Blair Hornstine, admissions overturned at Harvard...





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Admissions: 2002 - 2003 Archive: July 2003 Archive: Blair Hornstine, admissions overturned at Harvard...
By Obh100 (Obh100) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 01:33 am: Edit

something makes me feel really sorry for her, I mean, obviously she's smart and was shunned from school, but now she's gonna be blacklisted for life? I don't know if the punishment is worthy...

By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 01:37 am: Edit

yeah i agree that she shunned from school, but she was pompous.

By Fender1 (Fender1) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 02:37 am: Edit

Compassion and empathy are worthy traits. Don't lose them, but don't let them blind you either.

-Matthew

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 05:51 pm: Edit

how do you even know if she was responsible? Thats just my qualm, is that the media has villified someone who's obviously very smart, just cause she wasn't popular, and this might completely have been her parents doing? Why should she lose her dream because of them?

By Confetti (Confetti) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 06:01 pm: Edit

from www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-06042003-101885.html:

A look at Blair Hornstine's writings and other similar ones
(Wed, Jun/04/2003)
Here are passages from Blair Hornstine's writings in the Courier-Post of Cherry Hill, and similar passages from other sources:
-From Hornstine's Nov. 26 column:
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. Every generation of Americans has benefited from the generosity, talents, efforts and contributions of their fellow citizens. All of us have been enriched by the diverse cultures, traditions and beliefs of the millions of people who, by birth or by choice, have come to call American their home.
All of us are beneficiaries of our founders' wisdom and of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. While Americans are an independent people, we are interdependent as well, and our greatest achievements are those that we have accomplished together. As we celebrate Thanksgiving, let us remember with gratitude that, despite our differences, each of us is a member of a larger American family and that, working together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.
-From President Clinton's Thanksgiving proclamation, 2000:
At Thanksgiving this year and every year, in worship services and family celebrations across our country, Americans carry on that tradition of giving, sharing not only with family and friends, but also with those in need throughout their communities.
Every generation of Americans has benefited from the generosity, talents, efforts and contributions of their fellow citizens. All of us have been enriched by the diverse cultures, traditions and beliefs of the millions of people who, by birth or choice, have come to call America their home. All of us are beneficiaries of our founders' Wisdom and of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. While Americans are an independent people, we are interdependent as well, and our greatest achievements are those we have accomplished together.
As we celebrate Thanksgiving, let us remember with gratitude that despite our differences in background, age, politics or race, each of us is a member of our larger American family and that, working together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish in this promising new century.
---
-From Hornstine's Nov. 12 column on art censorship:
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that public entities may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
-From U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson:
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
---
-From Hornstine's March 29 essay on North Korea's nuclear arms. The essay won the newspaper's monthly contest:
"North Korea's recent admission that it has continued to pursue a nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 192 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and the 1994 Agreed Framework caught the United States off guard and startled the world. Rather than rush to judgment, it is extremely important that the Bush administration endeavors to mount a coordinated peaceful international response."
...
"While the hope is that North Korea will respond favorably, if the delicate political balance is untenable, then the United States must warn them of clear consequences should North Korea choose not to comply with international demands. Despite the preference for a diplomatic solution, we must be mindful that the use of military force may be a reluctant alternative."
-From a piece by Steve LaMontagne, senior analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, D.C., posted on The Nautilus Institute's Web site:
"North Korea's recent admission that it has continued to pursue a nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and the 1994 Agreed Framework caught the United States off guard and startled the world. As the Bush administration endeavors to mount a coordinated international response, it is important to consider the status of North Korea's nuclear program, possible reasons for its disclosure, and the implications of various response options."
...
"While the hope is that North Korea will respond to a delicate balance of carrots and sticks, if incentives prove unattractive to North Korea or politically untenable at home, then the U.S. will have to warn of clear consequences should North Korea choose not to comply with international demands. Despite the preference for a diplomatic solution, such an ultimatum could lead to a policy of isolation, and ultimately the use of military force."

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

yeah its a newspaper article, why should it have bearing on admission to Harvard, I mean true it brings lots of doubt to her credibility, but why don't you list all her other accomplishments? See your going by what the media is telling you and your being quick to judge, "don't judge, because one day you'll be judged..."

By Fender1 (Fender1) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

I don't see anyway that she is completely innocnet in this if the reports are mostly accurate. Either she lied directly or her father did and then she did indirectly when she filed her application with Harvard containing errorneous information.

My gut reaction tells me both are responsible, but her father probably had more to do with it. In which case, I still do not disagree with Harvard's rescindence, but wish there were some applicable punishments on the father as well.

By Fender1 (Fender1) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 06:08 pm: Edit

It has a bearing because it calls ALL of her work into question. How does Harvard know she hasn't copied her homework assignments in school, lied about ECs, fabricated teacher recs, etc. How does Harvard know she will not copy work once at Harvard?

There's a judicial term called Depraved Indifference. While it does not directly relate to this, I hope you see the parallel.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Harvard did not question her credibility. They rescinded her admission because they had severe questions about her moral character, maturity and honesty.

Her decision to sue the school district showed a lack of maturity. The BLATANT plagiarism showed a lack of honesty. However, she probably doomed her chances when she wrote the non-apology letter where she showed no remorse but blamed everyone around her. This showed that she had no moral character whatsoever.

I guess that happens when your favorite source of plagiarism is named Clinton.

Did she copy or not? Maybe she should ask Harvard to define the meaning of "did".

By Rhino (Rhino) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

fine point, well stated, xiqqi

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Hmm, I hate having to be devil's advocate here, but I think its totally unfair that if say your dad did something against your will like say, sue the school district (and theres been no money awarded to Ruben is completely out of bounds with that comment), the thing is that your all making judgements without knowing whats really going on, essentially being manipulated, see if the media villifies someone, your gonna villify them, I've actually tried to look into this issue somewhat, and well if it really was her then I guess she deserves all of this, but somehow I doubt someone who did the stuff she did, and got the grades she did would head this, btw, her father was a federal judge and was boastful about her, I think it was her father more so then her, and if it was her parents, like I said before, being blacklisted forever? Now thats not fair, you all gotta be more openminded...

