal of her application simply because of the rabid, negative publicity on that campus,' he says. Harvard won’t comment, but accepted students are always told that admission can be revoked for behavior that questions 'honesty, maturity or moral character.' .... 'Blair has been exploring other alternatives, namely campuses less hostile than Harvard,' says Jacobs." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938181.asp).

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:45 pm EDT

Wondering: NO

TM: You are entitled to an opinion, but to be disrespectful to the Hornstine family is appalling. The lady had the highest GPA and according to the MHS handbook earned the right to be Valedictorian, no matter what you say or how rude you are to her family.

MA: Harvard, in my opinion, is not, never has been the ultimate prize. In my opinion, it is certainly not the school for those who want a well-rounded education - like social life, etc. All work and no play makes many of these students B O R I N G, egotistical,pompous and self-serving graduates. Harvard is not do or die!

Many students who don't want to be known there go as non-matriculating students. So, the Jody Fosters and Brooke Shields, etc. can slowly have others accustomed to seeing them before they are "known" on campus. Or apply for admission and graduation at the same time... CHECK IT OUT!

Bystander: Y es, she has made it clear that she will not matriculate at this hostile campus this year.
How can Harvard change their mind, you ask? They goofed. Publically said so. An "emergency" letter went out to Miss H. after it became public (and before they were prepared to write her and make the announcement)that her admission was rescinded. You will note that their spokesman said that the matter was being turned over to Harvard's legal department. Why do you think? Because they goofed. They will have to make SOME accomodation of "some sort" because Miss H's privacy was invaded by the premature announcement. Again, BET ON IT!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:45 pm EDT

I never said that Steve graduated from Harvard Law. He graduated about 30 years ago from their undergraduate school.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

Sorry, I did say law, but that was a typo. Sorry

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... once again you attempt to present yourself as an authority on so many aspects of the Hornstine affair ... and your facts are wrong. Your repeated attempts further denounce your position. It's really quite sad.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:54 pm EDT

Shuffle...dance...step...step...step ... how can you refute your statement above - "Mr. Kudatzky is a somewhat recent graduate of Harvard Law." (posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 15:19 pm EDT)?

Okay - even if the "Harvard Law" was a typo (ah ... along the lines of Blair's not plagiarizing, but merely having trouble with "cutting-and-pasting"!), how do you now get off by trying to rescind (ah ... a word we've heard a lot of lately) your use of the term "recent" - when in actuality we are dealing with 1972!

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:57 pm EDT

Ah, honey, cry me a river.

Mr. Kudatzky is a graduate of Univerity of Penn Law School, 1976 (I believe).His practice is concentrated in business torts, employment law, professional liability, appellate litigation and the representation of attorneys and physicians in business and regulatory matters.

"recent" was a joke because "we" are not youngsters. Get a life. Get a job. Stop your high and mighty highfalutin, pretentious, self-centered, protection of the almighty Harvard. I wouldn't wish Harvard on Blair, but if that is what she chooses (and she will have the opportunity to go there, IF SHE CHOOSES much to YOUR dismay), I hope she is still the down to earth, realistic, beautiful,(not many Harvard girls are), sweet and unassuming young lady she is and was prior to this circus.

MA: YOU are so determined in protecting Harvard and yourself and so adamant that she "Can't" get in, I hope she goes there just so you will lose your peacockish attitude. You will also learn that your Harvard diploma is paper, just as is Yale's.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 23:16 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.:

Ms. Hornstine is entitled to be valedictorian of her graduating class based upon the criteria in the student handbook. She has the right to sue the school district to prevent potential discrimination arising from a "retroactive" change in that criteria, and to recover provable damages.

Ms. Hornstine's father is a tenured superior court judge. She is represented by two attorneys, one of whom owes his reputation to the defense of alleged organized crime figures. The family is also represented by a third attorney, a "self-appointed" spokesperson and "go-between."

Are we to believe that Ms. Hornstine selected and retained her attorneys without the advice and assistance of her parents?

Are we to believe Ms. Hornstine insisted that she accompany her attorney to file the complaint, or that a newspaper photographer coincidentally happened to be present, or that her full page picture appeared the following day in the Phildelphia Daily News?

Are we to believe that Ms. Hornstine coordinates and directs the activities of her attorneys without any advice from her father?

Are we to believe that Ms. Hornstine, without any input from her parents, decided to demand damages of $2,700,000.00?

And in the unlikely event that Ms. Hornstine took these actions entirely on her own, where was the cool voice of mature, parental reason and guidance when her plagiarism was exposed, thereby jeopardizing her college admission and exposing her to public ridicule?

Had she done nothing, Ms. Hornstine may have been unoffcially identified as a "co-validictorian," she would have given the valedictory, her transcript would have read "valedictorian," her obvious plagiarism would have remained hidden, and she would have been looking forward to her first year at Harvard. Had she taken the "high road" after the district court granted the preliminary injunction, Ms. Hornstine might have given personal voice to the legal argument that she sued the school district to protect the rights of other disabled students. Having "won" sole possession of an essentially superfluous academic designation, can anyone reasonably suggest Ms. Hornstine is better off for this experience? Her parents bear no responsibility for this fiasco?

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 23:53 pm EDT

Mrs MM, you have been very remiss in attributing your information. You have posted 2 “letters to the editor” but we have no idea where they came from. Did you write them yourself, did a friend who wrote it give it to you, or did you actually find the letter published somewhere? First you posted a letter from Anne Bush of Moorestown (the kennel mistress punished for document fraud) who argued that plagiarism is not really wrong. I have no idea where you got that letter. Next you posted the (Hornstine spokesman) Kudatzky “letter to the editor”. From other sources I figure that that was a response to Tobin’s article in JewsWeek.

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El543&enZone=Opinions&enVersion=0&

However in looking at the JewsWeek site (an online only magazine) I find that they do not have a “letters to the editor” section. So you must have gotten the Kudatsky letter first or second hand from Kudatsky. So, where did you get the Bush letter from?

When you post information in the future please attribute where you got the information from.

(The problem with quotes without attribution is that you can never track them down. For example you can find many George Washington quotes that show that he was a devout Christian even though the non-made-up history shows he was not a Christian.)

This is my guess on the Kudatzky-Hornstine relation: Many schools use graduates who are active in their alumni organization to scout out good prospects. The very first official interview of a candidate is by a local alum who communicates his/her impressions to the admissions committee. So I guess that Kudatzky was a local admissions representative who became BH’s advocate. The big question is whether Kudatzky was the sole local representative. If there were multiple local representatives then part of the BH mess may be attributed to competition between them.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, August 4 2003, 0:30 am EDT

More explicitly, who was Kenny Merken's local Harvard admissions advocate?

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, August 4 2003, 0:41 am EDT

I do not believe that an error made by the admissions office - in somehow making the information of Blair's rescinded admission accessible to The Crimson - will lead to the College re-accepting Blair. The message is all wrong: proven plagiarists are welcome here? An administrative mistake cannot undermine the fundamental values of the institution.

Mrs. M.M.:
I am a Harvard undergraduate and I am offended by your generalisation of the student body here. Why must you attack us by calling us "B O R I N G, egotistical,pompous and self-serving graduates" and crassly criticise women such as myself on something as unimportant as outward appearance? How on earth does the fact that many women at Harvard aren't beautiful (I disagree with you on this point) serve Blair?

I dispute your claim that Harvard is not the place to be for a well-rounded education - most students here spend more time on extracurriculars and community programs than on their academics. What has made you such an expert on the Harvard student body? And if you are so convinced of your opinion of Harvard, why on earth would you wish Blair here, just to feel some satisfaction that cambridgeMA would "lose [her] peacockish attitude"?

I really don't care if Blair was to attend - before I found out about the plagiarism. What's one more freshman in a similarly outstanding group of 1650? I truly believe the majority of Harvard College feels the same - the incident was hailed with 'lively discussion' when the lawsuit was filed, as The Crimson noted, but it was hardly "rabid" hostility and I should think any outrage, if any, would have died down by now. But I refuse to condone the acceptance of a young woman who has clearly be proven to lack honesty. With an acceptance rate of 7.8%*, Harvard could do well to accept a student who isn't a proven thief of words and ideas.

*1,650 out of 20,987 applicants accepted according to The Crimson May 16 2003. They publish a 9.8% acceptance rate, but calculations yield 7.8%

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 4 2003, 2:47 am EDT

The following are links to the firm biographies of the two associate attorneys that represent the defendants in the pending litigation:

http://www.archerlaw.com/lawyers/jcomegno.html
http://www.archerlaw.com/lawyers/shodges.html

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 4 2003, 8:00 am EDT

TM: No, yes, no, no,no

Monkey: Bush from either the Philadelphia Daily News (I think) or Philadelphia Inquirer; Kudatzky from the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.

Bystander: You remind me of Kenny Mirkin - whinny. Many of your fellow students see themselves in Miss H.They are afraid that they will be seen for what they are. Lacking honesty? Yeah, tell me when you have been 100%. Learn humility, patience and acceptance. Protect TREES, not Harvard.

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 9:29 am EDT

Mrs MM stated - "Do, please remember, that the newspaper article and a letter addressed to Miss H. apologized for allowing her admission recision to reach the public before reaching her."

I have seen no apology from Harvard. Harvard expressed "regret" that the decision to rescind was made public (by way of the Harvard Crimson article). Expressing regret is far different than an apology. The College/Univeristy has also stated that the matter was in its mind finished - and if the Hornstines want to pursure the matter further they should leave the admissions office alone and instead turn to Harvard's legal counsel. But, as Jacob's (Blair's attorney) stated the day after the news of Harvard's decision to rescind her application, Blair has voluntarily withdrawn any interest or claim to attend Harvard. "Hornstine’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs Jr., says the rejection was mutual. 'Blair had decided to tender a withdrawal of her application simply because of the rabid, negative publicity on that campus,' he says. Harvard won’t comment, but accepted students are always told that admission can be revoked for behavior that questions 'honesty, maturity or moral character.' .... 'Blair has been exploring other alternatives, namely campuses less hostile than Harvard,' says Jacobs." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938181.asp).

Harvard knows that they are standing on solid ground in that Blair's actions (i.e. repeated instances of plagiarism) violated the terms & conditions set forth for incoming students: "Harvard admission is contingent on five conditions enumerated for students upon their acceptance—including one which stipulates admission will be revoked “if you engage in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.”
(http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348498)

The reporters at the Harvard Crimson did the work of any good invesigative reporters and gleaned information from "...a source involved with the decision." (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348498) As has been stated before - it is possible that said source could have even been someone from the Hornstine side.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 9:36 am EDT

BTW - cambridgema is a "male" ... it stands for Cambridge, MA - as in the city and state.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 9:38 am EDT

"Harvard, in my opinion, is not, never has been the ultimate prize. In my opinion, it is certainly not the school for those who want a well-rounded education - like social life, etc. All work and no play makes many of these students B O R I N G, egotistical,pompous and self-serving graduates."

Then why did Blair want to go there?
Why did her brother matriculate there?
Sounds like someone's got a case of sour grapes.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, August 4 2003, 10:30 am EDT

MA: Re: Harvard "Regrets" (v) to be very sorry for

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 10:32 am EDT

MA: Re: Harvard "Regrets" (v) to be very sorry for regrets his mistake1 : sorrow aroused by circumstances beyond one's control
(n) an expression of distressing emotion (as sorrow or disappointment)synonym see SORROW Sorrow:deep distress, sadness, or regret especially for the loss of someone or something Sorry: feeling sorrow, regret, or penitence

REGRET... SORROW... SORRY Whatever semantics you want to play.

Talk to me before the start of 2004. Remember YOU heard it FIRST from me. What you say? Legal repercussions from the "announcement" by the Crimson, Harvard's legal responsibility and damages. Just don't forget to contact me. You will owe me 2 bucks.

You need never believe me. I could care less. As the world turns (nice name for a tv show), the axis will center on the truth from me - front and center.

Then I will be more arrogant and self serving and pompous.

Ho hum.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 10:33 am EDT

Underpriviledged: Beats me! Stanford, Duke, Brown...on and on. If it WERE MY choice...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 10:35 am EDT

I'm sorry cambridgeMA - my mistake.

To regret does not acknowledge fault, which is what an apology does. I can be sorry/sorrowful/regretful at someone's funeral but that does not mean I had anything to do with his/her death. It's not semantics, it's actually deliberate choice of words on Harvard's part.

Mrs. M.M., you're not at all apologetic about smearing the Harvard student body at all? Remember, it includes Adam. In all my postings I have never insulted you, and I don't see how your lashing out is warranted. Why do you do this so often on these boards? You undermine your own credibility, and it doesn't really help Blair that she has such a hostile defender.

Please don't tell me where to place my priorities. I will protect Harvard as I choose, as it has given me a brilliant experience so far and I am grateful to it. You yourself are protecting Blair, not trees, so forgive me if I choose not to take your advice.

I agree with you that many students at Harvard see themselves in Blair. According to you, is this a compliment or an insult to her?

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 4 2003, 11:24 am EDT

p.s.

Mrs. M.M.: I have learnt those lessons you have suggested, thank you, at a young age from my parents who took care to bring me up correctly. Therefore, whereas you choose to answer me with insults and insolence, I will remain patient and accepting, and refrain from doing so in kind.

As for humility, one only has to spend a day at Harvard to learn that! The extraordinary company I have there on campus has made me feel very humble indeed.

I was wrong to say Blair was "lacking honesty". No human is 100% honest, and you're right: we shouldn't hold Blair up to those standards. I should have said that Blair was clearly proven to be a thief of others' ideas, and therefore I would never condone her acceptance. Is this amendment agreeable to you now?

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 4 2003, 11:41 am EDT

"Last week, Ms. Hornstine received a letter from Harvard stating that "the college regrets the committee's action has become a matter of public attention" but called the case closed and referred the family to the school's general counsel" - from the New Jersey section of the Sunday New York Times (July 20, 2003) - reprinted online at: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=bfnlt9%246v4%241%40news.monmouth.com

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 12:00 pm EDT

"bystander" - you have it right ... there is a distinction between "regret" and "apology". Harvard chose its language well.

BTW -

"REGRET does not carry with it the energy of remorse, the sting of compunction, the sacredness of contrition, or the practical character of repentance." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regret)

APOLOGY - "An acknowledgment intended as an atonement for some improper or injurious remark or act; an admission to another of a wrong or discourtesy done him..." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apology)

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 12:07 pm EDT

Entry: sorry
Function: adjective
Definition: remorseful
Synonyms: apologetic, attritional, compunctious, conscience-stricken, contrite, guilt-ridden, melted, penitent, penitential, REGRETFUL, repentant, self-accusing, self-condemnatory, self-reproachful, shamefaced, softened, touched

--posted by not a mrs mm fan, but she is correct @ Monday, August 4 2003, 13:12 pm EDT

bystander: If they don't want Blair to come to Harvard because of her lawsuit, feeling about her, or her Plagiarism, I do believe they are seeing themselves. The ones that don't give a darn, go on their merry ways, do what they do and so on are the ones who worry about more important things than how they are perceived. They don't worry that Blair will tarnish that Harvard diploma. They know that they carry their own future and that paper is only an entree to their goals. I feel that the ones that don't give a damn are probably the "more" honest in general.

Ma: The commiteee "said" THEY closed the case. The case, as I previously said was referred to the school counsel, where the case now lies. There (is)WILL be further conversation (not public, at this time) from this counsel.

"Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students."


Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student's education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records. Schools may charge a fee for copies.

Parents or eligible students have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student then has the right to a formal hearing. After the hearing, if the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information.

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):

School officials with legitimate educational interest;

Other schools to which a student is transferring;

Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;

Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;

Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;

Accrediting organizations;

To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;

Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and

State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law"


I do not see on the above lists where the school newspaper, other students, news agencies, etc. are listed under approved "appropriate" groups.I do not see where the Crimson is an organization conducting studies on BEHALF of the school, is an OFFICIAL using the info for legitimate educational interests or for audit or evaluation purposes. I do not believe that the reporters for the Crimson are "vested officials with authority" from Harvard. Although The Crimson is an independent newspaper, does it not run with the approval of the administration? If it were completely independent, it would not be listed as part of the info of the university.

I do note in a couple of past articles, circa 1998 and thereafter, that the staff was concerned by the number of Jewish staff and bias. I do wonder if that is still a "concern". If so, I again wonder how it effects stories written about other Jewish people....a thought.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:17 pm EDT

Thanks non-fan. I CERTAINLY am not looking to form a fan club. As I have said OVER and OVER, I was at the hearing, I Know what is/was going on, and I will be proven correct....at least 99.1%

Plus, I KNOW BLAIR and I KNOW THERE IS NOT A SWEETER, BRIGHTER, HANDICAPPED, INDIVIDUAL THAN SHE IS. I always fight for justice. I KNOW SHE WILL EVENTUALLY COME OUT SMELLING LIKE A ROSE...all the thorns will be removed. The Moorestown community will be pricked by them. Those with the loudest anti-Blair and anti-semitic "mouths" will have a foot put in it.

Everyone of you posting here can dislike (using a mild tone), but I will have the last word. Notice I am still posting. I did not or will not run away until the end. And then, Ma will owe me $2 and the rest can send flowers and candy.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:25 pm EDT

That is, whether or not you LIKE the results, I will reign. Then all those adjectives that I used to describe Harvard grads may legitimately and temporarily be used on me!

"How much will you "love" me, let me count the ways..."

1. the Moorestown money
2. books/movie
3. harvard ed and/or money
4. no doubts about physicial condition in high school(that will leave you asking questions??? - don't bother)
5. Success and happiness

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:33 pm EDT

In relevant part, the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, defines "regret" as, "[S]orrow or pain due to reflection on something one has done or left undone." The OED defines "apology" as, "[A]n explanation offered to a person affected by one's action that no offence was intended, coupled with the expression of regret for any that may have been given: or, a frank acknowledgement of the offense with expression of regret for it, by way of reparation."

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:36 pm EDT

Monkey Brains, FYI The Anne Bush letter was published on July 29, 2003 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

--posted by MRS M.M @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:38 pm EDT

Whoa, whoa, whoa, anti-Semitic? I don't think ANYONE's being anti-Semitic here. I think you're grasping for straws.

And I know many sweeter handicapped individuals than Blair. They may not be brighter, but that's because they have disabilities like cerebral palsy and Down syndrome.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:40 pm EDT

More explicitly, who was Kenny Merken's local Harvard admissions advocate?


--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, August 4 2003, 0:41 am EDT

I have asked the question, I am attempting to get an answer for you. I am not sure that "one" was needed (although someone had previously told me of a alum/advocate who was attempting to quash his acceptance, too - don't know if it was true) as I believe Kenny's father and Mother, Mona Shangold, MD were both grads, making him a legacy.

..Ma and Bystander might be able to give you better info, especially on Mom and Dad, with their access to the Alumni Directory.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:47 pm EDT

Following on Mrs. MM's "anti-Semitic" comment, does anyone know if the family of Kenny Mirkin is Jewish as well?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:52 pm EDT

I was only "quoting" from the Crimson. I do know and if you read back here, you will see Anti Semitism roar its ugly head. If you don't think that the $2.7 brought the Anti-Semitic and Jewish comments to light, you are living in a cave.

