Then maybe all schools should do away with class rankings and valedictorians. My school didn’t engage in these practices, and I think we were all happier for it – it left students a little more free to focus on, you know, learning rather than number chasing. And I say this as someone who would easily have been top of my class (of 48 students!) and valedictorian if the school had given out such distinctions.
What I saw in the idiot judge’s decision was that, by virtue of her being handicapped and having to share the honor with a non-handicapped student, Hornstine would automatically be labelled as the “handicapped valedictorian”. It was the apparent horror of that stigma that drove the judge’s moronic decision. Seems to me that reflects more on the judge’s own predjudices. If, as you claim here, the stupid judge’s decision was based on a changing of the rules in the middle of the game, then that stuff about being stigmatized by being the “handicapped valedictorian” was completely irrelevant. Either way, it shows that the judge is a moron.
Further, you and she are clearly good lawyer material, because all you see is the letter of the rules. You both make my case for me that lawyers don’t care one whit about justice or fairness, all they see is the written rules/laws.
As a normal human being, I look at this situation in terms of what’s fair. So what if the school changed some tiny aspect of the “rules” of who gets to be valedictorian? It’s clear to everyone that her learning situation was substantially different from that of Mirkin, and that their GPAs where so infinitesimally different that trying to claim any objective difference in their overall school performance is impossible. So the only fair and just thing to do is simply to share the valedictorian honor.
What difference does it make whether or not the rules were changed midway? Suppose the rules had been, from the beginning, such that she would end up being co-valedictorian. Were that the case, she would clearly have no grounds for complaint. The effect that being co-valedictorian might or might not have on her future would be exactly the same as it is now. Would she, in that case, be harmed by having to share the honor? If so, then the argument could be made that Mirkin would be equally harmed, because the harm would come from simply being one of two co-valedictorians, rather than being one single valedictorian. On the other hand, if simply having to share the honor is not harmful, then the fact that what caused her to have to share the honor was that the school changed the rules midway is irrelevant; the effect on her future of being a co-valedictorian is the same in either case.
This statement shows a clear bias towards her point of view. You state here that the purpose of the school changing the rules was “to deny an individual an award…” How do you, how does she, know that that was the intent of the school? How do you know that the intent of the school was rather to additionally bestow the award on another individual who was equally deserving?
And, again, I say that if that really were “all this girl seems to be saying,” then all she would be asking for was to have the school restore her exclusive status as valedictorian. Clearly, because she is asking for such a ludicrous amount of money in damages, she is not saying just what you claim she is saying, she is saying that she has been grossly harmed and that the school was willfully negligent. That’s absurd.
How has she been harmed? Please tell us the details of the harm that would be done to her if she had to share the honor of valedictorian vs. having that honor all to herself.
My opinion is that the school should just tell her to shut up and go her merry way, and institute an award in her honor: the Hornstine Idiot of the Year award, or something like that, to commemorate her achievement.
My school seriously de-emphasized it… which was a good thing.
I’m sure the valedictorian knew that he or she was the valedictorian. No one else did. There were no honors given to the valedictorian, the name was never announced, they didn’t make a speech at graduation, they didn’t get a special notice or anything. (At the ceremony, the only thing that did happen was people with over a 3.5 got to wear those rope things with their robes - as it was at least 1/4th (and probably more) of the school, it wasn’t that distinguishing. We voted as a class on a student to give a speech. The school was in to popularity contests, but that’s another thing.)
Getting your class rank was difficult. Though the school kept the record, they didn’t advertise it. They certainly didn’t tell you how to find it out, and even when you divined who in what office was the right person to hand over the information, they tried to talk you out of finding it out, telling you instead to concentrate on your work and whether you were doing your best instead of how you compared to others.
And as a result, we didn’t have the nastiness among the ranks that is in evidence in this case and that I’ve heard about in other schools, where rank is everything and students do what ever is necessary to keep their rank up and their classmates down.
So what. She is handicapped. As a result of her disadvantage she does not nor should she have to play by the rules of everybody else. Presumably the rules that governed her did not receive that much of an advantage but are designed to even the playing field the assumption being she is not on a level playing field as others without a disability. So they make rules that govern her to place her on an equal playing field with others who do not have disabilities. So the fact she did not play by the same rules is really not very detrimental to her claim.
This is a red herring. Nobody, not even myself, have claimed school rules are to be fair. However, once the rules are set the school must abide by them and not change them in the middle or towards the end of the game and this is the relevant issue.
Red herring and irrelevant.
