Philly is doing something reasonable – offering opinions in a forum of public debate. Philly is not suing a public institution for a bag full of money. That’s a difference.
Besides, no one is asking for an “entire medical history”. Just clarity on the disability that pertains to this case. If someone wants $2.7 million from the public purse, it is wise for the public to demand transparency and accountability.
Actually, Frantic, the young lady’s particular disability is irrelevant insofar as the school has already granted that she is exempt from the PE portion of the curriculum. Instead of taking a “fluff” course with merely the same academic weight as the PE course, she took an academically more demanding course.
You’re a first year, right?
Issue: Is denial of sole title “harm?”
Rule: Harm is the negative result from action/inaction (in this case, denial of sole title).
Analysis: f P fails to gain admission to the school of her choice because she is not sole valedictorian, that is the harm.
Conclusion: Here, where P had already been admitted to the school of her choice, there is no harm.
(P stands for Plaintiff)
I don’t understand. Why did taking fewer classes senior year result in him getting a higher grade point average?
I don’t understand this one, either. What does “scheduled into the athletic period” mean and why does that lower one’s grade point average? For that matter, what’s “the athletic period”?
God bless America that stupid shit like this can occupy our time.
Hazel: If the person got fewer classes, he/she has more time to study for them (or has to study less) and is able to do a better job in all of them than someone who picked more classes, risking getting a lower grade in one of them.
Example: A student picks 3 classes in his senior year, vs another one who picks 5 classes. Who has more chances of getting a lower grade, due to amount of work and studying that has to be done? The second student, probably.
In the case of Nighttime, the other student picked few but hard/difficult classes. Nighttime picked more classes, but the combine points awarded to those was less than the other student’s classes.
Athletic period: They’re talking about an athlete so I’m assuming she is taking extra physical education classes. Since, as said before in the thread, those classes are awarded less weight than other classes, the student will end up with a lower GPA than if she had decided not to be an athlete and pick up another class.
KarlGrenze, it seemed to me that Nighttime was saying that they both got all A’s, and the other guy automatically wound up with a slightly higher GPA due to having taken two fewer classes senior year. Which does not seem to me to make any sence – why would taking fewer classes automatically result in higher GPA?
Re the athletic period thing, why would anyone, anthlete or not, be taking extra phys ed classes? Is it even possible to take more than one phys ed class per year? Phys ed is often compulsory; it was where I lived when I was growing up. You has to take phys ed every year. The classes were three times a week. I can’t imagine any school letting a student take two phys ed classes – for credit – during a single school year. It would be assumed that he or she was just trying to get some easy credits by taking something that required no studying; it wouldn’t be allowed.
The athletes on the various school teams would not take extra phys ed classes – they would spend hours practiceing after school. Perhaps “althletic period” refers to the after-school time period in which the team members practice? But the statement was that the student’s GPA was reduced by several points because she was “scheduled into the athletic period”. Beats me what that means.
This thread has convinced me that the whole validictorian thing is idiotic. The schools who’ve dropped it did the right thing. Diffrences in GPAs of fractions of points are too small to justify declaring one kid the winner and all the others loosers. Especailly in view of the fact that the students took different classes from different teachers who graded differently.
Monty
I’m getting the feeling from your posts on this thread that you are supportive of Hornstein. Is this true? If so, can you give reasons why instead of just randomly popping in to second guess various posts?
IMHO, Hornstein is not experiencing any negative consequences as a result of being co-valedictorian vs. sole valedictorian so I don’t see why she would willingly make herself into a public punchingbag for the title. Methinks it was her parents’ doing.
Of course, I still signed that petition to revoke her admittance to Harvard. 
Not that it’ll make any difference, she’d sue the pants off of them if they tried. Needless to say, she’s going to have a rough 4 years.
Sorry, I meant wouldn’t experience any negative consequences, not is not. I realize that idiot judge actually gave her the title, which makes my blood boil. Nice example she’s giving. :rolleyes:
Why doesn’t the school administration just drop the GPA requirement to 2.0 and award valedictorian status to all the graduates? That would take the wind out of her sails.
No, leszlers; I’m neither in support nor against the plaintiff. What I am against is all the crap being spewed in this thread condemning the plaintiff.
From the previously mentioned article written by her…
Cripes, I hope her university entrance essays were a helluva lot better than this.
That would be a good point except that they can, in fact, opt to take those courses if they so choose and are academically able to succeed in them. Its up to them and their choices, and in economics its called opportunity cost. The lass in question obtained exemptions that gave her a higher GPA potential than anyone else.
By Jimmy1:
Since I disagree that she suffered any harm, legally or otherwise as was the original case…
In any event, neither do three wrongs make a right.
The “lass in question,” in case you missed that very important point, smilingbandit, did not “obtain” exemptions for the sheer thrill of same–the school had to honor the AWDA. The point still remains, though, that not everyone takes the identical courses. The school is determining that different courses have the same academic weight and that some courses (PE, for example) have less academic weight than others.
Which still doesn’t prove that there was a bona fide “disability” – just that she said there was, and the school wasn’t inclined to fight her (or her father). At most, it means that daddy produced a note from some complaisant doctor. Schools (and businesses) aren’t in the business of questioning declarations of disability (or “perceived disability,” as provided by the ADA). Resisting an ADA claim can itself be alleged to be grounds for further damages/relief. Basically, employers and schools have given up the game, and essentially adopt a hands-off, ask no questions approach to the self-proclaimed disabled. Which doesn’t mean that no one’s disabled (and doesn’t address the issue of whether and why being disabled should merit special privilege); it just means that the school’s “recognition” of this girl’s “disability” is medically probative of pretty much nothing.