By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Xiggi, bah. If you want to get into presidential ethics, there's a huge difference between lying about a blow job and selectively manipulating intelligence reports to get the results to justify what you've already decided to do. One is penny ante, the other is a major problem...I'll leave the conculsion as an exercise.

Regarding Ms. Hornstine, I don't see any reason for vindictiveness. She tried, she got nailed, she lost. I suspect that she will turn up somewhere somewhen in college somewhere...at this point, she is in real need of a gap year anyway in which she can sort everything out and I hope--albeit doubt--come to some sense of responsibility about the whole sorry mess.

The father...the father has already suffered about the worst that could happen to him over this...it's poetic justice.

Once justice is served, move on. We don't need Blair Hornstine voodoo dolls.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit

Obh100~

If her dad did it ALL... did he do her homework too? And then did she deserve the Harvard invitation?

Oh well, the whole FAMILY deserved this. There were no innocent bystanders nor victims in the Hornstine family but willful and deceitful participants.

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

hey Xiggi, like I said before though, I mean I'm sure she's been pushed, but I mean the lawsuit thing had to have been the parents, and if it wasn't then I agree completely with you, but I'm saying, her father was a judge, and if you've read some of the stuff she's done? I'm sure that trip to China for surgeries for Orphans with cleft plates doesn't mean anything? I think its sad to see this happen to anyone...

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

TheDad~

Would it not be naive to think that Bill Clinton's ethics problems started and ended with the little "Lewinsky" at the office? Regardless of one's political affiliation, it would be hard to consider the Clinton's as role models when it comes to ethics and honesty.

As far as I am concerned, I am glad to see an institution making a stand and delivering a clear message that integrity, morals and honesty still count.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:35 am: Edit

Obh100~

Regarding the lawsuit, she claimed that it was HER idea. I am not an expert on the life of Blair H and it is possible that she is being misjudged.

However, one has to remember that it is the same person who claimed to be directly responsible for ALL those remarkable EC activities is the same who was too tired to go to school.

In the end, there are simply too many contradictions in her story.

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:47 am: Edit

Xiggi, I think you present an excellent point, in that since we have so many contradicting stories, its kinda hard to gauge whats true and whats not, and I think this is kind of the deal with the American news media. They present a majority opinion rather than straight fact, and its hard to anaylze anything in the news these day, I'm not defending her actions, I just want people to be more openminded...

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 02:44 am: Edit

Xiggi, this is completely tangential and of dubious value to the board but.... On one hand, I'm am completely disgusted with Clinton for not being able to exercise self-control and keep his zipper up...that's a pragmatic, not a moral judgment...otoh, virtually every thing that seriously undermined Clinton's presidency had to do with private behavior...not public. If you're going to start swinging an ethical sword, the present administration would be deeply cut and cut about matter of far more public consequence.

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 03:09 am: Edit

Thedad, welcome to the wacked up world of American politics, lets enumerate, Clinton's brightest flaw might have been the words "Monica Lewinsky," however, to think that his administration, heck make that any presidential administration was not innately flawed is ridiculous. Lets think about the war with Kosovo, the day that the most bombs dropped over Kosovo was the day of the Columbine shooting, completely going over our heads the mass casualty overseas. The news media is very opinionated and biased in its reporting and one must err to caution when completely believing everything said by the media. I'm actually a registered Democrat, so I'm not Clinton bashing, I just find these things to be consistant in America today, and if I got started on Bush, well this would last forever...

By Aparent (Aparent) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:23 am: Edit

TheDad, right, what's worse, a dalliance or lying about the presence of WMD? Of course, most Americans don't seem to answer that question the way you and I do. Maybe that's part of the Blair situation -- it's a rare moment in public life when things turned out the way I thought they should have.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:05 am: Edit

It takes a while for history to recognize the heroes and the villains.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:12 am: Edit

This is what people think:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BC-hstry.htm

One of many polls:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 5-7, 2001. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

"In your view, will Clinton mostly be remembered as president for [rotate] his accomplishments, OR, his involvement in personal scandal?"

Accomplishments 28 22 23
Scandal 68 73 71
Other (vol.) 3 2 3
No opinion 1 3 3
.

Asked of Form A (N=514 adults, MoE +/- 5):
"Which comes closer to your view of Bill Clinton as he prepares to leave the White House: [rotate] I'm glad he is leaving, OR, I'll miss him when he is gone?"

I'm glad he's leaving 51%
I'll miss him 45%
No opinion 4 %

But let's also remember what we says about statistics, numbers and liars.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit

TheDad~

Despite being totally off-topic and tangential, I believe that this article published in January 15, 2001 is a good read. Clinton's supporters will dismiss it as as right-wing rhetoric. However, aren't the last sentences on the money?

It was not the job of average American citizens to worry about such things this past decade, to make sure the government was preparing the nation for a more dangerous future. That was the president's job. But Bill Clinton was President Feel-good during a fat and happy decade. And sooner or later, his carelessness will exact a price.


The Clinton Legacy Abroad: His Sins of Omission in Foreign and Defense Policy by Robert Kagan

January 15, 2001

To watch Bill Clinton flit around the world these past few months, desperately and in some cases dangerously seeking some final "accomplishment" to add to his legacy, has been to see with stunning clarity a fundamental truth about this president's foreign policy: It has been mostly about him.

Over the past year especially, Clinton has been preoccupied with his lasting fame. There was the signing, on the last day of 2000, of the agreement establishing an International Criminal Court, a vain and cynical gesture given the serious flaws of the agreement, which even Clinton acknowledges, and the certainty that the treaty will never be ratified. There was the meaningless trip to Ireland this fall, a visit the president's aides admitted had no substantive value but which provided a lovely and, for Clinton, much-needed spectacle of cheering throngs celebrating the great almost-peacemaker. There was the meaningless visit to Vietnam, with still more cheering crowds, and old Communist bosses offering their thanks for Clinton's long-ago opposition to his own country's effort to protect millions of innocent South Vietnamese from a Communist takeover. And then there was Clinton's evident eagerness to visit an even more brutal Communist thug in North Korea, a visit he called off at the last minute. What stopped him cannot have been the lack of progress toward a meaningful agreement on Pyongyang's ballistic missile program, since Clinton's other lame-duck voyages were entirely futile. Perhaps Clinton reviewed the tapes of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's trip to North Korea in October and decided he did not want the last, lingering image of him to be anything like the shots of her smiling idiotically while starving, terrified children ate their first hearty meal in weeks.