I am sure there are sweeter individuals than Blair, handicapped or non, but she is as sweet as they come, good natured, helpful, etc. I don't equate sweetness with brightness or disabled. I was just listing SOME of her qualities. Yes, someone always has a bigger boat....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:53 pm EDT

Yes.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:53 pm EDT

Under: part of my reasoning. Did anyone ask or care if Blair and Kenny were Baptists?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:54 pm EDT

No, but I would've if someone had screamed that there were anti-Baptists afoot.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, August 4 2003, 14:55 pm EDT

Under: Anti semitism was just another term that roared on the internet and in newpapers. What can I say?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 15:28 pm EDT

Mrs MM. It is fairly easy when you cut and paste text from a webpage to also cut and paste the URL (location) of the web page. Just go up to the address bar and cut it. This makes for proper attribution in online discussions. The URLs for the Anne Bush and Kudatzky letters are:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/opinion/local1/6407031.htm
http://www.jewishexponent.com/Guide.asp?uid=&szparent=316&pubID=219&Archive=

And Tobin’s editorial at the Jewish Exponent site (a copy of the JewsWeek editorial) can be found at:
http://www.jewishexponent.com/Zoom.asp?StoryID=17686&pubID=219

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, August 4 2003, 16:27 pm EDT

There is an interesting Jewish Exponent letter about section 504 abuse found at http://www.jewishexponent.com/Guide.asp?uid=&szparent=316&pubID=219&Archive=
Behind Moorestown Case? The Abuse of Disabilities’ Law
I know why parents in Moorestown, N.J., so vehemently reject the court’s decision in Hornstine v. Moorestown School District, and so do most other parents in New Jersey’s affluent suburban school districts (A Matter of Opinion: “A Pointless Sacrifice,” July 17).
We know the game that’s being played and the tools being employed by a number of parents willing and financially able to give their kids an extra edge in the competitive world of high school academia.
It doesn’t take much to know all about Section 504, and the accommodations you can force your child’s school to make. You just have to overhear conversations at the swim club, chat with the moms waiting at the end of dance class, go to a PTA meeting or two, and then spend a few thousand dollars on an “educational consultant/advocate.”
Specialized educational services are the new status purchased for the family that already has the McMansion with the Mercedes in the driveway.
Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education.
There are, no doubt, families that truly require, and benefit from, the services of educational consultants. And there are plenty of parents dealing with serious issues who need to rely on school-advocacy services to protect the rights of their disabled child.
For every child whose parents work the system to get them accommodations they would do well enough without receiving, there are thousands of kids — both the healthy and the disabled — not having their educational needs addressed because budgets are spread so thin these days.
The law is so vague that anything from left-handedness to bad behavior, when described by an educational specialist using the “right” terminology, can be considered a disability.
I have no idea whether Blair Hornstine’s individualized educational plan addressed real and profound disabilities. What her case does point out is the suspicion with which many truly disabled students are now viewed.
That suspicion cannot be what’s best for the thousands of New Jersey school students legitimately receiving help under Section 504.
Joanne Kanoff
Cherry Hill, N.J.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, August 4 2003, 16:28 pm EDT

The Harvard Crimson, like many other groups (like the Hasty Pudding, etc.) at Harvard are independent, student run organizations. They are self-governed, self-financed. They are not "agents" of the University.

The reporters at the Crimson are protected by the First Amendment from having to divulge their source(s). The university is in no way "liable" (in any legal sense) for the good reporting on the Crimson's part.

There is no way to compel any party to identify any leak. And let us recall - that the source could even be from the Hornstine side.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 17:46 pm EDT

"Although The Crimson is an independent newspaper, does it not run with the approval of the administration? " - Harvard University has no influence, representation or control of the Harvard Crimson. On the other hand, the university does have such vis-a-vis it's many official publications like the weekly Harvard Gazette - http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/index.html/ (which you will note has not reported on the Blair Hornstine affair).

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 17:52 pm EDT

"The Harvard Crimson is a multi-million-dollar corporation. Funded by subscriptions and advertising revenue, The Crimson is independent of the University. The Crimson operates out of its own building located at 14 Plympton Street, which houses its own printing presses, making it one of the few college newspapers in the country that publishes on its premises." http://www.thecrimson.com/comp.aspx/

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 4 2003, 18:02 pm EDT

Brains: I have read them all. Guess what? I do know how to cut and paste. Learned that in pre-school.....

Ma: I know that the Crimson is an independent entity of the University, but it listed on Harvard's website as a "part" (for want of a better word)of the institution. I do believe that it serves "at the pleasure of the administration, which means that the administration "COULD" attempt to put a strangle hold on them, IF the administration found it necessary. Needless to say, it has really no bearing in the BLH case at the moment. Any future dealings or announcements regarding her will probably be made through the legal department.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 18:27 pm EDT

The Crimson is separate from the College and the University ... as is the Harvard Coop (a cooperative store - owned by its members - not the University), etc.

The Harvard website links to many of the institutions which are located in Cambridge - and across the globe.

To repeat - from the Crimson itself - "The Harvard Crimson is a multi-million-dollar corporation. Funded by subscriptions and advertising revenue, The Crimson is independent of the University. The Crimson operates out of its own building located at 14 Plympton Street, which houses its own printing presses, making it one of the few college newspapers in the country that publishes on its premises." http://www.thecrimson.com/comp.aspx/

It is a corporation - with its own Board, its own P&L, it's own independence.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Monday, August 4 2003, 19:13 pm EDT

It's interesting to note that the Crimson just this past week has filed suit to gain access to university information - in this case crime statistics on the Harvard campus - further demonstrating the "separate" and "independent" nature of the student-owned and run newspaper ...

Newspaper Sues Police Dept.
The Harvard Crimson filed suit against the University Wednesday, seeking to force the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) to release detailed crime reports. The Crimson, which is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU), claims that HUPD officers are subject to state public records laws. Under these laws, the public can file public record requests for police reports, which include details of incidents, witness testimony and other observations from the scene.
(Full article: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348572)

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Monday, August 4 2003, 19:17 pm EDT

Does the Hornstine family know about the comments by Mrs. M.M. on this site?

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 4 2003, 19:36 pm EDT

The University is not liable for any of the student-run, owned and operated organizations, such as The Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/), Hasty Pudding Theatricals (http://www.hastypudding.org/), The Harvard Lampoon (http://www.harvardlampoon.com/) and the Harvard Coop (http://store.thecoop.com/cgi-bin/coopstore.storefront/3f2eea2d01707268273fc0a8146606ca/Catalog). The Harvard Bookstore(http://www.harvard.com/) has no affiliation with the University. It is a private corporation, "founded in 1932 by Mark Kramer, Boston native"...and now managed by Frank Kramer, president of the corporation (http://www.harvard.com/about.html).

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Monday, August 4 2003, 19:39 pm EDT

Where is Blair going to school this fall? Someone has got to know even if it is trying to be kept quiet.

--posted by Curious @ Monday, August 4 2003, 20:30 pm EDT

TM: I do know that they have read some.

Curious: She will be a resident student in a university. It has not been (may not be) publically announced. Give her some peace, please.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 22:11 pm EDT

The school is NOT in the Mountain Time Zone.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 22:12 pm EDT

what is the significance of "NOT in the Mountain Time Zone"? is that where Mrs. M.M. is actually located? is she truly a "troll" as suggested by "connie" on july 28?

as "connie" pointed out: TROLL - "Definition: Reference to a person who enters internet chat rooms and forums for the sole purpose of creating havoc, controversy, and discontent. The word stems from the fishing term "trolling," which involves slowing pulling your line behind a boat in hopes of catching some unsuspecting fish as "bait" moves past them. In a similar manner, an Internet troll makes posts or comments that he/she hopes will catch the interest of others and create the havoc that they crave."

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Monday, August 4 2003, 22:49 pm EDT

Ah, talk about dumping on someone. If you think I am creating havoc, it is because I do not agree with many posters here. I know the truth. I am trying to protect the truth and seek justice for it is deserved. Call it havoc, call it junk, call me any name. I will be proven correct. Time is on my side. Good things come to those who wait....

If you think I would let these people know where Miss Blair is, you are crazier than a bat. I will not spill the beans. I will give hints, so when you find out, I will be exonerated, but no beans.

Troll, Bowl, Goal, Dole, Hole, Mole... truth is freedom, truth is justice. There have been people who post here who attempted to create havoc, but not yours truly, although I am starting to get a "kick" out of the some of the **** suggestions, ideas and crazy and self serving thoughts posted. I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. I CAN ONLY LOSE, BUT I WILL PREVAIL. If you don't like my posts, go elsewhere. If you don't care to do that, ask Adam to ban me. Then you will miss the first hand info that you all crave!


And as far as referring to me as a troll...I think YOU are the one who wants to create controversy and avoid the issue at hand.

Nighty night

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 23:02 pm EDT

mrs mm - have another drink. you're such an amusing drunk.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Monday, August 4 2003, 23:11 pm EDT

Last year, a variety of plagiarism charges were leveled against historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, at that time a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. http://hnn.us/articles/590.html. Early on, The Crimson called for her resignation from the Board in a strongly worded editorial. Does anyone have information regarding whether Goodwin resigned from the Board or served out her term?

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 4 2003, 23:58 pm EDT

The following are links to the evolution of the Goodwin story on the editorial page of The Crimson:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=161414
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180483
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180631
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180706
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=214860

The last opinion piece, dated June 2002, suggests that Harvard may have let Goodwin serve out her Board term. Was there much interest on campus in forcing Goodwin to resign?

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 0:19 am EDT

Doris Kearns Goodwin is no longer a member of Harvard's Board of Overseers. For a listing of the 2003 - 2004 Board - see: http://www.haa.harvard.edu/alumni/html/Overseers.html

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 0:23 am EDT

"The Harvard Crimson has called on [Doris Kearns Goodwin] to resign from the university’s Board of Overseers, arguing that she committed literary crimes that would cost a mere undergraduate his or her academic career."

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/02201537.htm

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 0:34 am EDT

Wow! Take a few days...

Mrs. M.M., I haven't forgotten you, expect mail soon. As to the ongoing BH debate, my opinions stand as I left them. Nice to see that nothing's changed in the time I've been gone.

Adam, please note, My IP address has changed, since someone decided to attempt to monkey around and see if they could penetrate the security on my servers. While they failed, I have decided to hardwire some of the less important aspects of my systems. It was a personal security choice, and has nothing to do with your blog, just so you know.

Nice to see everyone well represented here.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 0:48 am EDT

Mrs M.M., you keep on saying that you stand for the truth, and yet you have been proven wrong by so many people so many times on so many issues. You expound your theories (e.g. the Crimson operates at the pleasure of Harvard University), are proven wrong (by cambridgeMA), refuse to acknowledge it by ignoring the point altogether, and then turn to attack another poster under the name of "truth".

I know you know a lot more about this whole fiasco than we do, from first-hand information you're so keen to distribute to us. Learn some humility, as you have suggested I do, to acknowledge that we may be right, and you wrong, on some other counts?

On "regret" vs. "apologise", I maintain that there's a marked difference. There's a reason world leaders are so quick to offer "regret" and so reluctant to "apologise". The latter most definitely assigns fault. A synonym can be equivalent in some contexts, but more likely is a word of near equivalence or similar meaning, and cannot be used interchangeably with the original in certain contexts. Anyone who's ever fiddled around with Thesaurus in Word should be familiar with the experience!

--posted by bystander @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 4:37 am EDT

I am wondering why anyone bothers to respond to Mrs. M.M. She does a good job of making people believe that she has some inside knowlege. I don't believe it.

She is obviously a TROLL. She is best treated by simply ignoring her. She does not know what she is talking about; she gets her jollies by provoking others here, and they rise to the bait.

What's going to happen with BH and this sad case is beyond the control of anyone here, in any case.

Simply ignore her.

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 4:56 am EDT

i am beginning to wonder if mrs m.m. and s. douglas-smith are the same person. alter-egos at the very least. they post based on little merit and little basis in fact. they both like to rile the collected multitude.

curious as to why mrs m.m. posted a reference to mountain time while s-d-s is proud to point out he's in colorado by way of ohio...and is so very sensitive about his i.p. addresses and needs to share the info with us. just a thought.

--posted by justathought @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 8:31 am EDT

Good Morning: I hope that those of you whom I provoke, who think I am up to no good and are JUST Blair hammers do not respond to me, especially the ones who find my information uninformative and untrue. Just don't forget what I have and had to say. Otherwise, please ignore me.

I also "love" that you think S.D-S and I are "twins." I find it complimentary that I am compared to him. Some of the above posting twits who want to believe this, I again, thank you, as he is a intelligent, well spoken and hard working man. I find that he is one of the few who post here that has the maturity to understand the law, the case and the situation. It also goes to prove to me that those who "say" they graduated or are attending Harvard may have memorized book knowledge, but they do not understand any of the ways of the world.

As far as not telling the truth: It seems that when you want to disbelieve because you are Blair detractors, you find things to knock me. I do know that the Crimson operates as an independent, but I do believe it serves with the "approval" of Harvard University Administration (just like the bookstore). It is like a separate kiosk at the Mall. It is run separately, but with the knowlege, rules, etc. of said Mall.

Cretin attempted to tell me where I live. I answered all the questions he posed. So....please do ignore my ramblings. Just remember, you heard it hear first.

Let me tell you a few things:

BLH will get a 6 figure number from the MHS. Some of it may be "disguised" as legal fees, but she will personally end up with a number in that range.

BLH will be a resident student in a top 40 university this fall.

There will be AT LEAST one book written about this situation....a movie MAY follow.

BLH will be negotiating with Harvard University before the end of 2003.

Keep the above under your pillows. Don't tell anyone, as they won't believe YOU either.....

P.S. I will not go away voluntarily.
Hi S. D-S.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:40 am EDT

Well, just a thought, I assure you that I'm not her, she is most likely far better looking than I am. As for an alter ego, I don't have one, I'm me, no matter how I spell my name. As for my IP versus physical location, I have no doubt that you would love to think that you somehow have deduced my true location. So if you have, feel free, knock on the door, c'mon in, lets have some coffee, or not. Point is, I don't care what you think about my location, or where you 'think' I might actually be.

Last weekend I was actually in the Gulf of Mexico on a boat, and posted from my regular IP, but of course, you know so much, how did I do that? By the way, the fish were amazing, the sharks skerred the hell outta me, and the sun burned my dainty white skin to a crisp. Any thing else, you'll have to imagine.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:44 am EDT

Mrs. M.M.,

Since we posted at almost the same time, there will be speculation that we just changed our sign ins, of course Adam will know that isn't the case, and in the interest of sparing this board from even more such speculation, perhaps, without revealing the IP's he could at least confirm that they are different, from two different locations in the country, geographically separated by hundreds of miles.

By the way, justathought, the reason I pointed out that my IP would be different now is so that Adam, the owner of the site, would be aware that I had done so, as he is familiar with my other IP, and would not think that I was posting under S. Douglas-Smith and impersonating him. Stranger things have occured, just look up. It wasn't to let you, personally, know that I had changed some things, it was to make Adam aware that I wasn't impersonating myself, so to speak. Sorry if that somehow offended you.

Ah, the battles of post Florida fishing.... anybody notice, it's getting chilly here?

--posted by OMG @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:51 am EDT

As someone who worked at a student newspaper that has a similar institutional situation as the Crimson, I feel I am in the position to tell you Mrs M M that you are completely off base when you assert that the Crimson operates with the University's "approval." The relationship between the University at the Crimson is purely historical; for many years, the Crimson was a part of the University. It then became an independent corporation, but remains the only daily newspaper published by Harvard students. Moreover, it is an amenity of the University. It is the only daily objective source of information about Harvard on the campus. It demonstrates the talent of Harvard students and attracts students with interest in journalism. For these informal ties, and these ties alone, the Crimson appears on the University's website.

If the University was upset by something that the Crimson published, they have no formal recourse. Perhaps they would remove the link to the Crimson from their website. Administrators may make themselves less available for interviews and be less cooperative in providing information, but Harvard could in no way stop the presses.

--posted by surlygrad @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:58 am EDT

"There will be AT LEAST one book written about this situation....a movie MAY follow. "

and it will be published by a vanity publisher to further expand the egos of the Hornstine family.

--posted by surlygrad @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:01 am EDT

Surly: I understand what you say. I do suppose that I did not make myself as clear and succinct as you. If you or anyone here believes I think that the Crimson is owned at present by the University, I am sorry that I misled you. Surly, your second paragraph clearly says what I tried to say. I know Harvard cannot stop the presses at the Crimson, I just felt that they had some recourse with them, should the newspaper prove "unworthy" of being associated with Harvard. You cleared up my thoughts. Thanks.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:04 am EDT

As I understand it, there are three separate authors who have expressed an interest in doing "this" book. No one has spoken to me about publisher. One of the "authors -to-be" is from a large metropolitan city (not Philadelphia). He MAY have a big publisher; he MAY BE the publisher. Don't know.

I assure you that the Hornstine family is not writing or publishing this book themselves.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:09 am EDT

How do some people develop such inaginations?

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:19 am EDT

S. D-S. I told you previously that I do not understand IP's and all that Jazz. I do know that I am able to access the Internet through something that belongs to the company my husband owns. This company has computers in New York (up North and on Staten Island), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Florida. I do not know where my IP is located. I also know that "we" have several internet "hosts" (if that is what they are called) from AOL,YAHOO,MSN,adelphi, comcast, ibm, etc. and several others including with our name and company name as the .jones (for instance). I know I am showing my ignorance when it comes to computers, but what I don't know, I don't know.

Anyway, there are probably 150 or more people who use these names and maybe the same IP. Tell me, S. D-S, what can one find out from an IP? Where the base is located? Anything else? I suppose I should ask one of my kids these questions.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:20 am EDT

Mrs M M: having worked with student editors and reporters, they wouldn't hesitate to burn some bridges to put a story out. the administrators can only be upset for so long; they usually come around because it is not in their interest to alienate a publication that shapes student opinion. afterall, it is the only daily publication that's focus is Harvard.

--posted by surlygrad @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:22 am EDT

How do some people develop such inaginations?

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:19 am EDT


MARK MY WORDS!!!!!!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:22 am EDT

Surly: I suppose so, but do you think that the Jayson Blair situation or the Blair Hornstine one (although can't be compared because of professional vs High school)will restrain any of that? Or will the writers, columnists, editors, etc. of a Harvard Crimson be so anxious to have their name in the public view in order to further their careers, not give a damn?

Does the DP at the University of Pennsylvania work the same way? I THOUGHT I remembered that paper having their hands spanked before.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:27 am EDT

Mrs. M M, there's a difference between yellow journalism (what the crimson was doing by publishing the blair hornstine story) and fabrication(what jayson blair did). while i think jayson blair will certainly serve as a warning on falsifying sources and other material, the blair hornstine story may only prompt more senationalism. it's a nice feeling to be responsible for creating a buzz on campus and in the community, which is what this story did. keep in mind, the crimson did nothing unethical. they had new information on a story that people were interseted in, and they published that information. if they couldn't stop the new york times from publishing the pentagon papers, nothing should stop the crimson or any other publication from running some gossip.

I don't know of any specific instance in which the DP got itself into trouble. I do know that the DP is in a more precarious situation than the crimson, and my old paper, the Sun, because they lease their office space from the University. As a matter of fact, they're scrambling around trying to find a new home because Penn has told them that they do not intend to continue the lease. It's supposedly because Penn wants the space for themselves, which I'm inclined to believe.

--posted by surlygrad @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:41 am EDT

I think a book and a movie about Blair's story would do exactly the opposite of what you've been arguing for all along, Mrs. M.M.: wouldn't that just attract more publicity and attention to Blair? Why do you tell us this with such satisfaction while all the while telling us to back off and respect her privacy, when she obviously wants much more attention than what she has now?

S. Douglas-Smith: 1 in 3 people from my country get some form of skin cancer in their lives from sun exposure - do be careful. I had to get a pre-cancerous patch removed myself recently.

Wondering: Thank you for your advice - I wish I were less easily provoked. I think I will indeed step back a bit from now on.

cambridgeMA: Thank you for your logical, factual, and above all, fair posts - you make the issues debatable without being vindictive or ugly. I really have respect for your intellect and good judgement and it's wonderful to have you as an alumni.

I'm just an undergrad, and I know I have a lot to learn. I've learnt a lot from y'all already and am grateful for it. At the same time, I do know enough to know that Mrs. M.M. has done our student body a discourtesy by labelling us boring, unattractive, self-serving, egotistical and pompous. This isn't the Harvard-Yale game, this is a posting board for adults who want to discuss the many social issues that Blair's experiences highlight. I would appreciate an apology - it's the least one could do.

--posted by bystander @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:46 am EDT

Mrs. M.M.

The easiest way for you to see what your IP is would be to look at your network connection properties. Your assigned (by your provider) IP will be displayed in that window.