The school changed the rules. The plaintiff alleges that under the school rules, before they revised them, she should have the title of sole valedictorian. This is a point the Judge hammered the attorney for the defendant’s on and the defendant’s attorney simply did not have an adequate reply or rebuttal. The school moved the goal posts towards the end of the game and this they cannot do.
Well there may be just a law and the plaintiff hinged her complaint on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The school cannot change its rules in such a way as to treat people unequally and this is what she is alleging.
To the contrary she was playing by the rules. She played by the rules that governed individuals who were handicapped. Did she play by the rules for students who were not handicapped? Of course not but make no mistake she played by the rules designated for those with a handicap. She also played by and adhered to the school rules governing who is to be appointed as valedictorian.
Well I have not read the entire opinion but yes the Judge was not happy over the fact the school moved the goal post. If they moved the goal post, then this is not fair. It is not fair to change the rules on participants halfway through the game or towards the end of the game especially when they will result in different outcomes in terms of awards and scholarships for students.
Adhering to the rules and laws can be “just”. Sometimes to reach justice requires a focus and adherence to the rules and law. But make no mistake lawyers do care about justice and a reliance upon the rules and laws is very helpful in reaching a just conclusion. Is it “just” the schools changed the rules in such a way to deprive her of the title of sole valedictorian? Is that a “just” act? Is it fair to deny this plaintiff the title of sole valedictorian by simply altering a rule thereby changing the outcome?
The harm is being denied sole valedictorian when she complied with and fulfilled every requirement of the rules to obtain this title.
Nice strawman argument. I never said the school changed the “rules” with the intention of denying this girl the title of sole valedictorian. Rather what I said was they changed the rules and the consequence of this rule alteration was the denial of her receiving the title of sole valedictorian. I never said this was the school’s “purpose”.
Don’t get so caught up in the damages she is seeking. This is nothing more than perhaps a tool of getting the school to comply to avoid losing the case and having to possibly pay monetary damages.
Again the “harm” is being denied something she has rightfully earned by adhering to and fulfilling every stipulation of the rules in order to receive such a title. There is always a harm when one is not awarded something they are entitled to receive by fufilling or by complying with some standard.
I think it’s pretty damn obvious, despite whatever judicial or prescriptive analysis says, that the girl’s being a selfish, snooty bitch. There’s a reason they have a SPECIAL Olympics, because people who can’t compete on the same field shouldn’t receive special treatment to level the playing field with those who aren’t handicapped.
Even if the letter of the law may have been followed, and she has nominally “rightfully earned” something - the system from which she earned it is messed up. She may technically be entitled to the title, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently right - if the system itself is screwy the whole thing is screwy.
Well, the home tutoring (which to my mind, makes her no longer a student at a particular school and therefore not eligible to be valedictorian in the first place) was meant to place her on an equal playing field. But I don’t think there was any intent to make it possible for her to take a program that students who actually attended the school wouldn’t be able to complete due to scheduling conflicts, or because they had to take gym while she was able to spend that time on an honors course. The rules that governed her did give her those advantages, intentionally or not. Nothing about her disability required that she be able to take courses that normally have conflicting schedules , or be able to fill the space left in her schedule by the gym exemption with a higher weighted course. She could have taken only one of the classes involved in a conflict, and filled the space left by gym with another lower weighted class.But she didn’t , and she thereby gained an advantage that the other students didn’t have.
From the Philadelphia Daily News link :
And she (or more likely, her parents) have caused more harm by taking this to court than being co-valedictorian ever could.
Jimmy 1 said:* This is a red herring.
Nobody, not even myself, have claimed school rules are to be fair. However, once the rules are set the school must abide by them and not change them in the middle or towards the end of the game and this is the relevant** issue.***
Jimmy 1, it does not follow. If school rules can be unfair and abitrary and still be legal then changing the rules in the middle or at the end is an irrelevent point. The silly judge who ruled an injunction on the symbolic awards because of possible future emotional injury to this silly girl is a sad testament to the namby-pamby state of our country’s courts today.
Pardon me Jim 1, for being from the Twentieth Century, but, er, I really don’t know, in today’s parlance, just what is a “issue”?
Ok correct me if I’m wrong, but this world is sue happy.
You break wind in the wrong direction and some one sues. You mis-pronounce someones name and someone sues.
I mean this girl should be grateful for what she has. But nooooooo, she has to use the disability card like a cheep bitch.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t hate disabled people, my dad was disabled, but to use your status as a disabled person to get ahead is cheep and demoralizing to yourself. I mean if you continually use it how can you see if you can do something without it?
I mean who cares if two other people share it with her. But of course her life is hard and she deserves it (sarcasim).