Instead, last week's meeting with Yasser Arafat will probably offer the final image of President Bill Clinton as world leader: the tireless statesman striving for Middle East peace right up until the last second of his presidency, as the dutiful Washington press corps portrayed him. Yet even senior administration officials admit their boss is now just putting on a show for the home audience, since, as one top adviser put it, "talking about a peace deal is increasingly artificial" amidst the escalating Palestinian violence condoned and perhaps even instigated by Arafat himself.

But in this case, unlike that of Ireland, Clinton's last-minute grandstanding has caused real damage. His stubborn search for a final Middle East settlement in the last year of his presidency, his refusal to heed the signs that such an agreement was impossible, his deliberate raising of hopes that inevitably turned to anger when they were disappointed—all this will be recorded as one of the great foreign policy blunders of recent times. In the blind pursuit of an unattainable peace, Clinton managed to harm American interests, endanger the security of an ally, and bring unnecessary suffering to Israelis and Palestinians alike. And for what? Even as the American-brokered negotiations crumbled and violence erupted earlier this year, Clinton had his people lobbying the Nobel committee for his peace prize. In the end, it was all about Bill Clinton.

Of course, it wasn't always just about fame. In years past it was also about money, money to keep Clinton, and now his wife, in office. Maybe it was inevitable after the Cold War that American business interests would once again trump national security and moral interests, but the Clinton political machine was exceptionally quick and adept in figuring out how foreign policy could be turned into a cash cow. Clinton's first commerce secretary, Ron Brown, died tragically in a plane crash. But "Ron Brown diplomacy," the placing of the American foreign policy apparatus at the service of big business and big donors, survived and flourished. And nowhere was the operation more profitable than in China, where the Clinton administration set up a three-way back-scratching arrangement unparalleled in American history. The Chinese wanted access to American high technology so they could modernize their military. American satellite makers, aircraft builders, cell-phone manufacturers, computer makers—not to mention insurance and financial services providers—wanted in on the rich Chinese market. The Clinton machine wanted huge amounts of cash for its campaign war chest. Let's make a deal!

After a brief, shaky start—Clinton, after all, had campaigned against the "butchers of Beijing”—the money machine was put in place. China policy was taken away from the State Department and the Pentagon and given to the money boys at Commerce, at Treasury, at the U.S. Trade Representative's office—all overseen by that once and probably future trade lawyer, Sandy Berger. Controls on military and dual-use technology were eased; responsibility for approving export licenses was shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department; security lapses by American companies were soft-pedaled. And the campaign contributions poured in.

The whole scheme was epitomized in the person of Bernard Schwartz, head of Loral Corporation and a manufacturer of satellites, eager to launch his products atop less costly, if less reliable, Chinese missiles. It just so happened that Schwartz was also the Democratic party's top donor, reliably pumping millions of dollars in "soft" money into party coffers. Loral was caught handing over sensitive American know-how on missile technology to the Chinese, has been indicted by a grand jury, and remains under investigation. But that didn't stop Clinton from approving a new license for Schwartz to launch more satellites on Chinese rockets, over the Justice Department's objection but with Berger's full concurrence.

That was the China scam at the retail level. At the wholesale level, it was grandiloquently defended as part of the Clinton administration's policy of "engagement." As China's human rights record deteriorated, as democracy activists, Falun Gong members, Christians, and Tibetan Buddhists were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered; as China modernized its military, fired missiles off the coast of Taiwan, bullied neighbors in the South China Sea, threatened Los Angeles, and stole American nuclear weapons secrets; as China provided missile and nuclear weapons material and technologies to Pakistan and Iran—the Clinton administration never wavered, never admitted a setback, never hesitated in its drive to win permanent most-favored-nation status for a country that Clinton insisted on describing as America's "strategic partner." This was the big payoff for corporate America. And here, fame and fortune mingled in the Clintonian calculation, for pushing permanent MFN through Congress this past summer was to be another part of Clinton's legacy. Never mind that the Chinese, as many predicted, have since shown no intention of abiding by the terms they negotiated for their entry into the World Trade Organization.

When it wasn't about personal fame and campaign cash, Bill Clinton's foreign policy was often about politics, the politics of staying in office. Even what Clinton did right he often did for the wrong reasons. For two years he refused to intervene in Bosnia, despite the slaughter of untold thousands of innocents, because he didn't want to pay the political price for sending U.S. troops into a "quagmire." When he finally did summon the courage to act, after Serb troops started overrunning U.N. peacekeeping positions, it was only because Richard Holbrooke reminded Clinton that he had promised to send American troops to extract the forces of U.S. allies under siege. If he was going to have to send our armed forces into harm's way anyhow, Clinton figured he might as well send them in to win. This was the right call but hardly a visionary act.

Domestic politics drove Clinton's Haiti policy, too, in all directions. First he sent troops to Haiti, in part to solve a politically difficult refugee problem in Florida. But then, after a successful intervention, Clinton bowed to other domestic political pressures to get U.S. troops out as soon as possible. Instead of designing a strategy for keeping Haiti from going off track again, the Clinton administration abdicated the responsibility it assumed when it intervened. In Haiti, in Somalia, and elsewhere, Clinton and his advisers had the stomach only to be halfway imperialists. When the heat was on, they tended to look for the exits.

As it was, because Clinton was afraid of the political consequences of using force, he frequently acted only when backed into a corner. In Kosovo, he avoided military action against the Serbs until it was too late to prevent the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians. Then, bowing to political pressure from the neo-isolationist Republican Congress, Clinton ruled out using ground forces. The effect was to prolong the war and the suffering. Slobodan Milosevic caved in only when, more than two months into the air war, Clinton finally started to realize that ground troops might be necessary after all.