Path = Start/control panel/network connections/local area connection/support

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 11:25 am EDT

Generally, the IP provides little more than a server address, and if one looks, it's location. That being said, using various protocols, one's IP certainly does not identify ones actual location.

With wireless technology, for instance, one's IP may be located in a central server in New York, though they personally are in Cleveland... (for instance, Verizon Wireless) Using a satellite, the number of hops to the eventual server location would be difficult to follow. For instance, Hughes Digital, which is the owner of my actual service provider, DirecWay, is located in Houston. The central server that I log in from is located in Denver Colorado, but the IP is assigned by my servers in Dayton, Ohio, because I use a signon from those servers, and have disabled DHCP in order to maintain, if you will, my digital signature. While I was in Florida, using my laptop, and a wireless connection, I used the same signons, made contact with a server in Ocala, and still registered an IP assigned from Time Warner Communications in Dayton, Ohio. Now, tasked with actually locating an individual, various agencys do have the ability to go to the provider, and extract from them the actual physical location of a user. This is essentially how Keven Mitnick was finally apprehended. (K.M. is a famous hacker, not to be confused with Kenny Mirkin)

Beyond that, it is generally not possible to resolve a provider assigned IP to an actual physical location beyond that of the server that assigned it. While it can be done, the average user, like yourself would have no need to, nor would it be an easy proposition.

I've answered this question here, only because it was asked here, and I apologize to anyone who may find the off topic discussion distasteful, or a waste of time.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 11:38 am EDT

I never thought that the Crimson SHOULD not have published their find. I only say that it was published before BLH was informed which I personally think was not proper...maybe unethical. However, it is not my fight. From the "legal" info that I am given and from the knowledge I have, BLH has a "real right" for Harvard to make "it right."

Bystander: I think she deserves privacy until she is ensconced in her college. By the time a book comes out, hopefully she will be into law school. If you are looking for an apology, maybe I am looking for some to believe that Blair got the rotten end of the stick...not from her family...but by others who are unfairly and have unfairly judged her, her motives, her illness and her future. If one thinks that she played her cards by "taking advantage" of the disabled and received her IEP education at home, I believe that it certainly was in no way unethical (as I feel the Crimson reporter might have been) I also DO believe that "some" Harvard students/grads either see themselves in Blair/the situation and will find a mirror image (and one or more here agreed) if Miss H. becomes a student at Harvard. If I personally insulted you, I apologize. As I have said over and over and over, I am attempting to set the record straight and add some "protection" for Blair in that she is a great person. The situation at hand with her unfairly demeans her. If you ever met her,spent time with her, not knowing her infamy, I can promise you that you would fall out of your tree when you found out "who she is." She is the plainest, possibly unsophisticated, non-book worm looking young lady that I have seen in a long time. She is REAL! Yes, that is why I wish her peace, truth, vengence on those who have made her life miserable. I am a grown woman. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names........

Even with the schadenfreude of some posters,
I will continue to defend Blair with all my heart. I will continue to set the blog straight with FACTS, even though many do not wish to believe. It is difficult for me to attempt to hammer in the truth to some who won't believe (schadenfreude?) even if it were as simple as 1 + 1= 2. I will not give up. I will prevail as far as knowing the truth

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 11:47 am EDT

Thanks. S.D-S. I think I understand MOST of your info.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 11:49 am EDT

Where has it been stated that the Harvard Crimson knew that the University had rescinded its offer before Blair was informed - and publicized it in its article? If such happened and was a concern - why didn't her attorney (Edwin Jacobs) point this out in his comments to Newsweek? He claims that she withdrew her application before Harvard rescinded its offer. So - what's at issue? Nothing.

"Hornstine’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs Jr., says the rejection was mutual. 'Blair had decided to tender a withdrawal of her application simply because of the rabid, negative publicity on that campus,' he says. Harvard won’t comment, but accepted students are always told that admission can be revoked for behavior that questions 'honesty, maturity or moral character.' .... 'Blair has been exploring other alternatives, namely campuses less hostile than Harvard,' says Jacobs." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/938181.asp).

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 14:30 pm EDT

Fascinating discussion. It's pathetic that in this selfish society, lawsuits are the answer to every stupid thing. This girl is lucky that she is smart enough to get into Harvard and that her daddy has enough money to help her overcome her health issues so that she can go to a private college and be one of the best. Lots of kids work to pay off their college tuition because their parents just don't earn enough to foot a $35000+ bill. I speculate that she won't be holding a campus job or taking out any loans. It seems to me that she's had everything handed to her on a silver platter. Maybe when she's in college sharing a dorm bathroom with 30 other students, she'll learn that life is not always fair and you don't always get what you want. As a college student, I want my college to have academic integrity. Harvard stood up for theirs when they took away her acceptance. Hey, life's not fair, sometimes you get caught cheating and sometimes you don't.

--posted by just a college student @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 15:16 pm EDT

I know that after Blair's visit to Harvard in May, she decided the climate was not advantageous to her. She decided not to attend.I do know that the Crimson's article was the first inkling on Harvard's decision. I am not sure that Eddie Jacobs statement that she "had withdrawn her application" was actually correct. Her plan was PROBABLY to put her acceptance on the back burner for a year to "check out the weather." Judge H. told me that the Crimson's article was the first time he read that Blair was being denied admission. He did not tell me that her withdrawal was actually filed, but he and I both knew that Blair had decided not to attend in September, 2003. Blair also did not get official notification from Harvard until after the article. With the letter, and with the article in the New York times, came the statement that the "file" was being turned over to the Legal Department. Time will tell what happens! I still root for her.

Just: "Hey, life's not fair, sometimes you get caught cheating and sometimes you don't." Gee, according to you, BLH just had a case of bad luck..... So, if you don't get caught, your college will have integrity????
I can't believe that your college would love to hear that.

So, she has a bigger boat, her Father has more money than some, but not has much as others....That part makes her lucky to be born into that family. She does not live her personal life on a silver platter. And if she did, you can't "blame" her for having a successful family. Judge Hornstine worked hard for years to give "his family" extras. So, you think he shouldn't share it with his kids? You think that his success makes her selfish? So is Judge Hornstine selfish and successful or are other parents whose kids have to work and take out loans "unselfish" and "losers?" I don't think so. Judge Hornstine prepared for a family by educating himself and being a successful lawyer. Can't knock him for doing what most of you students are attempting to do!!!!!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 16:29 pm EDT

Just: I forgot. Blair earned in excess of $100,000 in scholarships. Her Dad did not "give" her those. Plus two colleges gave her the fullboat when it came to tuition, etc. for 4 years. One college even threw in law school, but she declined both for Harvard. She had a good down payment with the scholarships. Daddy didn't do it.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 16:36 pm EDT

If Blair's attorney Jacobs is making incorrect statements to the press, I would suggest they get more professional counsel. Such a blunder doesn't bode well for her.

I actual have faith that what Jacobs said is accurate.

To be precise about the NY Times article ... the actual quote is:

"Last week, Ms. Hornstine received a letter from Harvard stating that "the college regrets the committee's action has become a matter of public attention" but called the case closed and referred the family to the school's general counsel" - from the New Jersey section of the Sunday New York Times (July 20, 2003) - reprinted online at: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=bfnlt9%246v4%241%40news.monmouth.com

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 17:11 pm EDT

"...after Blair's visit to Harvard in May, she decided the climate was not advantageous to her. She decided not to attend."

If so, she parted ways with Harvard in May ... and the news of her not attending came to light on Friday, July 11 in the Harvard Crimson article (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348498). Obviously, no big deal then.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 17:20 pm EDT

Harvard rejected her as a result of her plagiarism. Jacobs "spin" that Blair withdrew her application smacks of "you can't fire me, I quit!"

If she actually decided in May not to attend why were her spokesperson's so adamant that they felt her admission to Harvard was not in question. Let's revisit Jacobs' and Kudatsky's statements - both made in early July:

"I am confident that, at the end of the day, Harvard will see that this is a non-issue, and quite frankly, something that is another example of Blair being singled out and victimized, [Steven Kudatzky] told The Crimson." (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348380)

"Jacobs, their lawyer, told the Associated Press, 'It was a whole lot of nothing. She wrote some fluff pieces for a kid-chat column. We have more important things to deal with.' (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp)

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 17:28 pm EDT

correction (for above): [I actually have faith that what Newsweek reported that Jacobs said is accurate.]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 17:50 pm EDT

Also to consider - whether or not Blair received notification (by mail) from Harvard before, at the same time as or after the Harvard Crimson's July 11th. article - I would suspect that the use of the telephone was a likely conduit for communicating the decision. I would expect that the Hornstines and/or their attorneys were in regular contact by phone awaiting the committee's decision.

We can't forget that Blair and her attorneys were actively involved in the review of her admissions status at Harvard:

"According to [Director of Undergraduate Admissions Marlyn McGrath] Lewis, when an application comes under review, Harvard first asks a student 'to tell us in his or her own words what happened.' " The admissions committee—composed of both representatives from the admissions office and professors—then meets to discuss the case. The decision on Hornstine followed such a meeting. Since the allegations of plagiarism were first reported, Hornstine has defended her actions by way of press releases and family spokespersons." (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348498).

If Blair had indeed decided to withdraw her application, why then did she put herself through the rigor of a review ... and waste the valuable time and resources of her attorneys and of all the people at Harvard?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 18:05 pm EDT

"Harvard rejected her as a result of her plagiarism.We can't forget that Blair and her attorneys were actively involved in the review of her admissions status at Harvard:"
posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 18:05 pm EDT


YOU ARE PARAPHRASING WITH A SPIN AGAIN. You can copy all the articles in the world. Doesn't mean they are true. Just because the almighty Harvard or any reporter wrote it, it is not gospel.

You cannot seem to make up your mind if you believe Eddie Jacobs or not. Prior to this posting, you didn't believe him. Now you do....spin, spin, spin.

ACTIVELY INVOLVED????? And where does it say or where did you get the information that "her attorneys were actively involved in the review of her admission status? Gee whiz, Harvard lets anybody in to discuss a case...I don't think so. "Defended her actions with press releases and family spokespersons" does not sound like actively involved in the review of her admissions.

Which way do you want to go now? Jacobs being correct? Harvard being correct? Blair wanting admission? Blair not wanting admission? Harvard having made the decision? Blair made the decision? Harvard? Believing Harvard spokesman that the case went to their legal committee? Or not? You exhaust me.

This I can tell you. The Hornstine family found out about the rescission in the Crimson. No call or letter preceded the article or arrived or was written by Harvard before the article, or the day of publication. What you expect, is not what happened. Actually, the Hornstines were in contact with Harvard, but the day before the article came out, Judge Hornstine was assured on the telephone by a "DEAN" that no decision had been made. I had spoken to the Judge immediately after his conversation with the "DEAN".

Please, Please Please, stop repeating yourself with new spins..

In addition, paperwork from the admissions committee for additional clarification of something had been sent to Miss H. before the story broke. Obviously, the request by Harvard was never completed.

Please, Please Please, stop repeating yourself and adding new spins..

--posted by Mrs.. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 22:42 pm EDT

My opinion:

(1) Blair's plagiarism was uncovered...and was truly such...wrong.
(2) Blair's team - lawyers and spokespeople - went into "spin control" and attempted to say such was no big deal ... even claiming that Harvard would feel the same.
(3) The Blair team proactively contacted Harvard about the situation with the Courier articles...even going so far as to predict that at the end of the day, Harvard will see that this [i.e. the plagiarism] is a "non-issue".
(4) Harvard reviewed the situation and convened a committee to do so.
(5) Blair - and her representatives - were given an opportunity to present her position on the plagiarism in a review of the situation.
(5) The committee deliberated and subsequently ruled that Blair had indeed violated the pre-conditions set forth for admissions - i.e. she had violated a basic tenet that is central to academic honesty - she lifted others words, massaged them ... and presented them as her own - and did so on numerous occasions ... and had done so in a public forum (a newspaper) - much more broadly distributed than any academic work - often intended for an audience of one (i.e. a teacher).
(6) The Harvard committee notified the Hornstines of their decision.
(7) An intrepid reporter - from an independent student owned, student run publication - found a source involved in the proceedings - someone from either the Harvard camp - or, even the Hornstine camp ... and wrote the article that appeared on July 11th. in the Crimson.
(8) Attorney Jacobs, attempting to "save face" comes out a few days later in an interview with a national publication (Newsweek) and says that the decision to not attend Harvard was mutual. An attorney's attempt to say that his client was in control. Nonetheless he helps to seal the official fact - Blair will not attend Harvard College - ever...as an undergraduate student. [Any chance to attend any of Harvard University's graduate programs is only known by whatever gods, fate, destiny to which any one of us abscibes.]
(9) Harvard is on solid footing in that their decision is based on a student breaking one of the five tenets set forth for impending students, seeking matriculation in the Fall; Harvard tells the Hornstines that the matter is closed...and if they have any beef ... "you can contact our lawyers".
(10) Bye bye Harvard.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 23:43 pm EDT

I have never believed Jacobs or Kudatsky ... and I do believe that the interviews they gave with publications (i.e. Newsweek and the weekly Standard) accurately reported their statements. I am sure the statements were followed up by fact-checkers. If there has been any misquotes ... either individual would have sought a retraction. So - in the end - I put much more faith in what these publications report than the purported statements by some of those who post supposed "knowledge" on this blog.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 23:50 pm EDT

corrections (for above) - [...to which any of us ascribe]; [If there had been any misquotes...]

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 23:55 pm EDT

correction (for above) - [If there had been any misquotes ...]

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 23:56 pm EDT

When will all of us recognize that Mrs. M. M. does not know what she is talking about. She has a overactive imagination. She is not an insider, she would like us all to believe that she is, but she is not.

Ignore her.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 0:00 am EDT

So - if indeed Blair decided in May to withdraw her application from Harvard, why oh why did the situation drag out through July? Why did she submit herself to the stress and rigor which would likely accompany such a process - particularly since she is one suffering from such an alleged disability as chronic fatigue syndrome (or some such related disability)? If she had told Harvard to f**k off, why was she, her family and her attorneys so invested in contacting Harvard, seeking to defend her plagiarism? Why did the family, the attorneys and others subject themselves and Harvard to a review of her status at the College?

We all know the answer. Blair prayed - and crossed her fingers - that Harvard would see beyond her repeated instances of plagiarism. Her family had lawyers and spokespeople try to convince Harvard that her articles were "fluff" ... that all was a "non-issue". The committe - made up of representatives from the admissions office and from the faculty - saw otherwise. Admission - denied. Case - closed. Have a beef - here's the phone number of our lawyers. Good luck.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 0:03 am EDT

Wondering - thanks for the reminder - time to once again *ignore* Mrs MM. I wish there were an "ignore" feature on this blog - similar to that on AOL chat rooms.

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 0:07 am EDT

correction (above): [committee]

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 0:17 am EDT

AH. Vilify if you want, but I will be prevail.The whining will not come from my camp.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 7:56 am EDT

By the way, Ma. A couple days ago, I asked you for some info from your "friends" in Byerly or from the Alumni directory. You didn't or couldn't produce them???

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 7:57 am EDT

I would suggest that until certain individuals can learn to act like they have the ability to determine the difference between an argument and a fight, that they stop flooding the board with commentary that is self serving, irrelevant, and ultimately, baseless.

None of you know what Mrs. M.M. is or isn't, and it's time to stop making personal asides. So you don't like her, I would think it's fair to say that there are those who don't like you.

It is, after all, a two way street.

Deal with it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 8:06 am EDT

Ah, S. D-S, I was wondering if in the first sentence of your post you were talking about Mrs. M. M. Please go back and look at all my posts. You will find that there is no personal attack on anyone. I neither like, nor dislike, anyone who has posted here. I have merely said that Mrs. M. M. does not know what she is talking about. And IMO she does not.

MA raises a good point in the chronology of events with respect to whether BH quit before she was fired in her effort to attend Harvard. Mrs. M. M., rather than respond with arguement, accuses MA of "spinning" the facts. It just ain't so.

Mrs. M. M. simply enjoys trolling on this blog. Given the times of day and frequency of her posts, it seems she has little else to do these days. It was one of the reasons that I had been wondering whether she was one of BH's home instructors. She has denied that. I was also wondering if she is Judge H's secretary, given her supposed insider status and the frequency of her posts. But I have determined that is probably not the case, since I am sure the Judge's secretary would not have the time to spend here, and would never use the computers belonging to Camden County to make such posts, as that is against the rules.

I have learned over time that when one simply ignores annoying people, they just go away.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 8:28 am EDT

Wondering, when it is time, I will reveal....
My time constraints are only restricted by the time I am on my computer doing "work."

If S.D-S. had complete respect from the rest of you, I would reveal to him who I am. He does know my name, which I have asked him not to reveal. If I could "trust" someone else here and he/she were given the respect deserved by all, I would reveal. Then many of you would bust your bubble.....

Ignore me, please, if you want...Just put my "facts" in the back of your mind or write them down, seal them in an envelope and bring them out in a few months or so.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 8:56 am EDT

Having spoken with a friend in the admissions office at Harvard, I learned that the undergraduate admissions office in Byerly Hall does not submit student application essays to any computerized screening - seeking plagiarism. The applications are actually reviewed and read in hard copy format. In addition to the "Common Application", Harvard requires a "Harvard Supplement" for additional essays - and many students also submit videotapes, audio tapes/CD's (i.e. musical performances),transparency slides of artwork.

To put it all in perspective...

for the Class of 2006 - 19,609 applications were reviewed; and 1,638 students were eventually registered (a final yield rate of 8.35%)(http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~admisweb/stats/Prof06_files/frame.htm)

for the Class of 2006 - 20,987 applications were reviewed and 1,650 students were eventually registered (a final yield rate of 7.86%)
(http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348131)

Applications are read by two or more members of the Admissions Committee - and are considered very carefully in a series of committee meetings where a majority vote is required for admission.
(http://www.college.harvard.edu/admissions/faqs.html#17)

Application review is obviously a time intensive and laborious process - considering the significant volume of applications...and the majority of the process is accomplished in less than three-months (December 15 - March).

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:21 am EDT

There is no listing for a Mona Shangold in the alumni directory ["No alumni matched your search data."]; There are no "Shangolds" at all. Since I don't know Kenny Mirkin's father's name - I can't do a targetted search ... however...there are four Mirkins - Gabriel Mirkin (AB 1957); Gaston Mirkin (LLM 2001); Harriett Mirkin (AB 1955) and Joan Mirkin (MBA 1970).

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:29 am EDT

for the Class of 2006 - 19,609
for the Class of 2006 - 20,987
EH?

The review process of Harvard is much like most other colleges. However, I am suprised that no one at Harvard reviews by computer for plagiarism as some schools now do. Most colleges rule by committee; one or two members "present" an individual for "approval" by the committee after review by the member assigned to the application.

How about the info from the alumni directory?

P. S. On further reflection, I am not sure what purpose revealing who I am would add to this blog. I am either accepted and believed or not. Most of you prefer the latter, as I think you just won't support Miss H, not matter what.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:32 am EDT

corrections (above) {transparency slides of artwork, etc.] // [for the Class of 2007 - 20,987...]

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:38 am EDT

Off topic ... but, nonetheless of interest ... for the incoming class of 2007, Harvard College provided $68 million dollars in "grant-based" packages (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348131)...with over 70% of incoming students receiving financial aid (http://www.college.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_faqs.html#1)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:46 am EDT

http://lcmarc.dra.com/lcmarc/AJW-0885
http://lcmarc.dra.com/lcmarc/*MIRKIN%20GABE/26a591001000/0

Dr. Gabe Mirkin and Dr. Mona Shangold's books!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:47 am EDT

Dr. Shangold graduated from U of P either undergraduate or Medical. I had been told that she had been a Harvard student.

--posted by rs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:53 am EDT

Gabe Mirkin - impressive qualifications... practising physician, sports medicine specilaist, author, television and radio personality, residency at Mass General; Teching Fellow at Harvard Medical School and Johns Hopkins; marathon runner, coach of National AAU Ladies Cross Country team, etc. And a local boy - having gone to the prestigious Boston Latin School (1948 - 1953) before attending Harvard College.

