Talk:Hornstine v. Township of Moorestown

COI Allegation

Inserted some citation changes to the page. I came across this article in my research of Education Law and the ADA. Some portions of the current page, where citations are requested seem to be speculative, but I can't say for certain because I only know whats in the case law. Perhaps Dickey is right on the others, I guess it is up to Century40 to back his edits up. Mealoat22 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's simply pasting two copies of the original url (from which the larger chunk of text was pasted). WP is not a source of knowledge - there's no reason for bulk cut/paste from other webpages. Tedickey (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The website that was cited is rutgers lawschool's online library - it is a direct link to the opinion that decided Hornstine's case. What could be more neutral and cite-worthy than a court opinion? Mealoat22 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - the cite is still there (without having to delete the content and supporting cites the gave the topic some balance). Tedickey (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Resume highlights?

The phrase "other resume highlights" and the following bulleted list seem completely nonenyclopedic. If anything, a single sentence listing a few representative items should be plenty. These accomplishments are of interest only as an illustration of her academic reputation and success, which we can pretty well surmise from the story itself. Remove? emw 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to leave the bit about her being an Olympic torch carrier, as it bears on the honesty of her claim to be so physically disabled as to be incapcable to taking gym class. As for the rest, it can stay or go, so long as the remaining text makes clear that Hornstine was an ambitious, accomplished young woman. Uucp 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds like cheerleading-occasional Wikipedia User

Why is this page so long? this person isnt important, its just one of the hundreds of cheaters who get rejected every year for cheating. Delete this stupid page I'd sayRootBeerFanatic 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is she now?

There is a Blair Hornstine at St. Andrews, as a variety of recent editors have suggested without evidence. Her e-mail address is xxxxx@st-and.ac.uk. I would not feel comfortable including this claim of alma matter in the article without proof that this is the *same* Blair Hornstine. And I, frankly, do not incline to e-mail her and ask. Uucp 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:LIVING for guidelines on how to handle biographies of living people. Also, WP:NOR reminds us that original research in the form of rumor or Internet phonebook searches does not belong here. There is one quote in the bio policy, "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a newspaper." I believe the current ending of "...has kept out of the limelight" is sufficient, and we should not add any speculative information about "where is she now" unless she makes a public statement. I have taken the unusual step of eliding the email address written above; I realize that it can be easily found with a little bit of research, but I see no reason to include the email address of a potentially random, uninvolved person in the Wikipedia talk database. Random Task (T·C) 15:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed an edit just now that mentioned "websites" as a source for Hornstine's current location. Again, we don't know if it's the same person, and WP:NOR this is not the place for investigative encyclopedia writing. Random Task (T·C) 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Kadri Quote Sourcing

Currently the article includes a quote from a school superintendent claiming that Hornstine's father said "he was going to manipulate rules designed to protect disabled students for the purpose of allowing [Blair Hornstine] to win the valedictorian award". This of course is the sort of thing we need to source. The best reference that I found freely available online was http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86469,00.html . I think we can improve the sourcing, however. The Fox News opinion piece begins its mention of the incident as:

This week, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Moorestown officials from naming co-valedictorians, reports the Los Angeles Times.

So, the story appeared in the Times the week of May 9th, 2003 (but probably not after the 9th) after the judge issued the restraining order. Looking at the four articles that the Times archive returns as hits for "Hornstine" in the whole of 2003, one would probably be eliminated by appearing two days after the Fox News piece. Of the three others, all fall within the correct week; only one of the three, however, mentions in its title and preview the judge's order. So, the article we're looking for appears to be:

The Nation

Top Student Wins Temporary Ban on Split Honor

Judge bars a New Jersey school from naming more than one class of 2003 valedictorian.

John J. Goldman; Los Angeles Times; May 9, 2003; A.41

Hopefully someone either has a subscription to the Times archive or has access to a library with this volume in its holdings. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote comes from papers filed by Kadri in the lawsuit. Those papers are part of the public record but not easily accessible by the internet. The quote appeared in a few different publications, including the Fox column, a brief in the NY Post (HEIDI SINGER, $2.7M TIFF OVER TEEN'S TOP HONOR, 3 May 2003), a Weekly Standard article (Jonathan V. Last, First in Her Class, 07/07/2003, Volume 008, Issue 42), and this LA Times article:

The Nation

Student Sues to Be a Sole Valedictorian; Her GPA is best, but school says she had an advantage because she was tutored at home

John J. Goldman; Los Angeles Times; May 8, 2003; A.27

Kadri, local school officials and the Board of Education paint a far different picture.