At least Bosnia and Kosovo were relative successes. Elsewhere, Clinton's propensity to back into a course of action and then do too little, too late had a higher cost. In Iraq, Clinton walked right up to the edge of using force in February 1998, only to panic and let U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan give Saddam Hussein a reprieve. Once again, it was fear of employing ground troops that undid Clinton's strategy, for as the confrontation with Saddam drew near, administration officials realized that bombing alone—the casualty-minimizing and therefore politically safer option—would accomplish nothing. And, indeed, that was precisely what Clinton accomplished a year later, when he ordered a futile four-day air attack on Iraq. That bombing, known as Operation Desert Fox, was ostensibly aimed at retarding Saddam's missile and weapons programs: Sandy Berger's "whack-a-mole" strategy. But its real purpose, as usual, was to solve political problems at home. In fact, it accomplished less than nothing in Iraq. It gave Saddam the excuse to kick out U.N. arms inspectors, and it destroyed what little international will was left to maintain sanctions against Iraq. As Clinton's Iraq policy has collapsed, his strategy has been purely political and entirely cynical: to keep Iraq off the front pages, to pretend that Saddam is still in his "box," and to let the next president deal with the threat of this rearmed Middle East predator.

On a couple of prominent issues, Clinton showed a bit more gumption. He played his part in pushing NATO expansion through Congress, albeit with plenty of help from leading Republicans. Probably the enlargement of the alliance to include the former Soviet bloc nations of central and Eastern Europe will go down as Clinton's most significant foreign policy accomplishment (though Clinton himself appears relatively indifferent to it: There have been no celebratory trips to Warsaw or Prague this year). And with regard to Russia, notwithstanding the Monday-morning quarterbacking of many critics (including members of the incoming Bush administration), Clinton was basically right to stick with Boris Yeltsin. For all Yeltsin's flaws, the real alternatives to him—Communists and right-wing crazies like Vladimir Zhirinovsky—were always much worse. Clinton's policy toward the former Yugoslavia, despite all the hesitations and miscalculations, ultimately produced Milosevic's downfall. Overall, one must say that Clinton's efforts to solidify a Europe "whole and free" have been a success.

But these successes are overshadowed by Clinton's four grand failures: his failure to contain China, to remove Saddam, to maintain adequate American military strength, and to even begin to deploy a missile defense system adequate to protect the United States and our closest allies.

These four failures are intimately related and may well converge most unpleasantly for the next administration. In the next four years, either Iraq or China is likely to provoke a major crisis that will require George W. Bush to make some very hard choices. Indeed, it is possible to imagine crises occurring simultaneously in the Persian Gulf and in the Taiwan Straits, since both Beijing and Baghdad know that the American military will have difficulty meeting two challenges at once. It is likely that both crises will involve the threat of ballistic missile attacks on the United States, its troops, or its allies. China already has the capability to execute such attacks; for Iraq, it is just a matter of time. And when the crisis occurs, it will suddenly become bracingly clear that we have no way of defending ourselves, no way of avoiding the blackmail that will be employed to constrain our response, whether to an Iraqi attack on Kuwait, a Chinese attack on Taiwan, or both.

America's unreadiness to handle these two entirely predictable threats, not to mention others that are less predictable: That is Bill Clinton's real legacy. And, in truth, it can only partly be attributed to Clinton's egoism and political caution. To be sure, it would have been unpopular to spend more money to keep the American military strong enough to handle its global responsibilities. And it would have run afoul of the Democrats' mindless opposition to missile defense and their equally mindless devotion to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to go ahead and build the most effective form of missile shield. But it was probably not mere political cowardice that led Clinton to underfund the military and kill the most promising missile defense technologies. In both cases, let us give Clinton credit: He did it out of conviction.

The truth is, Bill Clinton wanted to make deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, far deeper than those already made by the first Bush administration at the end of the Cold War. In 1992 candidate Clinton campaigned on a promise to cut an additional $60 billion in defense spending over five years. When he took office, the first budget he submitted called for cuts of over $100 billion. Through the first six years alone, Clinton had cut more than $160 billion in defense spending. Only as the state of the U.S. armed forces looked to become an issue in the 2000 election campaign did Clinton offer miniscule increases, and even most of these were to come after he left office. This was a man with a mission.

Every year Clinton and his top officials denied that the Pentagon budget was too small. Every year they denied that the active engagement of American forces overseas in the post-Cold War era required investments not much below what had been required to contain the Soviet Union. When aircraft carrier battle groups had to be shuttled back and forth between the Persian Gulf and East Asia to meet the crisis du jour, when the air campaign over Kosovo used up the lion's share of the Air Force's available resources, leaving too little to cover the no-fly zones over Iraq, the Clinton administration insisted there was nothing to worry about.

So now the chickens come home to roost—but not on Bill Clinton's watch. As the Clinton team heads off into the sunset, we begin to learn that the defense budget is, indeed, dangerously depleted. Top officials in the Clinton Pentagon now talk about a gap between defense strategy and defense resources of as much as $60 billion per year. Just a couple of weeks ago, James Schlesinger and Harold Brown, defense secretaries in the Ford and Carter administrations, recommended increases in defense spending of 20 percent, a more than $50 billion increase over the current budget. These are among the more moderate estimates. Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters recently expressed his view that the defense shortfall is probably $100 billion annually. All of which makes a mockery of Al Gore's now irrelevant campaign pledge to spend $100 billion more on defense over the next ten years. Unfortunately, it also casts in an unfavorable light the even paltrier defense numbers cited by the Bush campaign.

Clinton's willful evisceration of the defense budget during his two terms in office is all the more appalling when one considers that he cut while the American economy was soaring and the federal deficit was shrinking and turning into a surplus. Bush, if he is so inclined, will probably have to fight for bigger defense budgets in a time of economic stagnation if not outright recession. In fact, Clinton may have left too little time to turn the ship around before the next major international crisis.

The same goes for missile defense. Clinton came to office determined to kill the programs begun by Ronald Reagan and continued during the Bush years. And he managed to kill the most promising of them, partly out of partisan conviction born of years of Democratic opposition to Reagan's "Star Wars," partly out of a desire to save more money, and partly out of the theological belief that the ABM Treaty remained, as Clinton officials liked to say, the "cornerstone" of strategic stability. This despite the fact that bilateral strategic arms control agreements between the United States and Russia have become less and less relevant to American security requirements in an age of Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong Ils.