Check out his website at: http://www.drmirkin.com/.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 9:57 am EDT

Having Googled "Mona Shangold" it appears that she received her MD from Duke University in 1972 (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:mIeIfjjdP0cJ:dumcdevelopment.duke.edu/medAlum/pdf/AlumniNewsSummer01.pdf+%22mona+shangold%22+%2B+duke&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

There are no "Shangolds" listed as Harvard alumni/ae.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 10:04 am EDT

Just found that, too. I should have waited for your post

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 10:14 am EDT

thank you for your apology, Mrs. M.M.; while I continue to disagree with you on some points, I appreciate your response.

oh and I think the stats for the applicant numbers are 19,609 for Class of 2006, and 20,987 for Class of 2007.

continuing on the slightly off-topic issue of grants and scholarships...the one thing that has always impressed me is the lack of merit-based scholarships at Harvard College - all financial aid is need-based. In my opinion it's such a better way of allocating resources, ensuring that prospective students who would otherwise be deprived of the education they want are able to attend.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 10:19 am EDT

When I once asked why Harvard does not give merit scholarships, I was told because it is Harvard. I am not sure any of the IVY's give them. It is too bad because many deserving students just cannot afford to go there, even with other scholarships, financial aid, etc.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 11:22 am EDT

Is everyone sure that Dr. Mirkin from DrMirkin.com is Kenny's dad? In the About page, it lists a woman, Diana Mirkin, as Dr. Mirkin's wife. Mrs. MM has said that Dr. Mona Shangold is Kenny's mom so unless they're divorced, I'm not sure we're on the right path here.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 12:37 pm EDT

I suspect that Kenny Mirkin's parents are divorced. As mentioned on his website, Dr. Mirkin is married to Diana Mirkin.

On the Duke Med Alumni link (from 2001) the following "blurb" appears: "Mona Shangold (MD ’72; HS ’72 – ’76) … is in private practice in Philadelphia, Pa. She dedicates her spare time to community service and advocacy for gifted children. Her son is a sophomore in high school” (http://dumcdevelopment.duke.edu/medAlum/pdf/AlumniNewsSummer01.pdf). This may indicate that she is a “single-parent” mother.

Isn’t Moorestown a “bedroom community” for many who work in Philadelphia?

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 12:54 pm EDT

"Does Harvard award merit scholarships? ....No. Harvard is firmly committed to allocating resources to sustain our policies of need-blind admissions and need-based financial aid. Our unusually talented student populations -- chosen in a very competitive admissions process-- would, in any case, complicate the equitable distribution of merit-based awards. However, students last year brought with them to Harvard about $11 million in scholarships from outside resources, thus enhancing their own financial flexibility during their college years." (http://www.college.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_faqs.html#5)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 12:58 pm EDT

I knew many students whose need was so great that their entire college costs were covered by Harvard grants and financial aid packages - requiring no other outside scholarships. One of the most impressive things about Harvard is the incredibly broad array of representation from all social, economic, ethnic and geographic segments.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 13:01 pm EDT

For the Class of 2007 - the per student average for financial assistance is an incredible $68,398 per student. ($68 million in Harvard grants + 11 million in outside grants) / (1,650 registered students x 70%)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 13:07 pm EDT

It's important to understand what "need blind" means...

"Harvard maintains a "need-blind" admissions policy for all applicants -- including international students. That is, the Committee makes each admissions decision without regard to whether a student has applied for financial aid, whether a student qualifies for financial aid, and regardless of the amount of aid for which a student qualifies."
(http://www.college.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_faqs.html#2)

Some students require 100% financial aid ... while others require none.

As well - it's interesting to note that each individual's circumstances are considered for financial aid ...

"Financial aid is more widely available than most families expect. We determine need based on a variety of family circumstances, not income alone. Even families with annual incomes exceeding $100,000 may qualify for scholarship aid."
(http://www.college.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_faqs.html#3)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 13:12 pm EDT

Even with financial aid, all accepted students cannot attend Harvard. A few years ago, I know of a student who could not afford to attend even with the aid as it still would not cover enough, especially the first year, when he didn't want to "have to" work until he got his feet wet with school.

"She dedicates her spare time to community service and advocacy for gifted children. Her son is a sophomore in high.." ADVOCACY FOR GIFTED CHILDREN???
Do you think that is why she "whined" (not my word) because Kenny was not going to be Valedictorian? Do you think that is why she also hired a lawyer? Do you think her "advocacy" could have been embarrassing because her "star" wasn't #1? Food for thought....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 13:48 pm EDT

Mrs. MM--

I'm afraid I don't understand why revealing your true identity to S D-S hinges on our respect for him. Shouldn't it just require yours? A private e-mail would be enough, and it wouldn't even need to be mentioned on these boards. Why do any of us matter to your private conversations? Or am I misreading your post? I'm genuinely confused.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 14:06 pm EDT

No, I don't think Dr. Shangold's "advocacy" would have been embarassing if her child wasn't number one. Not all gifted children are, and true advocates of gifted children understand and love their children for their exceptional gifts, in a qualitative rather than quantitative way. Suggesting that a mother would be embarassed for her cause if her son wasn't a winner is sick, IMO.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 14:08 pm EDT

I guess I am at a loss to understand why, in the grand scheme of a lifetime, anyone would have thought being the sole valedictorian of the MHS Class of 2003 was so important to go to the lengths they did in pursuit of that honor. Both BH and KM were already admitted to Harvard, presumably their immediate goal. Being there as the valedictorian from MHS just would not have mattered to anyone - not a soul.

Assuming that BH finishes law school somewhere and becomes a lawyer, do you suppose anyone will care about whether she was the valedictorian of her high school class? They won't even care about where she went to undergraduate school, or law school. All that will matter is the merit of the cause she is advocating, her level of preparation, and the quality of her presentation. Period! Life is like that. What matters in the moment is what we are doing in the moment.

If it is true, as some say to be the case, that KM's mom convinced the superintendent to change the rules (and I agree with some others here that the proper application of the rules would have resulted in BH being the sole valedictorian :) ) then she has lost perspective, as well. In the end, who really cares whether KM was the valedictorian, the sole valedictorian, or the co-valedictorian? Why was it so important to Mom that her son be the valedictorian, in the first place? Do you think that any of his professors are going to give one hoot that he held that honor in the grading of his work? No one, in the ordinary course, whold know. Of course, some will now know, if only because he will have been the guy who knowcked out BH. I can assure you, it will not even get him a free cup of coffee.

I am wondering if there is something in the water in Moorestown that caused all of this to happen. Or is it simply parents who want to be able to go to the club on Saturday evening and say to another: "My son beat your daughter. Na . . . Na . . . Na . Na Na!"

Seems pretty dumb to me. But, then what do I know? I was not the valedictorian in my high school class, and was too dumb then to know that it really meant all that much. Many years later, I know that it didn't.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 14:44 pm EDT

Forgive the typos. I don't feel compelled to correct them, and all can figure out what I mean. ;)

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 14:48 pm EDT

Wondering: Than why was Dr. Shangold referred to as the "whinner" in this matter with her complaints to the superintendent.

In the scheme of things for the future, it is not important who was Valedictorian. It was (as I have repeated here 1,000 times - maybe I should get a stamp)
that the MHS handbook stated that the student at the beginning of the seventh semester of high school with the highest GPA will be the Valedictorian of the graduating class. Miss Blair was not being considered, no matter what some of the above readers look at it. She was not asked to share. She was not asked. Period. Miss Blair was not sent a letter by the superintendent that "she was being considered" as was Kenny. Miss Blair was informed in a public setting of a class meeting that the in late January "that the rules were being changed." February 1 started the seventh semester. Must I go on and on.

This is the crux. This is what started it all. Sure, with what has happened, it seems a small thing to be or not to be Valedictorian. But as I have again always said "when you work so hard for something,follow the rules set for you, earn it and it is taken away, ....."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 18:02 pm EDT

Wondering: Than why was Dr. Shangold referred to as the "whinner" in this matter with her complaints to the superintendent.

In the scheme of things for the future, it is not important who was Valedictorian. It was (as I have repeated here 1,000 times - maybe I should get a stamp)
that the MHS handbook stated that the student at the beginning of the seventh semester of high school with the highest GPA will be the Valedictorian of the graduating class. Miss Blair was not being considered, no matter what some of the above readers look at it. She was not asked to share. She was not asked. Period. Miss Blair was not sent a letter by the superintendent that "she was being considered" as was Kenny. Miss Blair was informed in a public setting of a class meeting that the in late January "that the rules were being changed." February 1 started the seventh semester. Must I go on and on.

This is the crux. This is what started it all. Sure, with what has happened, it seems a small thing to be or not to be Valedictorian. But as I have again always said "when you work so hard for something,follow the rules set for you, earn it and it is taken away, ....."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 18:02 pm EDT

It's time for me to make dinner...I made too many typos.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 18:04 pm EDT

As state above: “Miss Blair was not being considered [for valedictorian or co-valedictorian], no matter what some of the above readers look at it. She was not asked to share.”

I read it differently.

The judge clearly points out that the issue under consideration in her court involved the consideration of multiple valedictorians, instead of the previously defined practice of the school to name a sole valedictorian.

The opening sentence of the Judge’s opinion states: “Plaintiff Blair Hornstine…seeks the protection of this Court by way of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to enjoin defendant Moorestown Board of Education (“the Board”) from retroactively applying to her a proposed policy amendment that would allow the designation of multiple valedictorians…”
http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html

The judge does not come down on one side or the other – (a) whether Blair was going to be passed over as valedictorian, or (b) whether Blair would have been named co-valedictorian.

Further on she characterizes the issue at hand as involving the “…naming as valedictorian, together with, or instead of, plaintiff…”
http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html

It was the judge’s opinion that the school district did indeed violate its stated previous practice of “[naming the] graduating ‘senior student with the highest seventh semester (weighted G.P.A.)…[as]…the valedictorian, and the student with the second highest seventh semester [weighted G.P.A.] will be named the salutatorian.’” by seeking to name multiple valedictorians.
http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 18:58 pm EDT

I am not sure what the response to my post means? Go back and read my post.

Notwithstanding that I believe the superintendent should not have changed the rules, the class move by BH would be to withdraw the suit.

Obviously, the lesson of this case is not who should or should not have been the MHS 2003 valedictorian, but rather how rediculous we have let ourselves become in the race for relativly meaningless prizes. The acquisition of knowlege and wisdom is worth a lifetime of effort. A badge that proclaims a person first in her class is not worth more than a few minutes of concern.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 21:05 pm EDT

Wondering - I agree with you. All of the time, energy and effort that was expended in Moorestown over what in the end essentially becomes a footnote in one's life - and a brief mention on a CV - is somewhat mind boggling.

In her Opinion Judge Wolfson alludes to the unfortunate climate this whole affair created: "It is unfortunate that the burdens of competition imposed on these students by parents and the school community have further fanned the flames of this controversy." (http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html#Footref16)

--posted by cambridgeMA @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 22:24 pm EDT

. . . and that non-sequitor by the court in dicta would be based upon exactly what in the record?

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 22:37 pm EDT

Yanno... there are lots of valid points being made here, but it seems that the gist of the blog has become centered on the plagiarsim aspect of things, with some every now and again commentary on the actual basis for the court case.

Given the historic figures who have plagiarized, I did a search or two on Kennedy+Plagiarism and then Martin Luther King Jr and plagiarism, and then Blair and plagiarism, and sadly, this case has more information available than any of the historical figures do. I think it's sad because these other folks, JFK and MLK, Jr. influenced society and are held in such incredibly high esteem in our communities. It's sad mostly because of the double standards that become apparent when you look at this from that perspective.

Our most renowned civil rights leader, and a president that this country has nearly deified, and Blair Hornstine... and she is getting the press. I realize that it's current, but it's also almost always blown off when these other famous plagiarists are mentioned.

Kennedy famously dallied with many movie stars, notably Marilyn Monroe, amongst others, but since he was a Kennedy, we made him bigger than life. Clinton had his affairs... and the Republican Junta nearly crucified him. Times have changed, and while Clinton generally was a worm, Blair Hornstine is a kid... maybe, just maybe, we have blown this out of proportion. Waaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. In any event, maybe one day this blip on the national radar screen will go away, but in the meantime, I think, if nothing else, we need to remember the importance of things in the scheme of things. Yesterday, two more soliders were killed in Iraq... I doubt there'll be a blog of novel proportions dedicated to their deaths.

That folks, is the real tragedy of Blair Hornstine, and the whole fixation we, (me too), have on her.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 10:23 am EDT

If you think that plagiarism is out of proportion and that $2.7 million is in proportion, you need a serious reality check duggo.

--posted by glad @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 10:40 am EDT

Glad,

In my post there is not a single word regarding the dollar amount of the legal side of things. My name is not duggo, and you seem to be unable to read, perhaps the reality check should be practiced in your mirror.

My comment was general in nature, didn't address the other aspects of the case, only the plagiarism, and the way we, socially, ignore the famous plagiarists, and have fixiated upon Blair's actions.

If you want to attack me, that's okay, but at least do it over something I say, instead of something you came up with on your own...

As I said, my post says nothing about anything except the uneven comparisons between social movers and shakers, and Blair Hornstine... why don't you address that, as to why it was okay to lionize Kennedy, and MLK, Jr., and to crucify Blair Hornstine for ultimately far less dramatic actions. After all, Glad, she didn't submit a Doctorial Thesis that was over 60% plagiarized as Mr. King did.

Isn't that more relevent?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 10:46 am EDT

BTW, Glad, thanks for proving so quickly, my point about how the actions of the above mentioned famous plagiarists is blown over... because that's exactly what you did, ignored the point, and drew a conclusion that had no bearing on the comment I made.

Reality check, next right...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 10:49 am EDT

Well, S. D-S. we agree on the fact that this is overblown. I also agree that we were - are - willing to overlook some very serious sins by those we have practically deified. Perhaps because many, if not most, put them up on a pedistal in the first place. To find fault with them is to find fault with ourselves. Remember Pogo? "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

My whole point is that the issue here is not whether BH was or was not entitled to be the valedictorian, nor is it even the plagiarism. The big issue of concern for me, at least, is the lengths some of us (probably most of us, at one time or another) are willing to go for what is really some pretty meaningless badge. And I will bet that there are a great deal more parents in Moorestown than BH's and KM's who were pusing their kids and advocating for them just as hard. We just didn't hear about them in the press. It is a sad circumstance.

The other issue, related to the first, is the propensity of our society to use the courts for redress of perceived wrongs that don't really mean that much in the final analysis. The great American credo seems to have become: "If something bad has happened to me, it is someone else's fault, ant they are going to pay." It is a misuse of valuable resources.

BTW, Harry Truman was a pretty boring president. All he did was run the country. I understand he liked poker and a good cigar, however.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 11:23 am EDT

I think that people will be a lot more willing to give Blair respect when she contributes something of major significance to society, like Dr. King. Donating prom dresses is fine, and a lovely gesture, but unfortunately not what brought her to national significance. As of yet, Blair hasn't done anything--and, I suppose, she hasn't had time--to show the media that she's currently focusing on anything but her own self-interests. I can tell you this, though, and choose to believe me if you will: the day that Blair makes the contribution to society that Mrs. MM is so sure that she'll make is the day I'll forgive her for what I see as deliberate plagiarism and shady tactics. If she goes to law school and fights for the *truly* underprivileged; if she donates her projected $2.7 million to charity; if she even apologizes for her transgressions--that's the day I'll forget about what she's done. And I suspect that a lot of the general public would echo at least my basic sentiments.

I don't believe Blair is a bad person. I believe that she made some truly poor decisions and then got in over her head. But that doesn't excuse her from what she's done, and at least for me, she needs to start proving that she's truly all that her sparkling high school resume (and her most fervent Internet supporters) claim that she is. Whether that will come in the fall of her freshman year, in seven years after law school, or tomorrow remains to be seen, and is ultimately her decision.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 11:32 am EDT

Wondering...

See, we can talk... lol.

My thoughts, simply put.

1.) As it stands today... (with no finding of wrongdoing or plagiarism at this point in her schoolwork), Blair, according to the rules put forth by the school board, was, is and should have been the only valedictorian. Judge Wolfsen agreed in that area.

2.) I have never said the case was worth 2.7 million. Realistically, it's going to be much less, but whatever it is, the board isn't going to pay it, the insurance company is, and then ultimately the taxpayers.

3.) The right thing to do may be let it go, but to be honest, while it was ongoing, the school system, and the student body, and the town certainly did not let it go. Blair was crucified. Not literally, of course, but none the less.

4.) One day, it won't matter, and the badge of office will collect tarnish and dust.

5.) One day, we will put it in perspective. I hope.

6.) One day, it may be politically correct to address the disparity in our judgements of people, regardless of their status in our society, instead of the rip, trash, and smash attitudes we seem to have today...

7.) One day a lie in the Bush administration will be a lie, instead of 'bad intelligence', and Clinton will be recognized not for who he boffed in office, but for what he accomplished in those years.

8.) Moorestown will one day pay Blair some money, and we'll deride that. And one day, Blair will become an attorney, and probably a good one.

9.) Reality will one day eclipse our fascination with this world shaking, society altering issue... thankfully, and the world will continue to turn.

10.) This blog will end... whatever shall we do when it does...

And so it goes...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 11:49 am EDT

Underprivledged:

http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/plagiarism.html

MLK didn't just plagiarize his doctorial thesis, he even plagiarized his "I Have A Dream" speech.

I wonder how Archibald Carey felt about that. Of course he was already dead, so we'll never know, will we? Throughout his life, MLK was a consistant and blatent plagiarist. I'm not saying that makes Blair's actions more understandable, I'm only saying that the truth is the truth, and in the scheme of things... what Blair has done pales in comparison.

Society be damned, regardless of the contribution, a lie is still a lie, theft is still theft, and integrity is still integrity. Regardless of what we say in terms of Blair's activities, this is still not an earth shattering event. I just think it's time we put it back in perspective.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 12:06 pm EDT

I think saying "regardless of the contribution" takes a crucial part out of the situation. People forgive King's plagiarism *because* he was a great civil rights leader. I mean, Hitler was a great speech writer. Should we honor him, regardless of the contribution?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 12:17 pm EDT

Hitler may well have been a great speech writer, and if he was, at least it was his own work.

Again, taking out of context, the point of the post, we have a secondary situation. Regardless of the contribution to society, it is not an excuse to ignore, deny, or even justify Dr. King's actions. I'm not taking away from the man, who claimed truth as his principle, and lied in his writing and public statements. I am simply pointing out that he did these things, on a NATIONAL scale, and justified it by ignoring it, and we do the same thing when we ignore it.

Blair Hornstine has been denied admission to Harvard, ridiculed, lambasted, insulted, threatened and harassed over her plagiarism. Dr. King's far more significant actions are generally ignored, overlooked, and even denied.

Like I said regardless of the contribution, a lie is still a lie, theft is still a theft, ect.

Clinton was impeached over his sexual daliances, and lies...

Kennedy's same actions were ignored because of his status...

MLK Jr. was a lifelong plagiarist, and you would ignore the truth in order to justify your position on her actions.

Double standards are still double standards. If you're going to call a spade a spade, the least you could do is do so across the board. Blair is a plagiarist. So was Dr. King, so was JFK... and regardless of the contribution to society, Dr. King, and JFK were still liars, and wordsmiths of the highest order.

Hitler's contribution to society, death, destruction, mayhem, the holocast, horrors the world had never seen on a scale the world could not endure. Honor him, for what, being an original thinker? So was Einestine, but it doesn't make Hitler an honorable man. He lacked integrity, King, and JFK used integrity as their bridge to the common man, and yet both of them lacked it as well.