They say that the student's father, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Louis Hornstine, told Kadri during a meeting that he would "use any advantage of the laws and regulations" to give his daughter "the best opportunity to be valedictorian."

"In the end, he flatly told the superintendent that he was going to manipulate rules designed to protect disabled students for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to win the valedictorian award," the papers said.

In light of the judge's statements and complaints from students that they were not able to "compete fairly on a level field," Kadri launched an investigation.

"What he found was a fundamental unfairness, a pattern which suggested that plaintiff had opportunities to gain an advantage no other students enjoyed in competing for the valedictorian/ salutatorian award," the papers said.

The superintendent concluded that while other students were limited in their class schedules, Hornstine could take as many honors courses as she wanted because she could schedule them with her home tutors, giving her the opportunity to earn higher weighted grades than her counterparts attending classes full time at school.

Court papers said Kadri also discovered occasions that when it appeared Hornstine would be unable to earn a high grade while enrolled in a difficult class in school, she withdrew and sought home instruction.

I would prefer to not use the Fox source to support the quote; I'll add the LA Times article and the Weekly Standard article (which only includes part of the quote) as refs. Random Task (T·C) 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I found a picture of her here. I think it can get by with Fair Use, but I'm not sure. Opinions?--Miguel Cervantes 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I just requested permission here. --Ali 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Several statements in this seem to describe the general community feelings towards Blair. although sources are cited properly, words such as "some" and "most" are used often to describe what the author seems to imply is a straightforward attack on Blair. Regarding bias, all content has to respect WP:NPOV. --Daniel ellis 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, every such claim is footnoted. Can you point to any examples that aren't? Uucp 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying claims are given reliable sources. I'm just saying the wording of certain parts of the article tend to sway the reader towards a sympathetic view of Blair instead of a neutral viewpoint. For example where it is stated that "the town's residents were disgusted at Horstine..." and that "Horstine was immediately isolated from her classmates." It's not the lack of sources, it's the diction that throws the reader to take a certain stance. --Daniel ellis 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is what HAPPENED though...she was isolated...whether that makes u feel pity or not is entirely up to you. Some feel she got what she deserved, others do not. Make ur own judgment (which u clealy have) but don't try to keep pertinent facts out of the story bc u feelshe is getting an unfair shake. Those who steal intellectual property are disgusting human beings who have no regard for a creator;s hard work.

I'm removing the NPOV tag - the POV is not glaringly obvious in this article. If you disagree, feel free to place the tag back on the article. Remember, if you feel that specific diction is biased, you are always free to edit it to remove the bias. I will try to address POV concerns myself in the meantime. Ali ^(t)_(c) 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"References"

The references section in this article should be merged into the article text, as in-line references. I have attempted to do this myself, but I do not have access to all the references mentioned in this section. Ali ^(t)_(c) 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP edit

I received a complaint from someone familiar with this matter saying that the article was biased and that recent attempts to add balance were summarily reverted. I reviewed the article per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) and found a number of problems which I have attempted to correct. Some of the problems are straightforward, such as use of POV terms like "supposedly" or unsourced sections that appear to be original research or statements that are not supported by the sources cited or the inclusion of a "trivia" section (not permitted under BLP).

There is a broader issue that is more problematic. There are two distinct narratives for this story. It received extensive press coverage which was mostly negative towards Ms. Hornstine, to put it mildly. The other version is told in the Federal District Court opinion. I've largely presented the valedictorian story as described in the court opinion. I believe this comes closest to WP:NPOV. Few facts are in dispute, rather it is which facts that get mentioned that seem to be the difference. For example, many press accounts (and the previous version of our article) dwell on the fact that Ms. Hornstine was not required to take gym, allowing her to take highly weighted AP and honors course instead, but none mention the fact that the runner-up was nonetheless able to take more AP courses than Ms. Hornstine.

I've trimmed the Courier-Journal section to the basic facts. The newspaper stated Hornstine failed to properly attribute sources. It did not use the word "plagiarism." I believe we should use their language, though many later press reports did use that word. The comparisons of text that was in our article are unsourced and I believe unnecessary. She admitted her failure to properly attribute material and apologized. Note that Ms. Hornstine was a minor when she submitted these stories.