Little wonder that when Clinton was forced by political pressures to come up with some kind of missile defense program—forced, that is, by the Rumsfeld commission's finding that the missile threat from North Korea and others was advancing more rapidly than the CIA had wanted to admit—the program his team designed proved to be inadequate. Little wonder that American allies in Europe, who were informed only belatedly of the Clinton administration's hastily devised plan, were unpersuaded. Little wonder that, after promising to begin building a missile defense system to be in place by 2005 to meet emerging threats, Clinton at the end of the day punted. Given how he had mucked things up, Clinton was right to put off a deployment decision. But what he is leaving Bush is a diplomatic, political, and technological mess, and it will take a mighty effort by the new administration to get an effective missile defense system in place by the time it might actually be needed.

The world was kind to America in the 1990s. The country got rich, and the inertial momentum from the great successes achieved in the 1980s, when the Cold War was won, and in 1991, when Saddam Hussein was driven from Kuwait, allowed the nation to coast forward with little presidential leadership. It is unlikely, however, that the next decade will be so accommodating. Some of the challenges we will face are already discernible; others lie out of sight just over the horizon. The great danger today is that we will be unprepared to meet both the known and the unknown dangers. It was not the job of average American citizens to worry about such things this past decade, to make sure the government was preparing the nation for a more dangerous future. That was the president's job. But Bill Clinton was President Feel-good during a fat and happy decade. And sooner or later, his carelessness will exact a price.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Xiggi, we will see. I think the current administration has made the world a more dangerous place by being incredibly clumsy and short-sighted. Note, I am not a pacifist: I supported DS I, believe we should have intervened in Bosnia, thereby preventing the siege of Sarajevo and the massacre of Srebenica, and we did the right thing intervening in Kosovo.

But with respect to dealing with allies, I commend to your attention the history of Athens with respect to the Delian League and the Naval League.

The military is a good tool for achieving a precise set of goals; for a Rubik's Cube of political, cultural, ethnic, religious, and economic problems, it's useless. Getting out of Iraq is going to be much much more difficult than getting in and it won't be a democracy...or at least one with a life span measured in more than months...when we leave.
And I'm on record with that opinion prior to the beginning of hostilities.

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to the internal corruption of the government of the United States of America. Democracy in its purest form is supposed to foster opposition, however when there is none, the politicians, Clinton and Bush included stop caring about the people and make it all about themselves, hell all politicians might as well belong to the "Me" party cause thats what its all about, just look at pork barrel spending, its egregious...

By Anotherdad (Anotherdad) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 01:00 pm: Edit

To all the above, let us not mix policy (which we agree with or not depending on political affilation) with potentially actionable (impeachable?) offenses. By my reckoning, the offenses of Clinton pale to insignificance against the considerable misrepresentations and seeming abuses of power of the current adm.. But my opinions don't matter much here, because serious matters are coming to light that are not going to go away. Take a look at the serious charges being placed against adm. on the July 15, 2003 editorial pages of the NYTimes. Sure, they are opinions, but argue that there was a systematic effort to distort intelligence to bring about support for the invasion of Iraq, which is a far more serious danger to American democracy that what Clinton did. For example, Nicholas Kristof cites a group of retired intelligence officers (see below) blaming Cheney and calling for his resignation. I find it very scary that we could ever reach such a point -- hang on guys, it could get real exciting from here on out.

Kristof writes "What troubles me is not that single episode, but the broader pattern of dishonesty and delusion that helped get us into the Iraq mess — and that created the false expectations undermining our occupation today. Some in the administration are trying to make George Tenet the scapegoat for the affair. But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view of many in the intel community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney's resignation."

By Aparent (Aparent) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Well, while I agree with all you have written, I certainly hope they won't just make Cheney the scapegoat.

By Apguy (Apguy) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit


Quote:

I think its sad to see this happen to anyone...




Keep in mind that it was not her parent's idea to plagarize her newspaper article. That alone can get a student rescinded from a school and even kicked out while they are attending. So you really shouldn't be so sad, regardless of the lawsuit, because she cheated. Why would you sympathize with that? It's against the rules to plagarize and she broke it. Now she pays the price.

Also, it was HER idea to take a Latin course twice. She got an A+ the second time she took it which made all the difference in her GPA when it came time to choose the valedictorian.

She cheated, plagarized and tried to get her GPA up by doing things like taking a course twice or dropping gym when she found out she got an A-. Cheaters simply don't deserve to take up a seat at a college like Harvard. She got what was coming to her. Oh sweet karma.

By Fender1 (Fender1) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Total agreement there Apguy. And if that makes me a vindictave person, so be it.
I am not happy that she cheated, I am happy that she got caught cheating. I'm happy when it happens to anyone. I'm happy when criminals get caught too. Does that make me a bad person? If so, oh well. I don't need to be perfect.

As far as politics go, I think this might be the only way Bush does not get re-elected is with a giant controversy over this. So if the Dem candidates are smart, which is a huge assumption (witness Stevenson, McGovern, Gore, etc) they'll harp on this during the eletion cycle, which means more smear ads for us to watch. If not, we'll again be lead by Bush, which means less personal freedoms. Anyone else think we need less politicians? And a law against lobbying by financial means.

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Fender, the bureacracy is way to big, and well the sad thing is politicians just want to make it bigger, I think the system needs to be fixed so that politicians don't abuse power...

As for Hornstine, I'm going to take it that no one on this board has every cheated in their life and are perfect, hey guys, reality here, lets think about the kind of people that go to Harvard, the ones that are the most competitive, motivated, and willing to do anything, I wouldn't be shocked if there were 100 Blair Hornstine's at Harvard right now...

By Apguy (Apguy) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 07:09 pm: Edit


Quote:

As for Hornstine, I'm going to take it that no one on this board has every cheated in their life and are perfect




Just because "everyone does it" doesn't make her actions justified. Just because some other kids did it doesn't mean that it was right for her to also. She did something wrong and now is being punished for it. Whatever someone else did doesn't matter. It's what she did. She broke the rules. She is suffering the consequences. Justice is being served.

This is like if you sympathized with those guys behind the Enron scandal. I mean I'm sure that other captains of industry have done it, no big deal right? Why should they be punished for their wrongdoing? Who cares about those people who lost their job?