If you are happy living your life with double standards, that is ultimately you're problem. I will not. They were what they were, and neither of them addressed their actions, apologized, or expressed remorse, and yet you expect that of Blair, because otherwise you feel she's just not worthy of forgiveness.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 12:47 pm EDT

No, I don't expect an apology from Blair. And I do feel she's worthy of forgiveness. Did you even bother to read my previous posts? Let me summarize for you:

1. I do not feel Blair is a bad person.
2. I feel that Blair will be worthy of forgiveness once she does something to merit that forgiveness.
3. That something could be serious law work, charity, or remorse.
4. People forgive MLK because he made important strides towards racial equality.

In other words, if MLK had just been some doctoral candidate who plagiarized a ton, I wouldn't have forgiven him, either. I don't live my life with "double standards." I forgive when I feel it is merited, and not because a lapse in judgment is not as serious as someone else's lapse. I don't believe in the lesser of two evils fixing problems.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 12:58 pm EDT

S.D-S. Point of Info: I am not sure that MHS will pay BLH only from insurance.They may/could/probably will pay her attorneys and "disguise" it under attorney fees so as to "look" as if they are paying her less. I also understand that MHS and some other neighboring schools contribute into a fund., in essence, they are self-insured.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 13:36 pm EDT

FROM ANOTHER MOORESTOWN 2003 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE:
http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/july/f070103d.htm

Send the Hornstine circus out packing

Tuesday, July 1, 2003

The circus came to town and hopefully is now gone for good.
Barnum & Bailey wasn't painted on the side of the tents and trailers. Instead, the ringleaders of this never-ending show were the local and national media.

The main attraction? Moorestown High School graduate Blair Hornstine.

For her first act, she had to file suit to get what was, by the rules, hers - the valedictorian spot in her class. The school board, media and peeved peers questioned why Hornstine, who had the highest GPA in her class despite a disability and inability to attend class, was worthy of the honor. Rules were tested. The legal system intervened. The public watched for days as events unfolded.

Sound like fun? There's more.

In the melee, the Courier-Post found Hornstine had unattributed information and quotes in essays published in a Student Voices contest and articles published in Static.

As a result, for her second act, Hornstine offered sincere apologies for her mistake via the June 3 edition of Static.

Hornstine didn't attend her graduation last month. The event went on as planned with little attention paid to the missing valedictorian.

This could be considered the final curtain call. Surely there can't be any more encores this summer.

Unfortunately, all the controversy surrounding Hornstine could remain a hot topic until she begins college at Harvard, perhaps beyond. One move in court or minor infraction in college could send everyone's eyes back on her.

That will only happen if we let it.

It's time to leave Hornstine alone. She's been through enough, both with her school and in the public eye. There's no need to subject her to any more condemnation.

Yes, a fuss was made about sharing a valedictorian position. I would have fought for the same sole honor if I had earned it. I think anyone would do the same if in her position.

Yes, unattributed information is bad. Hornstine's published works damage the integrity of Static, its contributors and the ethics that the Courier-Post holds. Still, I don't feel any better or worse as a writer for this section since news of her mistake broke.

What we have neglected to understand is that Hornstine, like all of us, is human. As humans, many times we act and speak based on what is best for us - no different than her actions. As humans, we make mistakes, big and small - no different than her mistakes.

The mere difference is that Hornstine's actions have been reported in the media. If our lives became the news of the day and put under constant examination, I bet we would feel pretty harassed, depressed and ashamed.

Keeping that in mind, we must let go of the obsession of Hornstine's every step and move on so that she can move on to her still promising future.

Everyone has less-than-perfect moments in life. Having those moments come back to haunt you and then rubbed in for extra spite is completely needless for anyone to endure.

Let's send the circus packing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Bresnen is a 2003 graduate of Moorestown Friends School. E-mail Static at static@courierpostonline.com

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 13:42 pm EDT

Mrs. MM, exactly how much money paid to Mrs. Hornstine will be known to the public dispite what you may think goes on with some shady bookwork. Because the schoolboard gets money from the town, which uses Government funding, aren't they subject to the rules of the State-Single-Audit? If so, I find it very hard to beleive that the schoolboard will commit fraud by trying to hide the payments made to BH as attorney's fees, when they are really not their attorney's fees at all. I understand the law correctly, your speculation doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain what you mean a little more clearly please? I don't think we are on the same page.

--posted by glad @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 14:07 pm EDT

If I understand the law correctly, .......

--posted by correction @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 14:08 pm EDT

I "WAS TOLD" that part of the payments made to Miss H. could go "Under attorney fees" for accounting purposes (and possibly for public viewing - my words). In other words, if they pay $500 to MHS attorneys and pay $500 to Miss H (as part of damage claim or the entire claim), the accounting will say that the MHS Board paid $1,000 in attorney fees for the year. So....if they pay her a total of $1,000, "possibly" the $500 that is not attorneys fees will be listed as "from insurance, or some other column in the accounting books." S

Sorry that I don't explain this very well. I do not know about single state Audits or how funding, etc will work. I don't think this is considered Fraud. I think as part of the settlement, they "might" say, "How much is your legal bill? Okay, so it's $500. We will pay that in addition to another $500 to you. Maybe, (my words) it will save some face for the Board, Miss H will have her attorneys paid, and she will get something left over.

This is about as clear as I can get....sorry. Hope this does it for you.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 14:42 pm EDT

Underprivledged:

This is from your post: --posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 11:32 am EDT

"...if she even apologizes for her transgressions--that's the day I'll forget about what she's done. And I suspect that a lot of the general public would echo at least my basic sentiments..."

Of course I read it, I responded to it in a manner of speaking, but apparently you do not understand my posts. That's okay, I'll help you.

Your own words say that you expect her to apologize for her "transgressions".

You continue to defend the same act, plagiarism, when it comes from public figures, social reformers and such, because of who they were. I'm sorry, but it's still plagiarism, and regardless of the why, it will always be plagiarism. A spade is a spade is a spade, it will not become a trowel just because you'd like it to. Plagiarism is plagiarism no matter what the setting, justification, or producer.

I disagree with your statement of why people forgive MLK. Frankly, most folks, even to this day, do not know of, and are not aware of his actions. He certainly did not advertise them, "borrowing" if you will from long deceased persons of dubious distinction, in an era when blacks were generally ignored. Rosa Parks made a statement on a bus with nary a word. She is remembered as a pioneer of civil rights. She didn't plagiarize anything.

MLK was a brilliant man, but in the end, he stole the words of others without remorse, shame or contrition, and it does not matter if he was the second coming of Christ, stealing is stealing, lying is lying, and plagiarism is plagiarism. There is no excuse, no justification, and it doesn't matter what he did.

Most people ignore his actions because, as one writer put it, they don't want the likes of Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton showing up at the door crying foul based on racism. The truth is the truth, and ignoring the truth doesn't make it any less the truth. We pick on the weak, and we run from confrontations that may paint us in a less than flattering light, or present us as a percieved racist because we insist on reminding someone that MLK, Jr. isn't quite the saint he was portrayed as.

His plagiarism wasn't even revealed until long after his death. But you can bet people knew. They simply did nothing.

Maybe that's what should have happened here, but hey, she's a slight white Jewish female, fair game for the hate mongers out there.

Just because it happens doesn't make it right, and just because one was a public servant with social reform asperations doesn't excuse it any less than it excuses Blair.

Two wrongs don't make a right, the lessor of two evils is still evil, and the truth will set you free, so long as you don't forget to recognize it.

There is no argument here, only truth.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 14:50 pm EDT

S. D-S. Thought...If BLH were black, would we have seen Sharpton or Jackson running damage control? Would Harvard have been able to "overcome" Jackson and Sharpton sit ins, press, speeches, etc?????

If the white, Jewish society had a white, Jewish Sharpton or Jackson, ...... results??

Please....I am NOT A RACIST by any means.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 14:56 pm EDT

aspirations.... my bad

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 14:57 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

Probably, I'm reminded of both of them running to the four New York girls who cried rape by a white gang, and jumping to their defence because the whites had attacked the innocence of youth, until it was discovered by a BLACK prosecuter that the young ladies were lying, and that they had in fact, not been attacked, rather they had willing participated in a gang ritual that involved only other blacks.

Of course, they bailed, but before that they were stirring the pot as fast as they could. Incidently, they did not apologize for their actions, saying only they were misled. Sounds like GWB with better suits.

So, yes, I think it would have happened, and I think they would have beaten Harvard over the head (sic) with fish in order to force them to play the race card, because like it or not, that's how Al and Jessie work.

Think Susan Smith, and her a black man got me story. They were all over that when the horrible truth came out, anther case of blame the black guy, they said, because it's easier to believe.

Bullshi*

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:03 pm EDT

I did say that if Blair showed remorse, my opinion of her would go up. However, I certainly didn't list that as my only qualification. I still continue to think that it would be a nice gesture for Blair to apologize, but if she doesn't, then there are a few other things that would redeem her in my eyes.

I'm not "afraid" of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, and I really think all of the anti-Semitic accusations are misplaced. I certainly didn't become involved in this blog because Blair was an "easy target." I became involved because what she did was WRONG.

"MLK was a brilliant man, but in the end, he stole the words of others without remorse, shame or contrition, and it does not matter if he was the second coming of Christ, stealing is stealing, lying is lying, and plagiarism is plagiarism. There is no excuse, no justification, and it doesn't matter what he did."

Then why should we forgive Blair? Oh, someone from the newspaper should've caught it--oh, they didn't teach it to her in class. I know that you accept that Blair's a plagiarist, but some other people here don't. And that's a double standard, too.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:10 pm EDT

I do want to make one thing perfectly clear... and I think you'll agree with this.

Blair plagiarized. She didn't forget, or just copy without attribution, she wanted to make a big splash, and did, but not the way she wanted. She is guilty.

If she does apologize for it, she will have done something neither JFK, or MLK, Jr. did. She will have owned up to it. In that regard, should she do so, she will have at least earned the respect that contrition deserves. Should she be forgiven? Of course, much the way Mike Tyson was excused for rape... after all, he made millions after the fact, and his 3 years in jail.

Will she be? Probably, but only if she performs the acts of contrition as the public sees fit. Apologize, donate any proceeds to charity, or drop the suit all together, then sure she'll be forgiven, but I doubt that her past will be as quickly dismissed as was JFKs or MLK, Jr.s were.

In any event, if she asks for forgiveness, as I said, she'll have a leg up on the other two... and that would indicate at least a budding interest in integrity. In itself, that is worth something...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:18 pm EDT

I absolutely agree. Her past probably won't be forgotten, unless she does something like become President or become a civil rights leader. All she needs is to do something that has a scope greater than her current situation. Whatever's most significant in the public eye is what someone will be remembered for, good or bad.

Honestly, I think the "budding interest in integrity" is the best thing that could happen to Blair, no matter what the public thinks or feels about her. In my book, it's certainly worth a lot.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:24 pm EDT

I wonder, if she apologized, how many will say, but she still sued for 2.7.

If she drops the suit, how many will say, she was still wrong for "abusing" the legal system...

If she does both, then how many will complain about the IEP - her home schooling and disability?

Then there will be those who still complain that she won this, won that, carried the Olympic torch...

It will be never ending. You can't please all of the people all of the time....I bet not even the majority in this case now.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:28 pm EDT

I'm sure Blair will always have her detractors, but that's a risk of becoming involved in a high-profile situation. Honestly, though, if she's attending a Top-40 university in the fall, if she's still planning on trying for Harvard Law, and if she's still got her work ethic, she'll eventually get to a spot where none of it will matter. And so will the rest of the world. Blair's fifteen minutes of fame are up. Hopefully, she'll be able to regroup and be successful in whatever she attempts to do--in a totally legitimate, hardworking way. I'm sure she's learned her lesson.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:33 pm EDT

BRAVO.....and now if you only believed in the lawsuit....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 15:49 pm EDT

S.D-S and others fail to realize that not everyone has dismissed MLK's and JFK's acts of plagiarism. The crux of his argument is that since is was OK for them, it must also be OK for Blair.

But I am not a fan of either MLK or JFK. So what now?

I guess you'll have to come up with a better way of defending plagiarism.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 16:37 pm EDT

Fer cryin out loud, folks, we shouldn't be talking about people so much as we should be talking about acts. What happened here, not so much who did it. Lord love us, I am agreeing with S. D-S. on this. Plagiarism is bad, wrong, immoral, whatever, no matter who does it.

As I said before, the real issue here, at least for me, is not whether BH should have been the sole valedictorian (she should have been, according to the rules), or whether her plagiarism is defensable (it is not, IMO), but rather what did we do as a society to get us to the point where getting the first place badge is so overwhelmingly important that we do such dumb things to get it. (Are there mom's who want to kill a cheerleader? Where is Tanya Harding?) How can we fix THAT?

The attitude and motivation of BH and her father are no different than that of KM and his parents, or a lot of other students and/or their parents. It is just that BH and her family have taken their drive to new heights (or, is it depths?). I would not be surprised if at least several others in that class would have acted in similarly, to include suing the school district in court.

I am told that it was Bill Gates who said: "Life is unfair, get used to it."

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 17:48 pm EDT

I think that there was another student who sued his school for something or other this year. There were at least one or two that did it prior to this year. I don't have the inkling or time to look it up, but I assure you there were and I assure you someone will find the time to do it.

BLH wasn't the first to sue her school over some act. Neither will she be the last. Is it much different than people suing people for lots of things. You can sue anyone for anything...if you want to spend money. He copied this, the ornament on the lawn is...the dog was unleashed or made on my lawn.................

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 18:16 pm EDT

I think that there was another student who sued his school for something or other this year. There were at least one or two that did it prior to this year. I don't have the inkling or time to look it up, but I assure you there were and I assure you someone will find the time to do it.

BLH wasn't the first to sue her school over some act. Neither will she be the last. Is it much different than people suing people for lots of things. You can sue anyone for anything...if you want to spend money. He copied this, the ornament on the lawn is...the dog was unleashed or made on my lawn.................

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 18:16 pm EDT

Coca-Cola, DiscoverCard, and Toyota all gave substantial scholarship money to BH. Without any intended offense to BH, which is more shallow, the pool of potentially "worthy" scholarship recipients or the evaluations of the scholarship committees?

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 18:26 pm EDT

Here's something that nobody's mentioned: why would you plagiarize something as cliched as Clinton's Thanksgiving address, or any of the other feel good, be happy, abstract bromides that she copied? If you're going to plagiarize, plagiarize something worthwhile.

--posted by S.R. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 19:24 pm EDT

BTW, I think all of the terms of any settlement agreement will be public information, including the amount paid by any insurance company. I think I also said before, the amount paid by an insurance company is not "free." The insurance company got if from the premiums paid by the school district. The insurance company gets its money from the premiums paid, which, of course, comes from the taxpayers.

Someone above also made a comment that the money for the schools comes from the municipality. My friend on our school board tells me that in New Jersey, the assessment for school taxes comes from the school district, after the people vote on the school budget. The money is collected and held by the municipality for payment to the school district, but the municipality never has any legal claim to the funds. (In other words after passage of the school budget, the municipality cannot determine that it needs the funds for something else, no matter how urgent the "something else" may be.)

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 20:07 pm EDT

To S.R.:

Read the article at http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/january/f011403c.htm

To others:

This matter is a superficially engaging human interest story with the backdrop of an affluent town in a media corridor, its noteriety fueled by naked greed and uncomprimising arrogance. The BH story cannot claim a place on a broader social or policy adgenda.

The settlement value of the this litigation bottomed out by mid-July. Despite the fact the parties are scheduled to conference the case on August 13, Mrs. M.M. is the only person who has publically ventured an opinion regarding the settlement amount. The parties, if they haven't already signed the papers, are talking money and not social policy.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 20:45 pm EDT

To Mrs. M.M.:

Tristen Bresnen is not a graduate of Moorestown High School, but rather Moorestown Friends School.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 20:54 pm EDT

TM: READ MY lips /Post...I never said she graduated from MHS.


The settlement papers HAVE NOT been signed, as of yesterday.

For those who commented on settlement paid by insurance/insurance company. I have been told that MHS is basically self-insured. They and other high schools or districts in the area put money in an "area" school fund instead of having insurance through a "regular" insurance company.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:05 pm EDT

I am sorry. I assumed you typed "FROM ANOTHER MOORESTOWN 2003 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE."

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:10 pm EDT

TM: Moorestown Friends School is the other school in this rather small, WASPY town. Until recently, it was the PREMIER school of the area. Until recently, most of the students in the area whose parents could afford it, sent their children to Friends.

--posted by Mrs M.M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:13 pm EDT

I specifically typed 2003 between Moorestown and High because I was not referring to MHS.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:14 pm EDT

Without splitting hairs, Cretin, the crux of my argument has nothing to do with your take on it. I am in no way defending it, I am saying it's wrong, period, and pointing out that other, far more famous plagiarists have essentially been forgiven by society by virtue of their sterling personalities... (not). A president and a social activist who was the catylist for social reform is still and all, a plagiarist. I am not defending plagiarism in any way, and how you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me.

The point, simply put, is that all three are guilty of the same crime, and JFK and MLK, Jr. on a scale that makes Blair's actions pale in comparison. Yet, society, us, if you will, have put Blairs feet to the fire, while essentially ignoring the actions of the other two pillars of society, despite the fact that their actions were ongoing and IMO more serious than hers. King submitted a plagiarized Doctorial Thesis, his most famous speech was stolen from one of his peers, (I linked that info above). The very things he is remembered for, are stolen works.

I am saying that the rain should fall evenly, and that each case should be seen for what it is, and in no way did I defend plagiarism. You have, throughout this thread, seen fit to attack a position that does not include a defense of plagiarism, and I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish, because no matter how you twist the words, the message remains, and that is that no matter who does it, be it JFK, MLK, Jr. or Blair Hornstine, or Cretin, (you've plagiarized me, if you'll recall), it's still wrong, it's still stealing, and it's still plagiarism.

Get over it, and move on, and stop trying to pick a fight that isn't there. I have never defended plagiarism, rather I have said, repeatedly, that if it's going to be used to demonize Blair, then the other, far more notible examples of plagiarism in our history should also be used to demonize those authors of the absurd.

The rain falls evenly, but apparently JFK and King are ducks, and it's just going to roll off their backs. One more fine example of double standards, and societal confusion when it comes to our historical past.

What's good for the goose needs must be good for the gander, otherwise the very principle of equal protection under law, and the application of justice is not only flawed, it is blatently, and mercilessly abused. If nothing else, Blairs public demonization for her actions is proof that we, Americans, are not willing to extend to her the same values, morals, and social acceptance that we gave King and Kennedy. Is that racist, or sexist? I don't know, but the fact remains, regardless, that her actions have drawn far more attention that Kings or Kennedy's ever did.

That's not fair, and I know life is not fair, but frankly, again, what's good for the goose....

So, get over it... and please, get off of my back, Cretin, we're not going to play this again... you said, you'd leave it alone, do that. Don't twist my words, and don't twist their obvious meaning, and don't make it personal. Do what you said, and we'll be just fine.

Thank you.

Wandering... will wonders never cease?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:41 pm EDT

Incidentally, the crux of my argument is that if Blair's plagiarism is to be used as grounds to demonize her, then the plagiarism of others, (my examples are JFK and MLK, Jr.) should be used in exactly the same fashion, to demonize them. Not the other way around. The point being that, as Wandering picked up on, is that no matter who does it, it is NOT OKAY.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:50 pm EDT

S. D-S., I know that I have been "wandering," but I actually do more "wondering," which is why I have used that as a name. And, no, wonders will never cease.

And, I guess the biggest wonder of all is why we're spending so much time discussing something like this.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:52 pm EDT

Wondering, my humble apologies....

and I dunno...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:55 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

I will continue to pass on communicating or alluding to arguably confidential information about this matter. I don't feel the need to demonstrate my knowledge about the town. The readership can form its own, collective opinion regarding your (mis)characterizations of people and events.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

TM: did you give that example of BH’s writing as an instance of plagiarism or non plagiarism?
http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/january/f011403c.htm
To me, it has many indications of plagiarism with thesaurus post-processing: unevenness of tone, pompous word choice, and problems with internal consistency. My guess is that she found some text about “education is like making a taco” and then changed enough words to make the plagiarism not directly detectable. The biggest incoherence is that while a hard taco (or a tostado or a chimichanga) has a hard, deep-fried, outer shell, a burrito has just a warmed flour tortilla as a wrapper, and all of the fillings are cooked on a grill or griddle, or maybe in a pot, but not in a fryer. If she didn’t plagiarize and change words then why did she write:

“empty flour shell” (burritos don’t have shells)

“Fold me well” (burritos are rolled not folded like tacos),

“be the fry cook to my empty burrito” (there are no fry cooks involved in making a burrito, and burritos do not exist in an empty “shell” state. For a burrito she should have said something like “wrap up your fillings in my tortilla” and don’t tell me she didn’t say that because it sounds suggestive).