And what really tops this cake of insanity is the lawsuit. 2 mil plus 500,000 plus court expenses? What the hell was she smoking when she came up with those figures?
I do hope this is a passing phase, or else we are doomed to live a sterle walking on eggshells life of hoping not to offend someone.
Actually, it’s totally clear that your presumption is incorrect. As others have pointed out repeatedly, the rules that governed her allowed her to take a set of classes that other students were not able to take.
Why must the school abide by them? Please cite a law that indicates that a school is legally bound to not change the rules that determine the valedictorian, any time they choose.
Completely incorrect. If the rules are discovered to be inherently unfair, then what’s fair is to change them, regardless of the timing.
Typical legal squirming. It’s a big “duh” that sometimes adhering to the rules and laws can be just. The question is: is that the case here? The answer, clearly, is no because another student, equally deserving of the valedictorian honor, is being denied it.
Lawyers believe that “justice” and a reliance upon the rules and laws is synonymous. Lawyers see nothing but the rules and laws. Your entire argument here has made my point: All you argue is that rules are rules, they can’t be changed once they’re made, the school can’t move the goalpost, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not once do you directly address the issue of fairness to the other student.
This is a slight hijack, but our whole legal system is 100% focused on the rules and laws, to the exclusion of all else, be it justice, fairness, conscience, or what have you. As evidence I submit the last time I was called for jury duty. On the preliminary questionaire was one to the effect of, “Do you agree to follow the judge’s instructions, even if those instructions conflict with your own conscience or sense of right and wrong?” I answered, truthfully, that I could not agree to that. The judge got mad at me. Note that I did not say that I definitely would ignore the judge’s instructions; I simply said that I could not agree ahead of time to put my conscience and sense of right and wrong aside and let the judge’s instructions take precedent, no matter what. And for that, I was immediately dismissed from the jury.
The legal system doesn’t want jurors who have a conscience or any sense of fairness or justice or right and wrong. The system wants jurors that will just follow the rules and the laws.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Shame on you. As a law student, you should know better. Simply being denied something is not harm, by any definition. Harm comes from what consequences result from the denial. For example, if I am denied water for a prolonged period, I’ll die. Is “being denied water” the harm? No, it’s the cause of the harm; the harm itself is dying. Or more in the legal realm: If a newspaper prints a story that Joe’s garage rips people off by doing unnecessary repairs, is the printing of that story the harm? No, if Joe’s business suffers as a result of the story then that is the harm; the story was the cause of the harm. Just so, being denied an honor is not a harm in and of itself. It may (or may not) be the cause of some harm. I’m asking you to name the harm, not the cause.
Again: What actual harm will come to this girl if she ends up sharing the valedictorian honor with another student? Give me actual harm, e.g. that she’ll have a more difficult time getting into the school of her choice (demonstrably not the case, since she’s already been accepted to Harvard), or that her future earnings will suffer, etc.
You need to work more on your choice of wording, then. Here’s your earlier quote:
Your wording, “not change them . . . to deny an individual . . .” indicates that the change was done with the purpose of denying.
“Perhaps,” you say? Perhaps magical pixie dust really will fix my server. So you’re telling me that the way the law works is that, if, after the girl’s lawsuit had been filed but before that moron judge had handed down the stupid decision, the school had capitulated and agreed to name the girl sole valedictorian, the school would have been safe from having to pay any damages?
This is just so amazingly wrong that I can’t believe a law student said it. Is there always harm in calling someone a bad name? There’s a reason that slander and liable require that real harm be proved. The same applies to this case. If the girl can’t prove that some real harm resulted, then her case is bogus, even if we buy the specious argument about it being wrong to change the rules.
I think I have not made by point clear enough. The rules permitted her, as far as I can current tell and has been indicated by a few posters here, to take classes others were incapable of taking due to scheduling conflicts. However, there evidently was nothing prohibiting the award of sole valedectorian on this basis. The only requisite by the rules for the award for sole valedectorian appears to be to have the highest GPA of the class. She complied and fulfilled this requisite. Afterwards the school decided to move the goal posts on her and deny her the award of sole valedectorian by including some stipulations, provisos, and other fine points that did not exist before but denied her this award.
Is it unfair to allow her to take some honor classes others could not thereby bolstering her overall GPA by some hundredths of a point? Probably but is the remedy to deny her the award of sole valedectorian? No because two wrongs do not make a right. The school has seen the loophole and has the opportunity to address the loophole for future classes but cannot nor should they be allowed to apply the rules retroactively to deny this girl the award of sole valedectorian.