In this case teachers may lose their jobs at Moorestown High, students won't are cheated out of the education they could have gotten and another deserving student could be walking down Harvard yard. But they're not. The kids suffer. Teacher's will lose their jobs because of massive budget caughts to deal with a $2.7 million dollar loss and a student who worked hard all their life won't have their ultimate dream realized. For what? Because others have cheated in the past? For shame.

And no, I haven't plagarized before in an essay hundreds of people are going to read in a school newspaper.

No I did not take foreign language twice just to get an A+ and boost my GPA.

No, I did not get my daddy to force the school to drop my A- in gym.

No I would not make national headlines to be so greedy as to want to be the ONLY valedictorian rather than just simply share the spot.

No I did not sue my school for 2.7 million dollars and leave future generations in turmoil over something so unnecessary.

She played the system over and over. And no such instances were minor problems, they made national headlines for a reason.

And why do you think the fact that she plagiarized is not a good enough reason to have her rescinded?

Read this:


Quote:

Plagiarism is a serious academic issue. Letting her in would have said to the world that Harvard is willing to dismiss past transgressions if the student is otherwise worthy.




Do you know what Havard's slogan is? It's "VERITAS" which is what you'll see virtually under any sign which the name of Harvard graces.

Veritas translates to "truth." Havard's slogan is "truth." Now when you have a girl who lies about the quality of her work entering a school who has a slogan of "truth" and she is caught...you shouldn't be surprised that she is suffering the consequences.

Now thanks to Blair Hornstine (who took *responsibility* for wanting to be the ONLY valedictorian) who said she was trying to "help the disabled"----future generations of disabled students and others will be fortunate enough to be taught by teachers just barely making minumum wage, in overcrowded classrooms, in run down facilities and in a book that predates the American Revolution. I still don't understand how anyone could sympathize for BLAIR in such a situation.

Boo-hoo. The rich girl who played the system time and time again got caught plagarising. And now she is being punished for it when it is CLEARLY against the rules? What an outrage! Let's send her some money to cheer her up!

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit

I hate being devil's advocate and I don't support plagarism, however, its funny though, how misinformed you are, and thats what I'm trying to say, keep an open mind, cause well you A) don't know who this person is and thus shouldn't judge. B) there has not been a penny exchanged from the board of ed to the Hornstine's the litigation is still pending, C) it was the Courier News, not the school newspaper, D) You don't know if it really was Blair doing the suing, her father was a judge and well know how competitive parents get, E) even for the foreign language, I know people in college who retake Organic Chem over even if they got a B+ in the course, because Med Schools frown upon nothing less than an A in that class, like I said, I'm not supporting her or anything, I just want you to A think harder, B be less narrowminded, and C at least let her have a fair assessment rather than a media opinion...

By Apguy (Apguy) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 01:42 am: Edit


Quote:

A) don't know who this person is and thus shouldn't judge




I don't know a single person in the media and odds are you don't know many either. Does that mean we can't be opinionated about someone?

Besides, you know her just as well as I do. If you can judge her as being misunderstood I can judge her as being otherwise.


Quote:

B) there has not been a penny exchanged from the board of ed to the Hornstine's the litigation is still pending




But she sued so there will be. My point still holds true---I'm judging Hornstine's CHARACTER and what some of the retarted things that would happen as a result of the lawsuit. Harvard rescinded her based on her moral CHARACTER and the things that the lawsuit could do can easily bring someone's morality into question.

Whether or not the money has been exchanged yet or not does not change the fact that she said she was suing to "help the disabled" and that if she was succesful in doing so that she would instead left the school in a sh*tload of trouble. I'm pointing out the irony that Blair claims she is helping future generations but if her lawsuit is succesful she would only be hurting them.


Quote:

C) it was the Courier News, not the school newspaper




Yes, sorry. So her audience was EVEN BIGGER. Nevertheless, the fact that she plagiarized still holds true, don't forget that. The name of the newspaper or it's origins our completley irrelevant.



Quote:

, D) You don't know if it really was Blair doing the suing, her father was a judge and well know how competitive parents get




She publicly announced that she supported the lawsuit and was doing it to help disabled students.

Oh and here is another quote that you can chew on:


Quote:

Apparently, when Blair heard about the School Board's planning, she was none too pleased and decided to take legal action. Please note that it was Blair who decided to file the federal lawsuit, not her Superior Court Judge father, Louis Hornstine.




Still not convinced? Well, realize that Blair got rescinded from Harvard BECAUSE of her plagiarizing. The school was well aware of the lawsuit for quite some time but never did anything about it. Most people didn't think anything would happen. When they found out that she plagiarized THEN they finally decided that it was the last nail in the coffin and rescinded her. She brought THAT on herself.

From the Harvard Crimson: (Source: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348498)


Quote:

Following a widely-publicized report that Hornstine had plagiarized material in articles she wrote for her local paper, the Harvard admissions office has rescinded her offer to attend Harvard in the fall, according to a source involved with the decision.




So considering that her lawsuit wasn't what finally pushed her to being rescinded but her OWN wrongdoing, your point that she was rescinded because of her parent's is a non-issue.

And yet another quote fromt the Crimson reaffirming this:


Quote:

Lewis said plagiarism could qualify as grounds for withdrawing acceptance, and according to another source familiar with Harvard’s admissions process, it would be very unusual for Harvard not to act against an individual whose plagiarism was confirmed.





Quote:

E) even for the foreign language, I know people in college who retake Organic Chem over even if they got a B+ in the course, because Med Schools frown upon nothing less than an A in that class




That course she retook is supposedly Latin 1. Not organic chem. LOL.

Why don't you just address the main idea here instead of circling around whether or not the newspaper was a school newspaper or local.

Here is a FACT (that can't be 'skewed' by the media):

She plagarized.

She got caught

All US colleges take plagiarism **VERY** seriously.

Harvard, understandably, followed their code of honor and took it seriously.

They took appropriate action to punish those who break the rules.