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 23:28 pm EDT

S.D-S, as you well know, there was no place here for footnotes. If you are going to let Blair's plagiarism slide, you should clearly let my own acts slide as well.

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:05 am EDT

Maybe if Blair had gone to class she would have learned how to write better. I don't even want to think about how bad her college admissions essays must have been...

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:06 am EDT

Wow, that essay made me wince. It could have been funny, but it seemed a little pretentious. I think that if she'd parodied Taco Bell (e.g., "Grilled Stuft Burrito"), that might have worked.

Could she have ended up getting too insulated from reality in her situation? For example, she and her family seemed to be blindsided by the hostile reaction from the community, and I'd guess most people would have been able to anticipate it. As many people here have pointed out, plagiarism is unacceptable, but she's not the only person who's ever done it. However, it seems like ripping off something well-known for a newspaper piece is pretty risky. When I read her latest piece, it made me wonder whether anyone had suggested that it be redone, or whether she was just told that it was great.

--posted by Wendy @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:06 am EDT

a *little* pretentious??? lol. that must be the understatement of the century!

I am also wondering how Blair ended up with such lousy writing skills. Were her tutors inept? Or did she just not handle criticism well?

At any rate, the girl is obviously gifted in the use of a thesaurus. If only those talents could be diverted to *writing*...

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:10 am EDT

Well, I was trying to be polite about the level of pretentiousness. Seriously, it seems like it never occurred to her that she'd be likely to get clobbered for certain things (like blatant plagiarism in a newspaper). This and the quality of the writing made me wonder if her situation had sheltered her so much that she'd lived in her own little world. It might be healthy for her to go away to a relatively tolerant school where she has to function on her own. I think her chances of survival at Harvard would have been very slim. (It also says something about them that the rescission was leaked to the media.)

--posted by Wendy @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:32 am EDT

Just read the article about students being empty burrito shells.

I must admit that the idea of her article was interesting (i.e. college taking on society's role in an updated tabula rasa). With a some work, I think it would make a pretty decent college admissions essay.

In the context of everything that's happened, however, I find the article very humorous. Harvard certainly isn't going to be playing fry cook to her burrito wrapping!

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:48 am EDT

Cretin, do us both a favor, and stop now, before you once again get out of hand. Your actions are not excused, and I have NEVER excused Blairs actions. That you are too obstinate to see that, or just not willing to admit it, either one, is still your problem. You need to stop now, before you once again get this board turned away from it's purpose. Your continued personal attacks on me, (subtle, though they are at this point), are noted, now, simply put, back off, and get off of my back, I have had enough of you.

If you can't converse in reasonable mature fashion, then don't converse.

End of discussion. If you want to address actual items of interest as they relate to this blog, without personal attacks, and blatent inmaturity, I'm willing to listen, if you want to continue to live up to your self imposed moniker, you're on your own.

Personal note: Adam, please, stop this behavior on his part before it once again gets out of hand.

Thank you.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:53 am EDT

S. Douglas-Smith:

You can also choose to ignore his posts.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, August 8 2003, 0:56 am EDT

Adam,

I know, it's your blog, okay, but instead of dealing with the problem you want to do the same thing I refuse to do with other well known plagiarists, you want me to ignore it. That is symtomatic of what's wrong in this country in the first place. Ignore it. That doesn't work.

Basically when we do that, we create an environment of tolorance and acceptance, and if you want to accept such behavior on your blog, you, sadly, continue to exhibit the very permissiveness that creates such situations in the first place.

A proactive response prevents a negative reaction. No response insures a negative reaction. It's simply this kind of suggestion that validates the willingness of this society to demonize a child like Blair, because she made the blatent choice to plagiarize her essays to a paper, and on the other hand diefies people like JFK and MLK, Jr. for the same actions on a much broader scale.

While you may not police your own blog, you have none the less, proven my point.

A spade is a spade, indeed, maybe we could remember to use one to dig with, instead of shovel shi*.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:06 am EDT

S.D-S, don't dish it out if you can't take it!

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:09 am EDT

oh, and YAWN....

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:10 am EDT

Lemme see, I've asked nicely... and reminded you to leave it be...

You won't.

I've tried to be polite but firm... you continue to be... you.

I hope you enjoy it, because eventually it will begin to wear on everybody around you. When it does, you'll find yourself alone, empty, and like always, pointless.

Maybe then, you'll just dry up and blow away. Until then, you'll continue to inflict yourself on people, avoid the truth, and just in general, show your ass. Have at it, Cretin... just don't be surprised when it bites you on the afford said bodily part.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:14 am EDT

Oh, I almost forgot...

borinnnnnnnnnnng

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:15 am EDT

Media characterizations aside, Moorestown is and has always been a good place to raise a family and educate children. By and large, people are respectful of their neighbors' privacy and personal affairs. There is a declining, but still significant Quaker influence in the community.

Many in Moorestown are acquainted with the actors in this matter, they know the broad circumstances that ultimately resulted in the lawsuit, and they have the experience and perspective to form a reasonable opinion. I post comments on this site, not to distinguish myself from these persons, but because I am concerned about the harsh tone of largely self-serving and unsubstantiated comments about the town. I do not believe those certain comments, or the people who make them, reflect what is really happening in the community.

I am troubled by a friend who publishes family confidences, and a family, who knowing of the publications, does not ask the friend to keep her own counsel. I am sorry for any comments that call attention to the adverse inference I draw from a situation I cannot reasonably expect to be resolved here. Others must judge how much light is shed and where the shadows fall. I, in turn, will endevour to be more measured and restrained in my public observations.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:25 am EDT

S. Douglas-Smith:

I suggested that you could ignore cretin's posts. This is because it's clear that he's goading you, and that he knows exactly what buttons to push to generate a lengthy response from you. Yes, I banned cretin once, but IMO he's been a better citizen since I let him return.

I enjoy reading most of the comments left by the posters. I'll even admit that I sometimes get a kick out of, among other things, reading the occasional clashes between you and cretin. I know that you think he's being immature. Keep in mind, however, that some of your responses have also contained a healthy level of immaturity.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, August 8 2003, 1:42 am EDT

RE: THE BURRITO METAPHOR.
I feel that BH in her article ripped off a found “building tacos as building students” metaphor. I’ve tried a few Google searches and cannot find a source text. In BH’s version the tortilla goes from limp and floppy to filled with educational goodness. My guess is that there was an original text where the metaphor was elaborate and meaningful: a student (limp tortilla) goes to an educator who first has to put the student into shape (limp tortilla gets deep fried into a stiff pocket shape) and only then is the tortilla (i.e. the student) ready to receive educational nuggets.

Can anybody else find a net source for the metaphor? Then again it may only be in print sources or on restricted places on the net where you can’t know to search unless you know to search there.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Friday, August 8 2003, 2:55 am EDT

Adam,

Insult someone else... I have not bothered with this thread for days...

As for my current postings... even Wandering and I, as well as underpriviledged and I, are finding commmon ground.

Cretin is just that, and you, as the owner of this blog, can deal with it or ignore it, either way, what you've done in this instance, is simple expidited what I told you in private. If you chose to make the nature of that conversation, public, it's up to you, but I have had enough of you essentially encouraging the resident idiot, (now lets recall, cretin = idiot), and then putting it off on me.

Your snobbery is exceeded only by your inability to grasp the situation and deal with it. As much as you do in programming, I would think you would know how better to deal with cretin, and his ilk... and refrain from basically telling people well, I'll allow this buffoon to insult you on my site, hell, I've nothing better to do...

It's your site, but every time he raises his ugly font, he does the same thing. I told you I wasn't going to be his target, and you're saying basically that you'll simply allow him to defame, insult and threaten me without taking any action to prevent it. So be it... I can handle that.

I can also handle this... you all have a good one. I had hoped that things had settled down, and for one shinning moment it looked as if reason vs idiocy was going to win out here... I was wrong.

Idiot 1, me 0

round 2?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 8 2003, 3:20 am EDT

S.D-S, in your mind you are ALWAYS the victim. Anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you. You are always right.

May I suggest immediate psychiatric care????

Everything that you have said about me is equally true of YOU.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it....

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 9:26 am EDT

S.D-S is the resident idiot and sociopath.

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 9:27 am EDT

cretin, I sure hope you don't go into biker bars and behave like you do here. It would make for a very short stay on the planet.

S. D-S., Adam is right. That which gets rewarded gets repeated. Just ignore cretin. There can be no more effective put down. I mean, why spend the energy?

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 8 2003, 10:55 am EDT

S. D-S: Someone a few days ago referred to me as a Troll. I discounted their opinion as IMO, I stand for truth and have ONLY written about it here...with the exception of a knock or two previously or a "certain someone".

The definition of Troll as I found it: Noun
Definition 1: Reference to a person who enters internet chat rooms and forums for the sole purpose of creating havoc, controversy, and discontent. The word stems from the fishing term "trolling," which involves slowing pulling your line behind a boat in hopes of catching some unsuspecting fish as "bait" moves past them. In a similar manner, an internet troll makes posts or comments that he/she hopes will catch the interest of others and create the havoc that they crave.

S. D-S. You and I know specifically know who this description fits and it is neither you or me.

I will discuss "this" person with you on another venue.
Please don't stop posting here. I have always felt that you were the one who had his feet on the ground and understands right from wrong and what is right and wrong. Keep in touch here as well as with me.

"Don't let the bastards wear you down; don't let the killjoys ruin this blog; don't let the bed bug bit you and finally, maybe the outgoing door will hit someone in the ass."

S. D-S. One further thought: You just might be too bright for ( and that includes me) this group.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:12 am EDT

TM: If you are referring to me as the family friend who publishes confidences, I refer you to previous posts of mine. I do know where Miss H. is; I do know more of what is going on that you and many others; I do know about the money, school, illness, etc. I have not published any info that is personal or others do not know.

If this is unbelievable to you, you can contact S.D-S,as he can personally confirm to you that there is lots of personal info that I have not displayed here or will until the proper time comes.

I hope you want to protect Moorestown. It was a great place to live...only now, are the people being overly gossipy, suffering from schadenfreude, jealous and in positions of guilt about "their" children.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:17 am EDT

Ugh, no, Mrs. MM. I consider S D-S to be a bright man, but please, let's not excuse anyone's transgressions by saying that they're "too bright" for the group. That only works with overactive schoolchildren--nobody's forcing anyone to be here.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:35 am EDT

Sorry for the double post, but I want to ask Mrs. MM if she's planning on eventually revealing Blair's school of choice for the upcoming fall term. Although many people here (myself included) don't agree with her lawsuit, I doubt anyone here wishes her any ill will, and it would certainly be an interesting thing to know. If you feel it's too personal of an item to reveal, that's fine, but I know I'm certainly curious. Perhaps when Blair's year starts and she becomes settled into the college routine, we'll be able to learn where she's chosen to matriculate?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:39 am EDT

... by my watch, it appears that almost fifteen minutes have gone by.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:57 am EDT

TM: I sure hope so....

Underpriviledged: She has been away all summer at school. She is not certain as of today, if she will be staying there or elsewhere. She does have options besides the locals... She will be visting "offers" in the days ahead.

I want her to have some peace. Will I reveal it? I hope someone else does. Her summer has been private. I truly want her to have peace and a "real" college life. I hope that her fifteen minutes are way behind.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 8 2003, 12:05 pm EDT

I'd also like Blair to have a "real" college life. But that won't happen unless she goes to class and DOES HER OWN WORK!

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 8 2003, 19:11 pm EDT

Maybe BH ate a buritto filled with this version of "pico de gallo" before she wrote her essay.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.quetzalnet.com/quetzalnet/recetas/picodegallo.html

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Friday, August 8 2003, 22:20 pm EDT

In most circumstances, a "prevailing party" in a federal civil rights action is entitled to recover attorney's fees. After a favorable verdict or case dispositive order, the attorneys for the prevailing party submit a fee application to the court. The application typically includes an itemized bill of fees, costs and expenses and certifications regarding the appropriateness of the hourly billing rate and/or the difficulty of the case. On occasion, the application may also contain a request for a lodestar, an enhancement of the fee, usually predicated upon the novelty of the legal issues or the extraordinary diificulty of the case. After the defendant responds to the application, the court determines the reasonableness of the fees based upon established criteria and incorporates its determination in a final judgment or a separate order, subject to appellate review. A civil rights defendant does not typically recover attorney's fees, even if it is a prevailing party.

Except in unusual circumstances, the civil rights plaintiff who settles an action before a verdict or a judgment is not a prevailing party. Typically, the consideration to the plaintiff set forth in a settlement agreement or release is a single figure that includes an unspecified amount for attorney's fees. This "unspecified amount" is usually based upon representations regarding fees or the "net" amount the plaintiff needs to settle the case. For a variety of reasons, the plaintiff's counsel seldom produces itemized invoices to the defendant. Accordingly, the payment of attorney's fees by a settling defendant presumes a discussion of same by the plaintiff's counsel, or at a minimum, acquiesence.

In any event, there is no firm requirement that attorney's fees in civil rights cases should be less than or somhow "proportional" to the plaintiff's recovery. To the contrary, it is accepted that the fees in many cases will often be far greater than the recovery. The public policy encouraging vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws presupposes this result. For example, a Camden County jury recently awarded $50,000 to a sexual harassment plaintiff. In published reports regarding a likely appeal, her counsel estimated accrued attorney's fees of more than $600,000.

There is often an expansive "gray" area in the allocation of attorney's fees in settlements. Retainer agreements can be complex, with the amount of fees tied to the nature or amount of the recovery. Moreover, a plaintiff's attorney may not even seek to collect fees it is legally entitled to under the retainer agreement. In such an instance, the plaintiff simply keeps the money the parties "designated" to pay attorney's fees. The defendant has obvious reasons for avoiding involvement in such issues.

In short, "diguised" attorney's fees are usually an issue between the plaintiff and its counsel, not the defendant. For the defendant, escalating attorney's fees (its own as well as the plaintiff's) are often the primary impetus to settlement where anticipated damages are relatively small or even nominal. The defendant's allocation of "damages" and attorney's fees is often just an accounting issue, although it may have some application to an experience rating for insurance purposes.

There are two important aspects of the anticipated settlement of the BH action, whether the defendants admit liability and the gross amount of money they pay to BH. With neither an admission nor a determination of liability, BH may argue that she filed the lawsuit, not for monetary gain, but to vindicate the rights of the disabled generally, a goal she accomplished notwithstanding the damage to her academic career. Conversely, the defendants may argue with equal force and validity that they made a cost-effective business decision to settle disputed claims before the start of the upcoming school year. Both positions are opinion, not legal fact or conclusion.

The second important aspect of the anticipated settlement is the amount of money paid to or on behalf of BH. BH sued for $200,000 in compensatory damages, $2,500,000 in punitive damages *and* attorney's fees. It is unlikely the defendants will pay more than a tiny fraction of BH's alleged damages.

Everything outside the four corners of the settlement papers is nothing more than spin -- let's see where the "agitation" comes from in the next several weeks.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 8 2003, 22:29 pm EDT

MonkeyBrains:

LOL

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 8 2003, 22:34 pm EDT

Local RUMOR has it that the settlement will be $500,000. My info is that the settlement has not been completed.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 8 2003, 23:31 pm EDT

One halfway decent piece of writing (the burrito thing) does not a writer (or thinker) make. C'mon. "At Thanksgiving this year, Americans must carry on that tradition of sharing not only with family and friends but also with those in need throughout their communities." Utter tripe.

I think the simple truth of the matter is this: Blair Hornstine, like most of her close contemporaries, has been schooled in the art of garnering A-pluses but not in the art of thinking originally. This tends to manifest itself in writing, which is the one arena where you're ability to memorize (and to sidle your way into Teacher's heart) can't toss you a life-preserver. David Brooks wrote an excellent article entitled on this very subject in The Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Organization Kid." The Organization Kid (who so closely resembled Ms. Hornstine) is not only lacking original thought, but lacking in a moral center. The two--and this should really be obvious to everyone--are related.

I can't help thinking that if it wasn't for this lawsuit and the ensuing publicity, Blair Hornstine wouldn't be a very interesting person to know.

--posted by S.R. @ Saturday, August 9 2003, 12:36 pm EDT

Oops, computer posted before my proofread.

One halfway decent piece of writing (the burrito thing) does not a writer (or thinker) make. C'mon. "At Thanksgiving this year, Americans must carry on that tradition of sharing not only with family and friends but also with those in need throughout their communities." Utter tripe.

I think the simple truth of the matter is this: Blair Hornstine, like most of her close contemporaries, has been schooled in the art of garnering A-pluses but not in the art of thinking originally. This tends to manifest itself in writing, which is the one arena where your ability to memorize (and to sidle your way into Teacher's heart) can't toss you a life-preserver. David Brooks wrote an excellent article on this very subject in The Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Organization Kid." The Organization Kid (who so closely resembles Ms. Hornstine) is not only lacking original thought, but lacking in a moral center. The two--and this should really be obvious to everyone--are related.

I can't help thinking that if it wasn't for this lawsuit and the ensuing publicity, Blair Hornstine wouldn't be a very interesting person to know.

--posted by S.R. @ Saturday, August 9 2003, 12:40 pm EDT

SR, you raise a very good point. I am glad that I am not the only person who feels that Blair's writing skills are lacking. It is *almost* a relief to realize that her works are the result of plagiarism. I would be truly scared if she had come up with that crap all by herself. At least now she can blame it on someone else (Clinton, supreme court justices, etc.)

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, August 9 2003, 14:08 pm EDT

I bet you Blair would give back the $500,000 in an instant if she could turn back time and enter Harvard this fall. Money will never make this better for her.

--posted by Curious @ Saturday, August 9 2003, 18:46 pm EDT

She's no different than the rest of the whiny, selfish, give me everything scumbags that live in this country. They sue for everything and then wonder why things cost so much.

--posted by Richard Hertz @ Sunday, August 10 2003, 10:06 am EDT

Here's the URL for the Atlantic article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/04/brooks-p1.htm

--posted by Wendy @ Sunday, August 10 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

I attended the summer college program with Blair and I found her to be quite annoying. She obsessed over the smallest things and insisted that she was going to Harvard. She made it clear that she received a 1570 on the SATS and that her father was a judge. She seldom left her room to socialize, because she spent all her time studying. This story is not shocking to me at all...I knew her.

--posted by Mannie @ Monday, August 11 2003, 4:10 am EDT

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-08102003-139332.html

--posted by cretin @ Monday, August 11 2003, 7:54 am EDT

Hey Mannie: Where did you go? This summer?

--posted by jilly @ Monday, August 11 2003, 9:39 am EDT

Mannie, did Blair seem disabled to you???

--posted by cretin @ Monday, August 11 2003, 10:40 am EDT

Is the settlement number going to be $100,000, the amount of the deductable? The insurance company has no incentive to agree to a number below that, since, according to the article linked above, that is the deductable, and they are not on the hook for any of it. Once they push the number above that, it seems to me that the insurance company will become more active in resisting a settlement.

Will the school district be able to get a settlement below $100,000? If the BH's attorneys can't be convinced that their case is so bad, the school district is looking at legal fees that will not be reimbursed to resist that number. At what point does it become cost effective for the school district pay to make this thing go away?

Whatever the cost, the school district is looking at an unreimbursed cost for this fiasco that will approach the deductable amount of $100,000. That is roughly the cost of two new teachers for one year. Do the school board and the superintendent believe it worth the cost just to show the world that they thought that BH had an unfair advantage? Will KM's parents contribute to the cost of the settlement, since, whatever it is, it is what their pressuring the district has cost the good taxpayers of Moorestown? How much has it cost the school district so far?

