From the killing-the-golden-goose department: Blair Hornstine, the girl who successfully manipulated the system to become valedictorian and gain admission to Harvard, and then tried to gild the lily (perhaps it's actually the mixed-metaphor department) by suing her school district for millions of dollars, has settled for a mere $15,000. (Her attorneys also get $45,000, lucky them.)
So, let's tote up the scorecard:
- Without the suit: Hornstine would have had the title of co-valedictorian, admission to Harvard, a good reputation in her circles and anonymity outside it.
- With the suit: Hornstine got the title of valedictorian, the tag of plagiarist, and national notoriety as a spoiled brat. And couldn't attend her own graduation because of the fear of being booed off the stage. And $15,000, which won't even pay for a year of Harvard -- a moot point, since she lost her admission to Harvard.
(What's known but doesn't get enough attention in all this is that the school district wasn't trying to take her valedictorian status away from her. I've heard several radio talk show hosts make that claim. Her whole lawsuit was motivated by the fact that someone else was also going to be honored. How much of a jerk do you have to be to try to keep someone else from getting what is, ultimately, a pretty trivial honor? Sure, it's an accomplishment, but she was already in college, and it's not as if, years down the road, anybody would have cared whether she was a high school valedictorian or "mere" high school co-valedictorian.)
Ah, well. Knowing the way the world works, she'll probably be defrauding investors of her own company someday.
Comments (7)
All is not lost for her. She can always get a job as a reporter for the NY Times. She certainly has the proper credentials (plagiarist), disadvantaged status (a "disabled" woman) and the name for it.
Posted by Richard | August 20, 2003 5:53 PM
Posted on August 20, 2003 17:53
A fine post that everyone could agree with, and someone had to come along and politicize it.
Posted by Amitava Mazumdar | August 21, 2003 10:46 AM
Posted on August 21, 2003 10:46
"Politicize"? What political entities did Richard even mention? Or is that an admission that the NY Times is, in fact, a political entity?
Posted by Bill | August 21, 2003 4:38 PM
Posted on August 21, 2003 16:38
Or is that an admission that the NY Times is, in fact, a political entity?
Context. The Times, on this site, is very much considered to be an entity with clear political leanings. The references to the Blair newsroom affirmative action happenings were pretty clearly meant as a shot at affirmative action in general. To say Hornstine had "the name for it" insinuates that Jews are preferred at the Times.
"Hey, didn't say that. YOU read all that into what I said!" But I only read into it what was written.
And as if Mazumdar's comments could be an "admission" of anything with respect to the NY Times. If Mazumdar denied it, would that make it true?
Posted by David P3 | August 21, 2003 6:09 PM
Posted on August 21, 2003 18:09
Actually, David P3, I don't think the comment had anything to do with Jews. I think it was a straightforward reference to her first name, Blair, and the last name of the Times' ertstwhile reporter, Blair.
Posted by David Nieporent | August 21, 2003 11:27 PM
Posted on August 21, 2003 23:27
Why does the Left lack a sense of humor?
Yes my reference was clearly to the fact that she has the same name as a certain former reporter for the NY Times. One thing you can be sure of, I would never accuse the Times of favoring Jews.
Posted by Richard | August 22, 2003 12:11 AM
Posted on August 22, 2003 00:11
Yes my reference was clearly to the fact that she has the same name as a certain former reporter for the NY Times.
I'm ashamed that I missed that totally. FYI...
Why does the Left lack a sense of humor?
I wouldn't know; you'll have to asked them. I think maybe if you were funnier...
DavidP3
Posted by Anonymous | August 22, 2003 2:33 PM
Posted on August 22, 2003 14:33