Now let's leave our images of Blair and how the media have already tried and convicted her. These are the cold, hard facts and it JUSTIFIES HER GETTING RESCINDED FROM HARVARD. I want you to A. Understand that plagairism serves as a major problem in colleges today and can even get kicked you out of a school while you are attending, so since Blair did plagiarize she got what was coming to her. B. Realize that the media didn't plagiarize for her. C. Realize her father, the judge did not plagarize for her.

She violated the school's code of honor and got rescinded. That is JUSTIFIED. Similarly if you kill someone you go to jail. That too is justified. Sympathizing with Blair for NOT having gotten away with it is NOT justified.

If a kid at your school took an essay for English class right off the internet and handed it in and ended up getting a failing grade-- don't feel bad for him for not getting his A+. He cheated and now is paying the consequence. And thus justice is served (ironic the daughter or a judge is in question about this, no?).

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 02:58 am: Edit

Apguy your argument is very keen and impressive, however I still don't see how the punishment suits the crime, I guess you can claim moral ground, but well its kinda sad to see someone as smart (you really can't deny that) as that, be forced to absolute misery no matter what, she will be hated no matter what, and thats the only reason I say not to judge, cause I bet it really really sucks to be her right now, and you know what, if lets say you made national headlines and say some prick reporter decided to dig really really deep in your past to dig up the slightest ounce of dishonesty anywhere to screw you over even more and make you look bad for money and good press? I'm sure you'd feel pretty bad too... However, I have all along been for the Harvard ruling, but my whole thing is that its amazing what we don't know relative to what we do know in a case presented by the media and thats scary...

By Apguy (Apguy) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 03:36 am: Edit

I think the punishment suits the crime in the sense that there is 0 tolerance for plagiarism and she got caught for having done just that. And as par with traditional rules of honor (as mentioned by adcoms in the Crimson article) it would have been odd if the school did not act upon the individual. Moral groud is the basis of why I don't think she deserved to be sympathized and was also one of the things Harvard pointed out when they said she failed to bring out true "honesty, maturity, or moral character."

And yes she does seem bright. But on paper it seems amazing how she won writing awards but she has plagiarized in the past, so how credible could even these past accomplishments be now? I'm not saying that all her accomplishments went to hell...just something to consider with some of them. How could someone have the audacity to blatantly pull out words out of the (former) president of the United States, publish it in a newspaper and expect nobody to notice? If she has the audacity to go THAT far and potentially being caught, what is saying that she didn't do that for her English course which may have helped her get that A+ in the class? Such an essay would not be public material and only read by one person so the probability of getting caught is much lower. But yes, she does have a stellar application and it is unfortunate that now she will be shunned from the ivy leagues and probably many elites.

In terms of the punishment and her being the victim etc., I leave you with two (more) quotes:


Quote:

The revelation of this fact [her plagiarism] caused some people to jump from viewing Blair as a victim to seeing her as a perpetrator. People began wondering if Blair had plagiarized on school papers or scholarship applications. Of course, this is a possibility, not a certainty. What is certain is that within days, the online petition, which was stalled at 1400 votes, surged to over 2000 votes. Messages boards and forums were reflooded with articles and comments about Blair. Even Harvard has been notified of the plagiarism issue, by none other than Blair herself!





Quote:

As we will soon see, while the plagiarism issue might not have have anything to do with her being named the valedictorian, it does have a lot to do with the admissions process at a major university such as Harvard. Plagiarism is not a trivial issue, and students caught plagiarizing have been known to have been expelled from and/or denied admission into Universities.


By Anotherdad (Anotherdad) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:34 am: Edit

Apguy, regarding being expelled from universities for plagiarism. A UVa physics prof. devised a program to check papers against the text in previous papers. He found many cases of possible plagiarism. Over 100 cases were brought to the UVa honors court and 45 students were expelled, and 3 graduate degrees revoked. He now has a site providing the program to other schools. The bad news -- beware of getting caught if plagiarize, and also beware of getting caught by the 50+ percent error rate generated by the program. The good news -- admissions for freshman physics majors at UVa are probably pretty easy!!

By Serene (Serene) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:51 am: Edit

Well according to Newsweek the revokement of her admission was a mutual agreement, as Blair (or her lawyer) claims that Harvard campus's too hostile.

I wonder how the conversations would be like at her house. She'd probably regret what she had done :(

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 01:52 pm: Edit

One of the other parents made a good point on the other BH thread...this is a tragedy that touches everyone. I don't sympathize with BH per se but she has managed to thoroughly trash herself...a lot of people her age still haven't really grasped that you've reached a stage in life where mistakes can have major long-lasting consequences...they know it but don't quite believe it applies to them.

BH's brother is always going to be known as BH's brother...hell of a thing to be robbed of your own identity and have another inflicted upon you without any choice.

BH's father is a victim of hubris and I can tell you that his punishment as a parent is already pretty severe.

Then there's BH's mother...the one person absent from every account I've read. What must she be thinking, feeling?

One more argument for living in a big city: in a small town like Moorestown, *everybody* knows who you are...and that will stick for years. I won't be surprised if the family moves within the next year.

Yes, BH did wrong and I think the whole pattern of behavior stinks, tarnishing her father as well. But it's still very very sad.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I still have mixed feelings about this ...

Speaking about the "tangible" punishment, having an admission rescinded by Harvard is hardly a death sentence. It may be harsh but there are thousands of schools in the US where BH could redeem herself.

The public crucifixation will soon vanish and will only leave a few scars. On one hand, BH will most likely rebound quickly as most people will forget and forgive. On the other hand, people will probably buy tons of salt to pour in the wounds of poor Louis.

At times, I feel REALLY sorry for BH, considering that she is barely older than I am. At our age, we still expect forgiveness for our mistakes. However, I cannot forget that she created most of her present problems and that she did NOT act like most teenagers do. It may be the dark side of her genial brilliance but SHE stopped being one of us when she became obsessed with demonstrating her excellence in all avenues. She wanted to reach the pinnacle and did not want anyone else sharing the limelight.

Now, she faces a lonely descent.

<Xiggi, I edited your post slightly. You were making a joke, a reference to something in another thread, but it could have been misinterpreted in a hurtful way. --Obiwan>

By Winterfresh (Winterfresh) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 03:38 pm: Edit

is she blacklisted by all the ivies, or all colleges in the US?

she'll probably go to a community college.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I think quite a few colleges would take her, good colleges, but maybe after not a year off.