If the superintendent and the board of education had simply followed their own policy, and had BH been the sole valedictorian, none of this would have happened. Sure, a lot of people would have groussed about an obnoxious little kid and her father gaming the system unfairly, but by the time college classes would have begun at the end of the summer, most would have been too busy with other things to really care. BH and KM would have gone to Harvard, and real life would have sorted out the winners and losers down the road.

As it is, however, the good taxpayers of Moorestown, who had nothing to do with any of this, will pay for the egos of a couple of spoiled kids and their parents. What a shame!

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 11 2003, 11:11 am EDT

Forgive me for addressing something posted quite a while ago, but I'm way behind the rest of you in reading these messages. It's been fascinating reading, and I've changed my mind a few times as more facts come out.

Mrs. MM said "As to your 'twice baked latin, you know what, I don't know, but what I do know is that if she took it in eighth grade and then retook it, it may be because the earlier score did not count towards her cumlitive GPA. That is just a thought, not a written in stone answer to that particular question, which, for the record, I find valid.>>>

I'm shocked that anyone could find that valid. Isn't the whole point of education to LEARN, not to take a class of something you already know just to score a high grade? I can't imagine any scenario where re-taking a Latin class where you already received an A could be called legitimate. Why wasn't she in Latin II?

Frankly, that anyone could find this valid is appalling to me. The whole point of naming a valedictorian is to reward excellence and high achievement, not to reward scheming, gutless behavior that manipulates the system in the name of getting high scores. It's supposed to be about getting a good education, not manipulating the numbers!

Likewise, Hornstine's father requesting that an A for gym be dropped from her transcript makes no sense, NOR does a dropped class right before the end of semester, when she was receiving an A- in the class. Her father said the papers "were killing her", but obviously she was in no danger of flunking the class and was doing just fine in it. It seems there was no concern over what the student was actually LEARNING, only that she marked at an A+ for the course. Only someone solely concerned with a GPA rating and not at all concerned about their actual education would toss away all their hard work for the year and take no grade at all.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to Hornstine, and do feel that if the Board was trying to remove her from valedictorian entirely (this has yet to be proven from my reading), then they were in the wrong. They approved her educational curriculum and she received the highest GPA so they should play by the rules. However, I also have no problem with them naming a co-valedictorian - the difference in GPA between the two students was NOT signifigant and it can be said that there was no clear "best" here, especially since they had to work under different circumstances.

I think the behavior of both Mirkin's parents and Hornstine's parents have been shameful though, and teaches some very bad lessons to their children. It's pathetic that both sets of parents seem to set so much store in their children being named Number One, and have so little regard for their actual education and development as human beings.

For Hornstine to demand over 2 million dollars from the school system for the unimaginable slight of not being named sole valedictorian (or even not being named valedictorian at all) is unconscionable. She evidently (if we are to believe her transcripts) received a stellar education from Morristown that enabled her to receive over $75,000 in scholarships and acceptance to several Ivy League universities. They worked to accomodate her disability and evidently went to great lengths to do so. How can anyone possibly say that not being valedictorian would have hurt the girl financially when she had already received her acceptances? To deprive other students of the funds necessary for THEIR education is just spiteful and greedy.

For what it's worth, I think the whole plagiarism issue is just a side-swipe at Hornstine and really has nothing at all to do with the issue of whether she should be valedictorian or not. That issue is decided in the classroom. The treatment she and her family have received does not reflect well on Morristown.

I find myself still neither firmly on one side or the other. Let's not forget that despite the perception that Hornstine is a whiner for demanding to be valedictorian, it was actually the whining of Mirkin's parents that got this whole ball rolling. And despite Kadri's statements that Hornstine had an unfair advantage because she was able to take more weighted AP and honors classes than other students, she actually took FEWER than Mirkin, so it's a fallacy that he was somehow robbed due to that. The only reason I could still support a decision to make him co-valedictorian is because the scores WERE close and I don't think anyone can argue that there's a benefit to having one-on-one tutoring, over being one of 30 in a classroom. For years, teachers have tried to hold the line on classroom size, claiming that students learn more in smaller classrooms, so it's idiotic for anyone to claim at this point that a student with a personal tutor is not going to do better. And the fact is, she was given more time to take tests and could only have one test on any given day - so it's almost impossible to judge the two students because they were playing under very different rules.

I still have a lot of questions about the nature of Hornstine's disabilities and whether she was manipulating the system, but the fact is the Board of Education signed off on it right down the line. Her grade point average certainly indicates that she should have been named valedictorian though hopefully, more will be done in the future to prevent students from manipulating the system to come up with the highest GPA possible. I think it was ungracious of Mirkin's parents to be so disappointed with a salutatorian title that they would badger an evidently spineless Principal, and I think it equally ungracious of Hornstine if it's true that she refused a co-valedictorian. No one looks good in this mess, least of all our educational system.

--posted by Sandra @ Monday, August 11 2003, 13:31 pm EDT

I don't believe that quote came from me. I don't think she repeated the same course. However, IF she did, it is done all the time from highschool to college. Many students "fail" language placement tests so that they can "repeat" a course that they had already taken.

DID NOT HAPPEN

I AM SO EXCITED THAT SOMEONE ELSE FINALLY GETS THIS. BTW, the city is Moorestown, not Morristown.


CONGRATS again. You got that, too.

WOW! I AM IMPRESSED THAT "you" understand. It takes a big person, it seems to admit here that BLH was right.

IF ONE BELIEVES NOTHING ELSE, SHE WAS NEVER OFFERED A CO-VALEDICTORIAN ROLE.

And to Wondering who feels sorry for my neighbors, please don't. They elected the board of education, they "promoted" the gossip and the unruliness among their friends and kids. They support a Superintendent who was legally wrong and has the morals of a Mike Tyson. And we can get into that if you choose.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 11 2003, 19:51 pm EDT

Mrs. MM--You're right, that's not a quote of yours. The quote was actually said by S D-S, on Saturday, June 28. It's in the first archive. :)

--posted by Underprivileged @ Monday, August 11 2003, 20:01 pm EDT

Who is this Mannie? After posting she was asked two questions and did not respond. Not a real post??????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 11 2003, 22:24 pm EDT

One really has to work at getting so many people to dislike one. No matter the outcome of this case, life will sort out the winners and losers down the road.

If BH found it hard to get along at MHS, wait till she moves on. Assuming she goes to law school and on to a career, she will first find that fellow students will not be so tolerent, and fellow associates in a law firm can be deadly. BH certainly has not honed social skills with her peers.

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 8:32 am EDT

Disliking one? Truly, how many people do you think that know BLH dislike her???? People may not like some of the components of her lawsuit, actions, etc., but seriously, do you really think that people who know her dislike her?

Mannie, above, wrote about her. Who is Mannie? Where did she come from all of a sudden? And how come she didn't answer the questions posed by two others? False stories further spreading?????? More gossip?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 9:25 am EDT

Not sure how many that would be, but apparently the majority of the 2003 graduating class of MHS don't like her. She didn't show up at her graduation because of the "hostile evnironment." Didn't she also decline the Harvard admission for the same reason? What do you mean "know her?" No one ever really "knows" another. Heck, we do well if we really get to know ourselves.

Cerfainly, a lot of people on this blog, and others who have read the stories "know her," in a sense. I don't sense much liking for her.

Do you suppose peers in the workplace will know her any better? She has to take responsibility for the environment she creates around herself. It will only get worse when she finds out that the kid she shares an office with at some firm has a 1600 SAT and a father who sits on the US Supreme Court - and was editor of the Law Review at Harvard Law. Could she stand it?

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 12:48 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

Regarding Mannie. Sometimes, people come to my web site, leave a comment, and don't come back for a long time, if ever.

If Mannie returns, hopefully,s/he'll answer our questions. Otherwise, please stop questioning his/her motives and why s/he's not been back.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:22 pm EDT

and a father who sits on the US Supreme Court - and was editor of the Law Review at Harvard Law. Could she stand it?

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 12:48 pm EDT



Who says she won't be that person??? So she was the nerd of MHS. How many other Harvard students can claim that title?

I don't like some of the things you write. Do I say I don't like you? Definitely for the things you write. If I met you in person, you could be a different person.

Hostile environment? Many just want to make that environment here or there. If you met her in a coffee shop, a library etc., you would not know about her case. You would never in a million years realize who she is.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:24 pm EDT

Gee Adam: I know you do not like what I stand for or BLH. Now, because this is YOUR site, you are RESTRICTING my comments. Censorship????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:27 pm EDT

She won't be that person. She didn't get a 1600 SAT, her father will very probably not be a US Supreme Court Justice; she likely will not be the editor of the Harvard Law Journal. She may be very bright, but there are a lot of very bright people in the world.

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:29 pm EDT

I didn't mention 1600; I suppose a 1570 in your mind is a "failing" grade. Again, don't bet the house and pony on the other two.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:33 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

It's clear that I'm not stopping you from posting whatever you want on this page. I was simply asking you to use self-restraint when posting about Mannie, since s/he obviously hasn't returned to answer our questions regarding his/her post.

Bear in mind that most people are as attached to this blog as some people are, and as such, don't visit multiple times every day.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:43 pm EDT

No, Mrs MM, 1570 is hardly a failing grade. It's just that as she moves on to a career (assuming she gets into a Wall Street law firm, consulting company, financial institution, whatever) she will find that it is not so outstanding. The competition is VERY steep. She will also find that one does not only have to be very smart, networking is also vital. She has to be able to get along with a lot of people. I don't sense she has developed those skills.

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:45 pm EDT

Mrs. MM, censorship refers to the government. A private person cannot censor anybody.

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 15:13 pm EDT

I am pretty confident that she knows how to network. I know that the friends she has from MHS have been highly supportive and have not at all severed relationships. I do know that some of these "girls" have suffered repercussions from remaining friends. One or more of the "girls" had her house egged, too. A couple people who wrote positive letters to editors had "crank/obscene call." It may only be a small group of people who are doing the torture, supported by the angry voices of a larger group.

As far as 1570, there are many students at Harvard who get in the 1300 and 1400s.

SAT scores are only a stage in life. Who cares after one starts college. Then Cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa become important until graduation. Then it's law review. Finally, it's money. And money is where it stands until death. Whoever has the most toys wins!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 15:15 pm EDT

Mr. Cretin Dictionary:

Main Entry: [2]censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

I do not note where government is involved in this definition. Nor do I see where a private person cannot censor.

I did not waste space with the definition of censorship, but, that too, did not mention government or private person restrictions.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

Adam: I notice that Blair Clothing and Harvard editors for essays are advertised at the bottom of this page. Is this something new? Is this something that takes advantage of the discussions on this blog to promote these advertisers?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 15:39 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

I've added Google AdSense to my entire web site. Google references the content on each page to determine which ads to display. If you browse around other parts of the site, you'll see the ads change depending on the content of the page.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 15:46 pm EDT

Do they pay you for allowing them to advertise here?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 15:59 pm EDT

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2869

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 16:14 pm EDT

Cretin:

Paraphasing or quoting the article you reference: "the First Amendment chains the government, not the people; censorship is when free speech is trampled; Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech."


This article does not, in any way, shape or form say that a private person cannot censor.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 17:29 pm EDT

Adam: Although I know you have a right to do anything you want with YOUR site. I wonder if you are taking advantage of us, the posters, in order to produce revenue for yourself. Is that not self-serving ? Is that not the "letter of this blog but the spirit of the blog that is effected?

I find that your subjecting us to advertising when we read or comment on this site is taking advantage of us in the same way you claim BLH took advantage of her disability for home schooling, her Father's occupation when filing her lawsuit, etc.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 17:36 pm EDT

FROM GOOGLE ADSENSE:


"New! Unleash the full revenue potential of your website.
Google AdSense is for web publishers who want to make more revenue from advertising on their site while maintaining editorial quality. AdSense delivers text-based Google AdWords ads that are relevant to what your readers see on your pages — and Google pays you.

Earn money when users click on AdWords ads displayed on your site.
Enhance user experience with relevant ads that will interest your users.
Manage your own account with easy-to-use tools to track your earnings.
Get started fast. Pay nothing to participate, and once approved, serve ads in minutes "

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 17:41 pm EDT

Oh, Mrs. MM, please. I didn't even notice the ads until you pointed them out--and the Internet is full of advertisement. It's more rare to see a site without ads nowadays than one teeming with them. Bandwidth costs money, and every time someone clicks on this page, it takes away from the total amount of views Adam is allowed to have per month. Think of the Google ads as fair payment for what Adam's given us: a free forum to express our thoughts and ideas.

Not everything is a plot to bring someone down.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 17:53 pm EDT

I don't like telemarketers, unsolicited mail, etc. I think these ads take advantage of more people than Blair could have ever dreamed of in her entire life. I just find that the "spirit" of the blog is effected more than Adam's feeling about Blair's not accepting the "spirit" of the law. What is good for the goose....

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 18:02 pm EDT

mrs mm ... if you are oh so offended...please, please do us all a favor and stay away from this blog.

--posted by stoppingby @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 18:56 pm EDT

there's always the alternative ... we could pay subscription fes for access to the blog. maybe that would keep those who post so much hot air from wasting so much precious time, space and bandwidth

--posted by stoppingby @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 18:58 pm EDT

let's help adam out - click on the ads posted so that he can at least generate some revenue to offset the costs of managong and hosting this website.

--posted by stoppingby @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 19:04 pm EDT

stoppingby and all:

Only click on those ads that you are truly interested in learning more about.

Thanks!

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 19:09 pm EDT

posted by mrs mm - "I find that your subjecting us to advertising when we read or comment on this site is taking advantage of us in the same way you claim BLH took advantage of her disability for home schooling, her Father's occupation when filing her lawsuit, etc."

huh?

--posted by stoppingby @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 19:23 pm EDT

Stoppingby: What don't you understand? English? Or aren't you up to date with the commentary here?

Adam, et al:

What makes me the angriest is that Adam/google ads are taking advantage of the sad situation of a young lady by using her name (Blair clothing), the situation involving writing (and did you notice that editors are going to write for "you", isn't that worse than plagiarizm- using someone else's words that you PAY) and referring to Harvard. Yes, you may think that these ads are applicable to the situation, but I say you are selling the same things that you so heartedly complained about. Thank goodness, we aren't talking here about Kobe or death. Can you just imagine the ads? " Enlarge you ****, How to get around date rape, buy your casket early...

"Admission Essays by Harvard Editors; Admission Essay Editing, Shop Blair....Can you just imagine the comments here if Blair had chosen to use one of these sites in her education quest?

Then there are those of you who think it a disgrace that BLH might earn money from HER situation either through suing, book deal or movie deal. You are earning money on HER...after chastising her for what you are doing. At least she is earning money from HER OWN tragedy. You are earning money from her and dislike her. You should be ashamed of earning money from someone else's misfortune.
.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 20:53 pm EDT

Mrs MM, don't you buy newspapers? You actually pay for them and they are full of ads. Do you watch television or listen to the radio? Do you hear the ads there? How about billboards as you travel down the road? Have you seen signs on the busses and/or commuter trains that you actually pay to ride?

C'mon, the ads are innocuous. You don't have to read them or click on them. Nothing is free. Interesting, you would have every taxpayer in Moorestown support BH's ego, without the opportunity to opt out, but you begrudge Adam the opportunity to pick up a few cents from those who might be interested in the products advertised.

Hey, no one is forcing you to post here. You don't have to look at the ads, you certainly don't have to click on them for admission to the forum, and they don't detract on iota from the purpose of this blog.

Oh, well!

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 21:36 pm EDT

Was I the last person to click on the Easy Essay site? You have to smile at the irony, however, given the discussion here.

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 21:47 pm EDT

I don't begrudge Adam's making money. I begrudge Adam making money on Blair...especially since he condemns her actions and finds them offensive. I condemn that he uses her to make money. I find his actions with regard to making money off of BLH EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE.

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 21:55 pm EDT

Every newspaper, radio station, t.v. station, and magazine which reports the developments in Moorestown, N.J., profits from their reports, and their audience's curiosity. Blair's lawyers are profiting from their engagement on her behalf. Need I go on?

Those of us who post frequently are also profiting from our activities, from ego gratification, or the satisfaction of airing our views, if nothing else. The ads at the bottom of the page are innocuous, as such things go. They are presumably automated, triggered by the text posted on the page, not produced by a human editor.

--posted by MA reader @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 22:36 pm EDT

While I think that Adam is perfectly within his rights to run the normally unobtrusive Google text ads, I find it ironic that the automatically selected ads promote services verging on school cheating that many regulars here would rail against. Maybe Adam could insert above the ads a line of text saying something like “The advertisements below were automatically selected based on the content of this site and not knowing what they are I do not endorse or advocate them”.

Using some of those services might get or keep you out of Harvard. For example the “Common Admissions Application” (used by Harvard and about 200 other schools)
http://www.college.harvard.edu/admissions/forms/common_app.pdf
requires you to sign off on: “I certify that all information in my application, including my Personal Statement, is my own work, factually true, and honestly presented.”

However at EssayEdge they say:
http://www.essayedge.com/promo/top10reasons.shtml
“While we don't write entire paragraphs from scratch, we actually make the corrections for you when we edit in addition to giving you a critique detailing new paragraphs to write and new ideas to pursue.”

I don’t see how an essay in which EssayEdge has corrected “irregardless” to “regardless” or suggested new points can count as a student’s own work. However EE claims to have Harvard customers:
http://www.essayedge.com/promo/success-stories.shtml
“"I thought I was a fairly good writer when I started, but I am so happy I tried EssayEdge. Even a small change was enough to make my essay super powerful. There is no doubt in my mind that EssayEdge helped me get in. It was worth every cent -- thanks!" - Admitted to Harvard University”

But then again, admission essays have always been a problem and there have always been rumors that certain students got their parents, tutors, or professionals to write theirs. But just because there has been some abuse, I still think schools should reject applications massaged or directed by helpers like EssayEdge.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 22:51 pm EDT

Just to clear up what appears to be a misconception: Blair Clothing has nothing to do with Blair Hornstine. Blair Clothing is a national clothing chain that sells men's and women's apparel. I would imagine that Google searches a site for commonly used words and then matches the ads to the site's content, context-blind.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 23:02 pm EDT

And, Mrs. MM, you certainly can't be so naive to think that Adam wrote these ads himself. If he's so evil and malicious, why would he open a forum for people like yourself to express opinions that seem to differ from his own?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 23:04 pm EDT

And, Mrs. MM, you certainly can't be so naive to think that Adam wrote these ads himself. If he's so evil and malicious, why would he open a forum for people like yourself to express opinions that seem to differ from his own?

--posted by Underprivileged @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 23:04 pm EDT

ADAM: can you ask the Google Text Ads people to only send you plagiarism detection ads (if they exist)? That would make everybody happy.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 23:34 pm EDT

look at it this way, Mrs. M.M.: Adam is not making money off BLH, but instead he is inserting these Ads (whose content he cannot regulate without censoring/"censoring" what you and I write) so that he can keep this forum open and free for you to keep defending her. Isn't that a good thing?

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 0:41 am EDT

if you object to his maintenance of the blog off funds exploited from Blair's name, say, then your contributions to the blog void your point (all our posts, including yours, cost Adam); on the other hand, if, being one of the keenest of all the posters here, you would be the first to volunteer to donate funds to Adam to support his blog, that's another matter.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 0:47 am EDT

MonkeyBrains and all:

You can only filter sites that you don't want to show up in the ads (i.e. if they were your competitors). Since I don't have an exhaustive list of sites that are showing up through these ads, it's unlikely I'll add any filters for this page.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 4:52 am EDT

Now Mrs MM is engaging in censorship by trying to discourage Adam from using AdSense on his own site!

Pot. Kettle. Black??????

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 7:45 am EDT

Yes, these Ads exploit BLH, her name and the situation. You are endorsing and advocating the things and person that you found so disgusting and dishonorable. By allowing these essay, etc. writings to be allowed you are PROMOTING Cheating which is something you found repugnant. Then, my Dear Adam, you are living on a two way street when it comes to Your opinions lose veracity; you are just promoting them to make money.