First of all the point I am making is not this broad. It would be very helpful if you at least understood and then re-articulated the exact boundaries of the points I am making. I am not denying schools may change the rules at any time. The schools may do so. However, they cannot make the rules applicable in the middle of the game or at any time the game is ongoing or apply them retroactively after the game is completed. To do so is unfair. In this instance the game was over. At the end she had the highest GPA. Then the school decided to change the rules and apply them retroactively to a game that had been played under different rules. In other words, under the game had been played and completed under one set of rules resulting in a score of 21 to 20 in favor of the girl. At the completion of the game the school decided to change the rules, apply them retroactively, and this resulted in a tie of 21 to 21. This is not fair at all.
Two wrongs do not make a right. The rules at the beginning of the game should govern the entire game. It is unfair to change them in the middle of the game. There is a reason why you will be hard pressed to find an instance where the rules are changed in the middle of the game. They are not changed in the middle of a basketball game, football game, baseball game, or hockey game although the rule or rules may be inherently unfair. Rather, the game will be played under the rules and changed afterwards.
Well it is evidently not a very apparent “DUH” since you spoke in such broad generalities and your reasoning was so broad that it gave rise to the implication that justice is not discovered by focusing on the rules, llawyers focus on the rules, and therefore are not concerned with or focus upon justice.
Well first of all the answer is not clearly no. If the answer were so clear, then none of us would be debating the issue.
Second, the other student is not deserving of the valedictorian honor under the rules in which the entire game was played, rather he only became deserving after the rules had been changed and applied retroactively to a game that had already been completed. From this perspective I do not see a clear “no” in regards to whether or not a focus upon the rules is in pursuance to justice. It is never “just” to change the rules after the game is completed and apply them retroactively to change the outcome of the game. This is not “just” but this is exactly what the school did.
Actually I have focused on more than the rules time and monotonously time again and if you have failed to grasp this point, then you have been asleep at the monitor. I have made it clear time and time again altering the rules to effect an outcome, in the middle or the game, towards the end of the game, or at completion of the game and then applied retroactively is not “just”. In this instance I am not focusing on the substance of the rules but rather have a philosophical approach.
A final consideration on this point. A focus on the rules and a strict adherence to them is designed to preclude a “biased” opinion in justice. Your notion of “justice” is going to be vastly different from anothers. A Criminal defendant’s notion of “justice” is different from the victims. An individual harmed by a product is going to have a different notion of “justice” than the defendant company that produced the product that resulted in the harm. Just as your notion of “justice” is evidently very different from this girls and my own. So what is one to rely upon? Are we to simply go on our own notions of justice but then how is one to resolve a conflict between differing views of what is a “just” outcome?
Leaving the rules and the law to the side how are you so sure you have the “just” outcome? Are you appealing to some higher authority? Did an archangel visit you in a dream and inform you of your “just” position? If you are not looking at rules or law to aid you in your position then what exactly are you relying upon to determine you have a “just” outcome or conclusion? Are you relying on your “gut” feeling, pure emotions, or both?
Rules and laws are created to aid in removing as much as possible this arbitrariness that is inevitable to exist between two adversarial parties whose notions of what is “just” is going to be biased and skewed in each’s own interest.
Consequently, this is a great example where a focus upon the rules and law is necessary in order to reach any just result. Simply ignoring the rules and law and relying on nothing more than a hunch, a belief, or abstract reasoning then an impasse is the result. Certainly both sides, the girls side, the boys side, and those who advocate for either side, can come up with good reasons to rule in favor of either the girl or the boy. At such an impasse what is to be done? This is why rules and laws are created to help resolve this impasse.
Hence, in this situation a focus on the rules aids in moving pass the impasse. The rules, as she played by them, even up until the end of the game, stipulated if she had the highest GPA, then she should be sole valedictorian, especially since there were no rules addressing the loopholes and indicating under such circumstances, if they were to exist, then the title of sole valedictorian is inapplicable and should be shared.
Shame on you for Once again you have failed to fully represent my position. I NEVER said being denied something is a harm. You said this but I did not. What I actually said was the harm is being denied the title of sole valedictorian when she complied with and fulfilled all that is necessary as dictated by the rules to receive the title of sole valedictorian. Do you get this, do you get what I am saying? The harm exists not simply because she is denied the title of sole valedictorian but this in conjunction with the fact the rules indicated she should be the sole valedictorian but the school did not follow by the rules, violated their own rules, and then changed the rules and applied them retroactively to deny her the sole title, and all of this results in the harm.
Let me assure you as a Law student I am quite aware of what I am talking about. Only when you take my argument of out context or fail to clearly re-articulate my exact position is there a problem.