I would urge anyone editing this article to carefully review WP:BLP. --agr (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's trimmed, but has several minor errors. Given the tone of your comments so far, I'm reluctant to repair these. Tedickey (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How about describing the errors and changes here first? That's always safe. --agr (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Marlyn McGrath Lewis"

The given reference (and about 90% of google hits) give this spelling rather than "Marilyn" in the topic. Tedickey (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks. I also removed the link on her name as there doesn't seem to be a likelihood of an article about her. If you disagree, feel free to put it back.--agr (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is Moorestown?

The article ought to mention the location of the story. Following a link, I find that Moorestown is in New Jersey. I cannot, however, find a way to insert this fact into the text without disrupting the flow of the article. Anybody want to do it? Ronstew (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alansohn. I guess that was the best way to do it. Ronstew (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.blairhornstine.net/blair_today_future.html

That appears to be a self-published webpage (perhaps factual, but it was used by an anon-IP in apparent COI-based edits a while back). Perhaps there's a reliable source available Tedickey (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Move per BLP1E

Per a parallel discussion at Talk:Kaavya Viswanathan, this article would seem to fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. It primarily deals with one event, the lawsuit over the valedictorian award at Moorestown High School in 2003. While Ms. Hornstine played a major role in that controversy as the one who filed the suit, she is not the only key player. The Superintendent of Schools played a major a role too, arguably at least as significant. Actions by parents and other students were also important. Wikipedia's approach in such cases, per WP:BIO1E, is to "cover the event, not the person." Further BLP1E applies: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Accordingly, a more appropriate name for the article would be Moorestown v. Hornstine, which would focus on the suit and the resulting precedent in disability law, the latter having perhaps the greatest long term significance.--agr (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article from Blair Hornstine to Moorestown v. Hornstine and copy edited to focus on the law case.--agr (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. It should be Hornstine v. Moorestown, of course. She initiated the suit. I moved it again. My bad.--agr (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Selective use of the Crimson source

Most of the content of the Crimson source focuses on the reported plagiarism - the recent edits have removed all of that, leaving only the out-of-context comments relating to unpopularity. Tedickey (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I replaced cites to the Harvard Crimson and a WCAU report no longer on line with the Weekly Standard article and copy edited to match what they say. Note that according to the Standard, the hostility intensified immediately after the injunction, long before the plagiarism report surfaced. So I think the hostility has a place in an article about the case. --agr (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While one might infer it, the Standard does not state (as does this topic) that "her classmates had been throwing eggs". Also, the plural in the Standard about threats over the phone would have to be considered that there would be a police report to refer to; otherwise what we have is reportorial hearsay. Tedickey (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right about "her classmates had been throwing" not being in the Standard article. I've just removed that language and stuck more closely to what the Standard says. I had already removed any mention of phone threats--that was from the Crimson article--so I'm not sure what you are referring to in your second sentence. --agr (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

re phone - right, I was reading side-by-side, and had switched without noticing. Tedickey (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done that. Anyway, thanks, another pair of eyes always helps.--agr (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

no problem (perhaps tired) Tedickey (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"unsourced contentious material"

As Arnold recalls, he removed all of the sources relating to this. It would be nice to see an accurate change summmary, rather than a misleading one. Tedickey (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is abundently clear that it is the responsibility of the editor adding contentious material about a living person to provide reliable sources. Stuff that is sourced to anonymous "protestors" doesn't belong at all. In any case, the physical education allegation is dealt with in the court ruling. It was raised by the school superintendent as part of his claim that Hornstine was able to take more high weighted courses. The court rejected those claims, pointing out that the runner-up actually had a slight mathematical advantage, as our article describes.--agr (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - before spouting off in that manner, it's your responsibility to read what I said, reflect on the factuality of the comment, and then compose a civil and factual response. Tedickey (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw contentious material attributed to "protesters" added by an anonymous editor and I removed it. I included a pointer to our BLP policy in the edit summary rather than just clicking the rollback button. I guess you could argue I should have added an explanation on their talk page as well, per WP:BITE because it was the person's first edit, but I didn't think of that. This article is about the court case. The gym argument is in the court opinion, which is still referenced in the article, so I'm not clear as to what source removal on my part you are referring to. The facts are that Ms. Hornstine not taking phys ed was raised by the town in their defense and the Judge rejected that argument on several grounds. Maybe I'm missing what your issue is here. --agr (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "gym" in the court case, though there can be construed an oblique reference to that. I recalled that the comment was explicit in one or more of the sources removed when you refocused the topic from the controversy itself into the court case. (By the way, the link on the title to the court case points back to this topics - some work is needed to avoid doing that in the template) Tedickey (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Search on "physical education". It's there. Good catch on the unnecessary template link. I eliminated it by adding "et. al." to the litigants field in the cite (there were other defendants). It turns out that anything you do to the case name that makes is different from an article title will eliminate the wiki link. Changing v. to vs. also works. Feel free to find a better fix. --agr (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis of article flawed