Advertise cars, windows, mops.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 8:02 am EDT

This should read: THEN, MY DEAR ADAM, YOU ARE LIVING ON A TWO WAY STREET. YOUR OPINIONS LOSE VERACITY; YOU ARE PROMOTING THEM TO MAKE MONEY.


ADVERTISE CARS, WINDOWS, MOPS, ETC.......

P.S. If BLH were the spokesman or had a financial interest in any of these advertisers, the posters here and Adam would be the first and loudest to criticize.
Maybe she will get a Nike or Reebok endorsement. Boy, can I hear it now.

Adam, now I guess you are not so angry over this situation as you have said in the forward of this blog. It is now a money making situation for you. I think it's shameful.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 8:09 am EDT

what if it's not enough to even make money? what if the ads just barely scrape enough to keep this blog up and running? Considering very few of us would be interested in perfecting our college application essays at this stage, it's a likely scenario.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 8:18 am EDT

MM, if you don't like Adam's management of HIS OWN blog, why don't you vote with your feet and find another one to frequent? Or better yet, start your own blog.

That would be much better than engaging in censorship, wouldn't it?

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 8:24 am EDT

Cretin: All you WANT to do on this blog is be a TROLL and irritant. It is okay that you don't like me. I am not sure if I EVER liked you. If you had anything worthwhile to say....

Bystander: What if? What if your grandmother had ba**s, she would be your grandfather???? So what if?

If, as Adam, said in the introduction here, he just started this blog because of his ranting and "Rae suggested that instead of ranting and raving, I should channel my energies towards something creative. A few hours later, we produced an exclusive trailer for the Internet audience" I certainly don't see anywhere where he intended to make this a money maker. He was complaining about "cheating" in one form or another, Now he is a proponent of it when it fits his pocket.

--posted by Mrs.M. M. @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 8:42 am EDT

Sorry but I do find it disgusting that ADAM IS LIVING OFF OF BLAIR.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 8:44 am EDT

Are you KIDDING me? These ads aren't giving Adam a penthouse apartment in New York or a dachau on the Black Sea. I would guess that each click (CLICK, not view; just reading it and getting offended doesn't give Adam anything) gives a percentage of a cent--not even enough to buy a piece of penny candy. It's not like Adam is quitting his job in order to profit from Blair. He's using the ads to help equalize the cost of the website, the forum, and its usage.

Get over yourself and stop being so self-righteous. Why not have Blair come here herself and decide what she thinks is right and wrong? Or better yet, why not just go somewhere else? The great thing about the Internet is that there are millions upon millions of websites. I'm sure you can find one that fits your needs.

You really are nothing but a troll. Good work with the "What if your grandmother had..." comment. That obviously shows a lot of maturity, and a desire to be a positive force on Blair's behalf.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 9:31 am EDT

Mrs. M.M. - that was completely uncalled for. My grandfather passed away a month ago; do you really have to be so crass?

My "what if" was to propose that Adam may need the revenue generated off the ads - ads that WE control the content of - in order to support the running of the site, and not as an income earner per se. If he dropped this site and this blog, then he wouldn't need the ads. Consequently it would mean that you'd lose this space to defend Blair, and considering you're one of the most regular posters here, I'd think you wouldn't want that.

I'm not speaking for Adam, so I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt. If you find his actions so disgusting then stop posting here and creating the necessity for him to "make money" - the money he needs to publish your views!

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 9:39 am EDT

MRS. MM.,
HONESTLY MRS. MM. GO AWAY. THE ONLY ONE WHO WANTS YOU HERE IS SDS AND HE WAS ABLE TO TAKE THE HINT. YOU HAVE VERBALLY ABUSED EVERYONE WHO DISAGREED WITH YOU AND ATTACK IRRELEVANT FACTS WHEN THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. ADAM IS LIVING OFF OF BLAIR? PLEASE. ADAM HAS A WEBSITE THAT COSTS MONEY AND FOUND A WAY TO OFFSET THOSE COSTS. THE BLAIR HORNSTINE PROJECT IS NOT THE ONLY SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE. YOU ARE VERY GOOD WITH WORDS AND KNOW HOW TO PUT PEOPLE DOWN. BUT, I AM GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST PEOPLE THAT I HAVE EVER GIVEN THE TIME OF DAY TO. IF YOU TALK TO PEOPLE FACE TO FACE THE WAY YOU WRITE TO THEM ON THIS WEBSITE, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS EITHER, WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE SO SYMPATHETHIC TOWARD BLAIR. YOU ARE PATHETIC AND EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT. YOU ARE A SNOTTY WITCH, AND I AM REALLY REALLY GLAD THAT I DO NOT HAVE YOU FOR A FAMILY MEMBER, ACQUAINTANCE, OR GOD FOR BID A TEACHER.

--posted by GLAD MY PAREN'T AREN'T FROM MOORESTOWN @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 10:45 am EDT

Glad,

BACK UP BARBIE! I haven't posted because I don't have anything to say that I haven't said about 800 times, which only goes to show that folks like you are so hard headed that you can't see the obvious through your hatred, jealousy and anger. There are far more relevant issues, but you, and posters like you are still willing to overlook the same actions from certain political, sports, or historical figures, and then turn around and crucify Blair, who without question, is guilty of plagiarism. I'm not excusing it, I'm simply saying, let the rain fall equally...

As for making a comment that I endorse or don't anybody here, you are so wrong as to be in another country, let alone left field. You scream out, (fontically speaking), and rant about Mrs. M.M., and then claim I took a hint. Who the hell died and left you God? I simply didn't have anything to add, and given the abject narrowmindedness that is rampant on this blog, I have toned down my thoughts, regardless of my opinions, which are just as firm today as they ever were.

That and the fact that some of you are not able to have a reasonable discourse without things like threats, or name calling, or other childish and ultimately pointless bull, have gathered together to created an environment that I personally, don't care to frequent with any regularity.

But, and I'll say this again, don't drag me into your bitch sessions, and expect me to sit back and go, "Oh gee, look, Glad's back, and just as ignorant as ever!" I'll sing it from the rooftops, Barbie, and you'll be the one finding a new pose for your bendable figurine legs and arms. In other words, stop being a plastic, mass produced, jump on the band wagon opinionated witch... get your own opinion, and then, have the guts to stick to it. If you can't do that, don't presume to think someone like me won't shove one down your obviously gaping hole you call a mouth... Close it up, Barbie, flies are circling.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 11:13 am EDT

Mrs M.M., get a grip. If you don't like the ads, stop frequenting the site and start your own. Nobody is under any obligation to pay out of their own pocket to provide you with a free forum.

--posted by Tom D @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 11:22 am EDT

My grandfather used to say many years ago: "Class will tell!" Similarly, the lack of class will also tell.

All of the posts of the regular posters here speak volumes to anyone who pays attention. You really tell a lot about yourself, even when you try not to and post anonymously. Ask any good profiler.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 11:28 am EDT

MM, please stop engaging in censorship!!!

If you don't like Adam's blog, go away rather than try to censor what he puts on his OWN WEBSITE!!!!!

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 11:34 am EDT

About this advertising thing. Mrs. M.M., I have to disagree with you here. There may be "word specific" adds that seem exploitive, and frankly, that's the nature of advertising, exploitation of a name, or a face, or a location to create greater awareness of a product or service.

While some of the ads do appear to be tasteless, the simple fact is that bandwidth costs money. You don't have to agree, and in a situation like this, I would place the ads on the commercial side of my site and leave the op ed side ad free, and I do, with the exception of ads for my own companies and their products. This, however, is my personal choice, I would be free to add click through advertising on any page of my site, and while I'm not sure what kind of bandwidth Adam has, I pay a considerable amount for my bandwidth, and I can tell you, it aint cheap.

While you find the ads to be exploitive, and on the face of it, they are, as they key on words on the page, and actually appear to encourage things like plagiarism, and such, the simple fact of the matter, is that they are not relevant to the blog, nor are they a personal expression or exploitive measure that Adam has taken. He's paying his bills, and if the click through rate is as I suspect it might be, it's not very likely that he's paying his bills without a little help from his business. Every little bit helps. Even if you don't like them, be aware, Adam didn't write them, he only made the space available for them as a way to offset some of the cost resulting from this near novel length blog.

Lighten up on them, they're not the focus of the blog, and turning the vultures from the blog simply turns them on you. It's not worth it, and ultimately, it isn't the point, anyway.

Hope you had fun at the beach.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 11:35 am EDT

BTW isn't today the day that a settlement conference is/was scheduled?

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 11:39 am EDT

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-08132003-140878.html

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 12:50 pm EDT

Found on a website arularecords.com which seemed to have attracted a few people who had come into contact with Blair and/or her family:
"last summer i took a public speaking course at stanford with that girl. she isn't how you so eloquently paint her to be. in reality, she is manipulative and egocentric. i promise. as for you, on behalf of a lot of people,
i'm sorry.
best regards,
p


Posted by: patricia at June 20, 2003 11:59 PM

--posted by Amused @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 18:10 pm EDT

More Blair, Blair, the girl who's everywhere:

"met Blair at a national scholarship recognition ceremony last spring. Her arrogance and disregard of the accomplishments of others made me unable to tolerate her tainted character. However, she has been raised to live up to her father's unreasonable expectations. It seems that she has been taught to look out only for herself - at any cost. I am sure she has had much practice suppressing her innermost feelings of compassion or guilt causing her to become her father's accomplished and willing robot, geared at excelling academically and performing extensive community service. Her entire upbringing has been focused on building her resume instead of learning how to appreciate and interact with the people around around her. She has been raised among people with warped principles and Blair has just about been pushed over the edge because of the pressure placed upon her to overachieve. Despite the negative impression she gave me, I believe that the poor girl has a heart somewhere beneath her uncontrolably curly hair... As disenchanted with Blair as i am, I can only feel sorry for how very lonely she must be in her perfect and fake world - far, far away from the Harvard campus."

Posted by: Kate at August 11, 2003 04:12 PM

--posted by Amused @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 18:12 pm EDT

Also from arularecords:

"I've got a completely different spin on this whole story. My son was in front of Blair's father, the dis, I mean honorable Louis F Hornstine, whose courtroom has no justice. Just mention the name Hornstine in the Camden County Court House and you'll see nothing but smirks, grins, frowns and grimaces; but what you'll here is much more intense, profane, negative and definitely not complementary. There are not much nicities said about Louis F Hornstine. Ever since he got demoted to Juvenile Court from Superior Court after senetencing the wife of the Eagle's PR Man to 365 days of community service when she should have gone to jail for drunkenly committing vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident, he has been wreaking havoc on the citizens of camden county- especially the blacks and hispanics. My son tried to break up a fight at school, severazl people testified to this including the boy who was beat up and the boys who beat him up. Hornstine wasn't hearing anything because it was obvious to anyone present during the trial that his mind was made up from the beginning. The Balifs, court clerks and others in attendance often sat in unbelief as to some of his rulings. He ajudicated my son a delinquent ( never ever in trouble before) and sentenced him to a resedential program for 9 months. We immediately appealed his decision and requested a stay of the sentence until a ruling was received from the appellate court. Request for a stay was denied. Finally, upon review, the NJ Appellate Court remanded the case back to Hornstine to produce evidence for his finding because they couldn't find any evidence for him to ajudicate delinquent. In his belligerence, he refused to reverse himself and now the NJ Appellate Court will do it. So where am I going with all this - The sins of the father are being passed on to his daughter. Now, Judge Louis F Hornstine feels helpless to defend the hurt and humiliation that his daughter is experiencing at the hands of others just as he has so often done to innocent sons and daughters to many citizens of Camden County. It's not over. It's not over

Posted by: nel at August 9, 2003 04:27 PM

--posted by Amused @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 18:16 pm EDT

via the link posted by cretin ... so the saga continues ... "The first court hearing in a $2.5 million lawsuit involving Blair Hornstine and the Moorestown School District has been postponed for at least eight days, a clerk at U.S. District Court confirmed yesterday. The case was set to begin today with a closed-to-the-public scheduling conference in Magistrate Judge Joel Rosen's chambers in Camden. However, that meeting has been rescheduled to Aug. 22."

--posted by stoppingby @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 19:58 pm EDT

Mrs. MM, is it true that Judge Hornstine is a Juvenile Court judge?

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 13 2003, 23:09 pm EDT

Judge Hornstine is a Superior Court Judge in the Family Court section, handling, at the moment, Juvenile offenders.

It has nothing to do with the Howard case (Eagles). He has been switched around between Family (divorces), Criminal (adult) and Family - Juvenile-Criminal several times in his tenure. It is normal and common. Check the other judges in the district.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 0:41 am EDT

BTW----TOLD YOU SO... there was not going to be a settlement/ any conference THIS week.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 0:42 am EDT

Adam: The Ads that I seen posted now for Kaplan GMAT, etc. are fine. This does not exploit Blair and her cases.

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 0:43 am EDT

COMMENTS ON ABOVE POSTING:
" Just mention the name Hornstine in the Camden County Court House and you'll see nothing but smirks, grins, frowns and grimaces;..." TRUE, THE JUDGE'S STAFF LOVES HIM. MENTION A SUBJECT AND HE WILL BOMBARD YOU WITH FUNNY, FUNNY JOKES, MANY BAWDY. HIS STAFF WILL DO ANYTHING FOR HIM AND VICE VERSA. ASK THEM HOW MANY HAVE CHOSEN THEIR JUDGE TO MARRY THEM OR FAMILY MEMBERS.

"There are not much nicities said about Louis F Hornstine." THOSE ARE TRUE STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENSE LAWYERS WHO HAVE CLIENTS IN FRONT OF HIM. HE IS A TOUGH JUDGE ON CRIMINALS AND SEX OFFENDERS. CHECK HIS RECORD. DON'T COMMIT A CRIME AND BE SENT BEFORE HIM. YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE.

"Ever since he got demoted to Juvenile Court from Superior Court .."ANSWERED ABOVE; HE WAS NOT, NEVER, BEEN DEMOTED. IF ANYONE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT WANTS TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS BECAUSE OF THE HOWARD CASE, THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIS TOUGH STANCE ON CRIMINALS BEFORE AND AFTER THIS CASE? CHECK HIS RECORD.

"a stay of the sentence until a ruling was received from the appellate court. Request for a stay was denied. Finally, upon review, the NJ Appellate Court remanded the case back to Hornstine to produce evidence for his finding because they couldn't find any evidence for him to ajudicate delinquent. In his belligerence, he refused to reverse himself and now the NJ Appellate Court will do it. " IF THE APPEAL COURT FELT THAT HIS DECISION WAS INCORRECT, THE DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED IMMEDIATELY. IF THEY SENT IT BACK FOR REVIEW AND JUGE H. DID NOT CHANGE HIS RULING, I BET THAT THE DECISION WILL STAND EVEN IF AND WHEN THE APPEALS COURTS RE-REVIEWS IT. WE'LL SEE....

"Louis F Hornstine feels helpless to defend the hurt and humiliation that his daughter is experiencing at the hands of others just as he has so often done to innocent sons and daughters to many citizens of Camden County." SURE...BECAUSE OF BLAIR'S SITUATION, HE HAS FOUND DRUGGIES, MURDERS, CRIMINALS AND DRAGGED THEM FROM THE STREETS JUST TO SENTENCE THEM AND MAKE HIS DAUGHTER FEEL BETTER. THAT WILL GET BLAIR A BIGGER SETTLEMENT. HARVARD, ANYONE? WANT TO BUY THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE? GIMME A BREAK!

I AM SURE THAT THIS WOMAN IS NOT HAPPY HER SON WAS SENTENCED FOR A CRIME, BUT JUDGE LFH DIDN'T CAUSE HIM TO COMMIT THE CRIME, DRAG HIM FROM THE STREET TO JAIL SO HE COULD BE SENTENCED. GIMME A BREAK!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 0:59 am EDT

" arularecords.com " PAGANS, WICCAS, ETC. AM I MISSING SOMETHING. CAN'T FIND ANY COMMENTS EXCEPT THOSE TO DO WITH THE ABOVE OR MUSIC. INFO, PLEASE.

--posted by MRS. M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 1:12 am EDT

http://www.arularecords.com/Blackacre/archives/000022.html

--posted by Adam @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 2:43 am EDT

Thanks Adam.

As I read the postings on arularecords, I notice that Karen Michalson, Matthew Graybosch, Mike, Ken, and Me had positive things to say. I believe they were the majority of commenters on that post. Guess I am not the ONLY one.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 8:34 am EDT

Actually, Mrs. MM, the minority of posters were in support of Blair. The majority of the people replying in that topic did not agree with Blair's "cause" or claimed to have negative personal experiences with her or her father.

--posted by Underprivileged @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 10:01 am EDT

There were specific lines from the above that had positive statements. T he glass is half full...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 14:43 pm EDT

Actually, I posted only those 3 statements because they were from people who had known/interacted with either Blair or her family. The other quotes on that page were from speculators, much like here. I've seen one more first-hand quote from a male who participated in something like Habitat for Humanity with either the whole family or possibly just the dad and son and found them to be a very caring family, committed to charitable works. Can't find it again but will post if I do. It was positive in tone.

--posted by Amused @ Thursday, August 14 2003, 19:16 pm EDT

Believe me, Amused, they are not a bad family. The worst adjective you could use when meeting and working with them is "nerdy."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 15 2003, 9:58 am EDT

If you haven't read this article printed a couple months agowith commnents from people who know BLH, please read.

The complaint from the parents refer to Dr. Mona Shangold, an "expert" on gifted children and parent of Kenneth Mirkin.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 15 2003, 11:03 am EDT

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/05/25/news/local/states/new_jersey/5937862.htm

Sorry I forgot to add the address.

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Friday, August 15 2003, 11:11 am EDT

I'm just a casual observer of this train wreck. What's the latest info on the girl genius? Is she going to college locally?

I can't even imagine what that household must be like.

Parents so often mess up their children under the guise of helping them.

I remember a young Quarterback prodigy named Todd Marinovich, whose father bred him and groomed him to be an NFL star. It was sickening. Todd ended up a washed up, pot-head failure because outside of NFL stardom, he was of little use or interest to his father. I see the same thing here.

--posted by Birks31 @ Saturday, August 16 2003, 11:35 am EDT

Maybe because the Judge did not go to Harvard, he is trying to do it vicariously through his kids.

--posted by Tug @ Saturday, August 16 2003, 14:10 pm EDT

I came across an ad in the current New Yorker magazine for a new book "School of Dreams" by Edward Hume. It's a book that sheds light on the "competition, stress, parent pleasing and espresso" that fuels high school students these days. Pertinent to the discussion at hand.

"What is the price of an education at a top public high school? Whitney High delivers everything we ask of a school: a love of learning, a sense of mission, and SAT scores to die for. But there are unintended consequences to attending the school of our dreams, as author Edward Humes found during his year inside this world of high achievement and high pressure. Students work nearly around the clock, building futures to please parents as much as themselves. Their drug of choice? Caffeine. Their goal? Getting into a top college. Their biggest fear? Not living up to their families' stratospheric expectations." (http://www.harcourtbooks.com/bookcatalogs/bookpages/0151007039.asp#synopsis).

--posted by cambridgema @ Saturday, August 16 2003, 14:37 pm EDT

Didn't any of you guys hear... Summertime is for vacation... You post on this place like it's all part of a full time job... Think of the absolute satisfaction Blair Hornstine gets off of your meddling over her personal life

--posted by summer averted @ Saturday, August 16 2003, 19:42 pm EDT

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued an opinion regarding whether and under what circumstances a public body may be liable for punitive damages under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-108-01.opn.html Recognizing BH has sued under an analagous civil rights law, the supreme court opinion nevertheless reflects the type of issues the district court may likely address in the pending action.

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 18 2003, 16:40 pm EDT

Home | About | Feedback | Contact Me | Links | Site Map

Copyright © 1995-2008, tow.com. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use
Tomorrow begins today.