Plagiarism Derails Valedictorian Litigant's Harvard Plans

Submitted by Dennis G. Jerz on July 13, 2003 - 10:23.

From the Harvard Crimson:

Harvard Takes Back Hornstine Admission

Harvard has revoked its admission of Blair Hornstine, the prospective member of the Class of 2007 who made national headlines when she sued her school system to ensure she would be her high school’s sole valedictorian. | 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that Hornstine had plagiarized material in articles she wrote for her local paper, the Harvard admissions office has rescinded her offer to attend Harvard in the fall..."

When I first blogged the Hornstine lawsuit, I suggested that Harvard might issue her a challenge that forced her to grow up. This wasn't exactly what I was thinking about, but she'll remember this lesson. (Assuming she doesn't sue to get Harvard to accept her anyway.)

tags:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Clancy's picture

Appealing the case...

Submitted by Clancy on July 13, 2003 - 14:19.

Dennis said:

"she'll remember this lesson. (Assuming she doesn't sue to get Harvard to accept her anyway.)"

I hope she doesn't sue. But if she does, is the condition in the acceptance letter enough to cover Harvard? I hope so. They're a private university, right? They don't have to let her in, do they?




CultureCat

The Politics of Nachtraglichkeit

Submitted by EMason on July 13, 2003 - 16:57.

The Harvard Crimson article states:

"Hornstine wrote she now understands that she 'was incorrect in . . . thinking that news articles didn’t require as strict citation scrutiny as most school assignments because there was no place for footnotes or end notes.'"

Does anyone else think it's ironic that Hornstine is trying to argue for leniency because she didn't realize she was plagiarizing at the time, but, according to the Philadelphia Daily News, the judge in the case ruled in her favor because the school was "dead wrong in trying to reconfigure the formula for grade point averages only after Hornstine came in first" (italics added).

So, according to Hornstine, it's okay to look back and realize how unfair your individual writing practices have been, and not be punished for them, but our institutions must get their rules right the first time, and abide by even ones they later realize to be unfair ones--no adjustment and no perspective allowed. (Granted, I'm undecided as to whether this situation was unfair or not; to me, it all depends on the equivalence of the assessment.)

Nachtraglichkeit, in the sense of a "belated understanding" wasn't admissible in the case before, so should it be admissible now?