There's no official "blacklist." Just anyone in the admissions field would get the app and say, "Oh. Blair Hornstine." This is called "notoriety."

By Apguy (Apguy) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:37 pm: Edit


Quote:

Apguy, regarding being expelled from universities for plagiarism. A UVa physics prof. devised a program to check papers against the text in previous papers. He found many cases of possible plagiarism. Over 100 cases were brought to the UVa honors court and 45 students were expelled, and 3 graduate degrees revoked. He now has a site providing the program to other schools. The bad news -- beware of getting caught if plagiarize, and also beware of getting caught by the 50+ percent error rate generated by the program. The good news -- admissions for freshman physics majors at UVa are probably pretty easy!!




Right, I actually briefly mentioned the whole situation in UVa in the other Blair Hornstine thread. In case you are interested many websites that search for plagiarism are now in use such as www.turnitin.com which is used at many high schools and at some of the ivy leagues.


Quote:

is she blacklisted by all the ivies, or all colleges in the US?

she'll probably go to a community college.




Often members of the ivy league will get together and agree on something, but I'm not sure if Blair's fate is one of them. Either way I hardly think Yale want's Harvards famous reject.

On a related note- a girl who was once accepted and then later rejected from Harvard, Gina Grant, killed her mother and was later accepted to (Harvard's rival school coincidentally) Tufts. So I think there is still hope for Blair.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:45 pm: Edit

"On a related note- a girl who was once accepted and then later rejected from Harvard, Gina Grant, killed her mother and was later accepted to (Harvard's rival school coincidentally) Tufts. So I think there is still hope for Blair."

I don't know. I read the link someone posted about Gina Grant and it made me more sympathetic. Apparently the mother was an alcholic who seriously abused her. Blair doesn't really have that kind of justification. And anyway, Harvard didn't rescind her acceptance because she killed her mother, it was because she lied by omission when she answered "no" to a question on the application about being convicted of a felony.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Obiwan ~

Thanks!
Oops! I thought I edited it out completely but I probably erased the part were I was making the references to the other posts.

You were correct in editing my post to avoid to reopen a debate of an irrelevant element due to a silly joke.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Just an addendum regarding Gina Grant ...

The "omission" was not only on the application but was also repeated during an extensive interview where she would have had ample time to expand on her past. Columbia rescinded the admission as well.

Gina Grant alleged that she did not have to disclose the facts because her juvenile record was sealed. She killed her mother at 12 and served a 6 months sentence. By the time, she applied to the Ivies, she was attending a very competitive prep school in Boston and was supporting herself. Quite a rehabilitation!

Tufts was able to maintain her admission because they carefully choose NOT to ask questions about her past. Incidently, she graduated from Tufts.

By Anotherdad (Anotherdad) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
is she blacklisted by all the ivies, or all colleges in the US?

she'll probably go to a community college.
------------
I suspect that there a many schools hungry for paying students who would admit her under academic probation. A chance to prove herself. One kicker -- Does anyone know if her HS degree is jeopardized? If it is revoked, a lot of schools wouldn't be able to take her.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 05:54 pm: Edit

One kicker -- Does anyone know if her HS degree is jeopardized? If it is revoked, a lot of schools wouldn't be able to take her.

You better believe that her HS has been scrutinizing all of her school work to prepare for the upcoming settlement discussions with the Hornstines. They have 2,700,000 reasons to find another loaded gun among her papers.

Based on her prior carelessness, they'll probably find some. Hopefully, this will be sufficient for Louis to drop the case or settle and let his daughter regain some dignity.

By Apguy (Apguy) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:47 pm: Edit

"I don't know. I read the link someone posted about Gina Grant and it made me more sympathetic. "

I'm kind of indifferent about it, but you might want to see this:

(Link: http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=7255)


Quote:

But South Carolina prosecutor Donnie Myers argued the killing was premeditated. After the killing, Grant and her football-player boyfriend, Jack Hook, tried to make the death look like suicide by sticking a carving knife into the side of her mother's neck. Hook pleaded no contest to being an accessory to murder after the fact.




From the Tufts University "Primary Source":

Link: http://www.tuftsprimarysource.org/classics/delaney.htm


Quote:

When it came time for Tufts administrators to review the application of a person who served time for beating her mother to death, they chose to both forgive and forget. Officials first determined if she had lied on her application, and used the loosest construction of the question working to clear her of that evil. Having done that, they went on toe welcome her with open arms, saying she had paid her debt to society in full.

In fact she had done nothing of the sort. She served a mere six months in a juvenile detention center, having pled no contest to charges of voluntary manslaughter.




I'm sure hundreds of thousands of kids have violent parents. Drunk parents. Violent and drunk parents. How many of them killed their parents? How many beat their body several times after their parent's died? How many people got their boyfriend over to make it look like suicide? How many lie to colleges and game authorities?

Something to think about.

By Ivyrules (Ivyrules) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Blair Hornstine definately should have been rejected from Harvard, but I don't think this whole thing should have been publicized. She shouldn't be receiveing death threats etc. Rejection itself does enough.

By Serene (Serene) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit

I agree with ivyrules.
I think the community's responses are too drastic and disproportionate to what happened.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Ivyrules and Serene~

The death threats and other moronic acts -egging the Hornstine mansion- occured after the lawsuit was filed but well before Harvard's decision.

It is obvious that the LOCAL community's reaction was prompted by the 2.7 million dollars lawsuit. One could argue that such a figure was disproportionate and that the lawsuit was a tad drastic considering a disagreement over sharing the valedictorian spot at a HS.

Let's not overlook that the Hornstines decided to fight this battle in the public arena. Without that lawsuit, Blair Hornstine would be buying her Crimson sweats and looking for an apartment in Cambridge, just like the Salutorian Ken Mirkin. Both had been accepted before this asinine saga begun.

It was indeed a Pyrrhic victory for the family!

By Slackersunite (Slackersunite) on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 05:04 pm: Edit

So where's she gonna go now? Yale? Stanford?

By Obh100 (Obh100) on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 06:32 pm: Edit

probably Rutgers, lol... that'd be ironic, from the Crimson to the Red Scarlet Knights...


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page