Actually no I do not. My wording does not indicate the school changed the “rules” with the intention to deny this girl the title of sole valedictorian. My wording indicates nothing more than the school changed the rules that resulted in denying this girl the title of sole valedictorian. What their “purpose” is or was I don’t know nor has anything I said indicated I assume a purpose or not. In fact my argument is not concerned with the school’s purpose or intent and I have said nothing on this issue.
Nor does my language indicate the school had any requisite intent. All my language indicates is the alteration of the rules resulted in a different outcome and I do not take their intent for this alteration into account.
What is so amazingly wrong is you don’t know the law, you do not know how to fully and accurately re-articulate another individual’s argument. The harm is the alteration of the rules, in other words the school not abiding by its own rules, applying these new rules retroactively to deny this girl the title of sole valedictorian. The harm is being denied something she rightfully owed to her as stipulated by the rules. The state, and its representatives as state action, such as public schools, must adhere to those rules that result in certain outcomes and cannot change them in the middle of the game and apply them retroactively nor at the end of the game and appy them retroactively to deny individuals something they are entitled to by compliance with the rules and when this happens and the entitlement is denied then there is “harm”. This is my exact point to be made in regards to “harm” and now that I have repeated it in more than one post do you think you might actually get it right whenever you attempt to re-articulate it in your posts?
As for you analogies. First of all “real harm” is not necessary to prevail on a libel claim but this is true of “slander” claims. One thing is very clear. You are in no position to give any credible position as to the “law”.
Tragic, what law studies do to people.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but do three?
The lawsuit is wrong for many reasons, none of which are part of the mindset of the legal profession.
Jimmy1, I’m sure you’ll be very successful and win cases, but the lawsuit is silly and degrading.
I think this is the cause of the disagreement -
High school is not a game where the goal is to win and a person works for four years to be the valedictorian and if you come in second, you’re the first loser - or at least it’s not meant to be.
How has she actually been harmed by not having her name printed by itself in a program, getting the only plaque, or making the only speech? Not harmed because she didn’t get what she thought she deserved, but actual harm. It surely can’t be harm to her reputation, because she damaged that more with her lawsuit. It didn’t prevent her from getting into Harvard. It won’t have any effect on her life- she won’t just miss getting into law school or get a significantly lower paying job because she was only the co-valedictorian. How can sharing such an insignificant award result in damages high enough to be worth bothering with a lawsuit?
Frantic: Or perhaps the law suit is right on so many levels.
doreen: The award is not the issue; it’s the recognition of the plaintiff’s standing in her class. There is, apparently in her mind and possibly in the minds of the admissions folk at the universities or colleges she intends to attend, a decided difference between “#1 of #x” and “tied for #1 of #x.”
Perhaps then you’d like to share with us why it might be right on so many levels? Many here have given in-depth analysis as to why it isn’t, so if you want to disagree, why?
Valedictorian is simply an ego trip. Back about ten years ago when I graduated we had the same thing happen at my school.
Our valedictorian went to West Point, and our salutatorian (a female, just to differentiate from the male that was first) went to Richmond (on scholarship, of course). They’re both very successful, and neither of them are unhappy.
But yet, ten years ago, for the girl it was the end of the world that she didn’t get to make the speech and be all self-important on graduation day.
I think they should just get rid of Valedictorian altogether. In the long run it makes no difference, and for all the acrimonious bullshit that goes on because of it, it hardly seems worth it.
Incidentally, for those of you who think I’m even sorta smart (or sorta dumb, for that matter), I finished 67 out of 120 in my graduating class. Big friggin’ whoop. My mom, Valedictorian 1968, didn’t care either.
Zim: I put the fires out.
Tallest: You made them worse!
Zim: Worse… or better?
Many things at school fked me off. They seemed like HUGE injustices at the time. There’s still some former pupils - and teachers - I’d like to kick in the face.
And then I click on http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk and compare my life to most of theirs. Ahhhhh…
<insert Schadenfreude-come-smug-come-vindicated smiley here>
I agree. It is apparently and possibly true.
But this is mind-reading and fortune-telling. That is a silly basis for a lawsuit. On that basis I could have my astrologer declare that society has harmed me for not granting me the Nobel Prize.
I grant that the legal arguments for the lawsuit are logically consistent within the American Cult of Litigation. However, the case for actual harm is absurd, and the use of a lawsuit to deal with the plaintiff’s emotional fantasies about what others might think is pathetic and ignoble.
I agree with Airman that the title of “Valedictorian” is meaningless, and I would argue that it is destructive.