Absent any description or details of this vague “immune disorder” that is “similar to chronic fatigue syndrome” (geez, can’t they even pick a non-bogus disease to be vaguely “similar to”?), and in view of her other conduct, I’m assuming the disability here is at most psychosomatic, at worst, completely made up.
Which has nothing to do with the enforced GPA variance, and hence nothing to do with my opinion. In fact, I am wondering why you said this, since no post I have made here has anything to do with the nature of her disability, which is of no interest to me.
No it doesn’t. No other student had the opportunity to excel in that particular area to the same degree. For me, it is a fundamental question of choice and a level playing field. If she could not meet the same requirements, then she either must be considered to be in a different system wholesale (in which case she cannot be the valedictorian of that school) or her GPA must be weighted with other considerations in mind. As it is, other students were simply not allowed to compete properly on the basis that they were not unhealthy to the same degree or kind.
To me, an appropriate anology is that of a footrace where one competitor’s track is shortened. The race is timed. The young lady had a short path, and therefore had a better theoretical time.
Doreen I knew this type of example would come up eventually and let me say it is a result of myself not being clear enough. The school could have changed the rule after she began her freshman year. In the middle of the game is only referring to in the middle of the school year and not their number of years spent at high school. I don’t see much of a problem had she begun her senior year with this rule in place.
Common law libel does not require a showing of actual harm. This was stated affirmatively in my First Amendment coursebook, and my Torts coursebook. Damages are “presumed” in libel but to get them requires an “actual” malice standard in regards to public officials, or at least a “negligence” intent standard for private figures.
No I acknowledge this argument by my own admission that it is unfortunate what happened to Mr. Mirkin. The rules allowed this to happen. There was a loophole in the rules that permitted this to occur. Both students had an expectation. One expectation was the student with the highest GPA was sole valedictorian. The other expectation was in the event of a tie there would be co-valedictorians. However, in the end one student had a higher GPA than another student and the rules did not direct the school as to what to do in the event a handicapped student incapable of taking a gym class took a more weighted class instead. Rather, the school articulated a rule to resolve this matter after the grades were submitted and the GPA of the students totaled. This rule did not exist before the grades had been submitted. This rule did not exist at the time both students began their senior year. Under the old rules she has the highest GPA and the award of sole valedictorian goes to the student with the highest GPA, in this case the female plaintiff. Espousing a rule and applying it after the fact to alter the outcome is unfair and in my opinion the school should have to perform in accordance to the rules it had in effect during the school year.
Roadfood
The it was originally set up resulted in a “wrong” outcome or an unjust outcome but the way the school went about rectifying it is also “wrong” and “unjust”.
Maybe but you assume the “harm” are those “derivatives” of being denied the title of sole valedictorian rather than being denied the award of sole valedictorian itself. In this case the harm is not the “derivatives” but being denied the award of sole valedictorian because the school abdicated its duty to comply with its own rules. The plaintiff is not arguing, nor is she focusing upon any “derivatives” of harm because the “harm” is not receiving something she earned by following the rules.
Actually, while this may be one element of her “harm” she has alleged her harm to be unequal treatment under the law by the school which resulted in her losing the title of sole valedictorian. So to be correct the harm is in part being denied the title of sole valedictorian as a result of the school treating her unequally under the law as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. So your focus on derivatives is misguided.
First of all there does not need to necessarily be any “actual harm” in order to prevail on a legal claim a point I have already illustrated. Second the real harm, the actual harm in this case is not being sole valedictorian of the graduating class of 2003 from X high school. The real harm is being denied something she rightfully earned under the rules. The real harm is being denied this award as a result of being treated unequally under the law.
I have not purposefully argued a strict legal definition of “harm”. I have not even consulted any legal authorities to define “harm”. I am not even aware of exactly how the law defines harm although I am aware it is construed broadly. I have not even consulted Black’s Legal dictionary on the word “harm”. Why don’t you stop presuming?
Additionally I have adequately stated, in my last two posts, what the harm is, without relying on any legal authority, and apparently you missed it.
Once again you are looking at derivatives and assuming only the “derivatives” is the harm while ignoring the possibility being denied the award of sole valedictorian is not a “harm”. However, this is the harm she has alleged. This is the harm in the legal sense and in the minds of some laypeople. This is the harm not being awarded something she has earned under the school rules.
You want to focus on derivatives but the derivatives is not the harm. The harm is obvious. Her claim is predicated upon the assumption that being denied this award of sole valedictorian as a result of not being treated equally under the law.
Espousing a rule and applying it after the fact to alter the outcome can hardly be characterized as “just”. It is wrong.
Dragonstar no I am not a first year. Additionally your analysis assumes not getting the award of sole valedictorian is not a “harm”. Why isn’t this the harm? She is not filing a lawsuit predicated upon the assumption that the harm is not being awarded sole valedictorian as a result of being treated equally under the law by the school. What you are focusing upon is exactly what Roadfood is focusing upon and they are “derivatives” which is not at issue.
Cite how you know she took a more demanding course? Also, since this “heavier” option was not offered to the students she was competing against, it is still an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Only if you believe that people who actually work toward being the valedictorian don’t start until their senior year. The game starts on the first day of high schol, so any argument that the rules were changed in the middle of the game would apply equally to a change in the second semester of the freshman year as it does to the second semester of the senior year.
Cite, please. Because according to what you’re saying, if you lie and say I’m forty when I’m only 39, or that I live in NJ when I really live in NY, you have libeled me. I cited a definition that says
You find one that says libel is any lie, whether it causes harm or not.
The other expectation was not that there would be co-valedictorians if there was a tie. Even Hornstine would have expected co-valedictorians if there was a tie. The other expectation was that the competition involved students under the same constraints as he was- required to take a certain number of lower weighted classes, unable to take both honors courses in a schedule conflict. Not that all the students save one would be runnning the race with weights on their ankles.