I find the emphasis of this article to be pretty flawed. The lawsuit itself would not have been notable had it not been for the media coverage and public debate it provoked.

The Hornstein Incident is an iconic parable about the perils of contemporary achiev-o-tron values, and this article in my opinion utterly fails to convey what was reported on and how the story was told in the media. That's important.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Harvard incident

I believe the two sentences regarding Ms. Hornstine and Harvard fail WP:BLPGOSSIP. That policy says says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The source cited for the two sentences, an article in the Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper, attributes the information to "a source involved with the decision." The New York Times, in a local color piece, picked up the Crimson article but could provide no independent confirmation.[1]

The second sentence in question, which was helpfully clarified, none-the-less suggests an indirect confirmation of the incident by Harvard. We define weasel words as "equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated." That perfectly fits the the second sentence and the portion of the Crimson article on which it is based.

More importantly, in my view, BLPGOSSIP also says we should ask if material being presented "is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The subject of this article is a law suit, not Ms. Hornstine. The alleged Harvard incident happened after the suit was filed and had no bearing on its outcome.

I would also call attention to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Ms. Hornstine was the subject of a massive media hate storm for filing this case, but was vindicated in court. Our BLP policy says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." The best course is to leave this material out of the article and let the legal case speak for itself.--agr (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

relevant text from the New York Times (Seeing Crimson. Capuzzo, Jill PView Profile. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 20 July 2003: 14NJ.5.)

"News that Harvard had revoked Ms. Hornstine's admission was reported in The Harvard Crimson, the student paper, a little more than a week ago. Andrea Shen, a university spokeswoman, declined to confirm the report, citing confidentiality, as did two lawyers working with the Hornstine family. But one of them, Steven Kudatzky, say that the young woman will not be attending Harvard in the fall.

The Crimson article linked the school's reversal to a disclosure -- one of the clouds of dust that had been whipped up by the filing of the suit -- that Ms. Hornstine had failed to attribute parts of five articles she wrote for The Courier Post newspaper. The articles included large passages taken from speeches and writings by President Bill Clinton and Supreme Court justices."

In a subsequent article in the newspaper, Ms. Hornstine attributed her lack of citation to her lack of experience as a journalist.

I, like most every teenager who has use of a computer, cut and pasted my ideas together, she wrote in June. I erroneously thought the way I had submitted the articles was appropriate.

But the damage was done. As Ms. Shen explained, students accepted to Harvard are asked to agree to five conditions under which admission can be withdrawn, including behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity or moral characters.

and then, most damning,

"The fact is, felings are now raw on both sides. Mr. Kudatzky said the family has asked Harvard to look into how the university's decision was released to the school paper, quite possibility from within a dean's office. Last week, Ms. Hornstine received a letter from Harvard stating that the college regrets the committee's action has become a matter of public attention but called the case closed and referred the family to the school's general counsel."

Similar text appears in many other significant publications. Hornstine's apparent lack of ethics was evidently relevant to the case in the eyes of the world in 2003, as was Harvard's withdrawal of admission. The family's spokesman treats the Crimson's story as accurate. This isn't "blaming the victim," it's just providing context. Uucp (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The key word in the above paragraph is "evidently." Harvard did not explicitly state what action it took or what the reasons were. It is all surmise and inference, exactly the sort of weasel words that WP:BLPGOSSIP cautions against.

Even if we accept the sourcing, this is not a matter of mere "dust that had been whipped up by the filing of the suit." There was a deliberate effort to discredit her for asserting her rights. The Crimson article says: "...the Moorestown school board is investigating the integrity of Hornstine’s academic coursework, said Cyndy Wulfsberg, the board’s president. 'We need to find out absolutely everything that we can. If it means examination of her work, and if that work is there to be examined, I’m sure we’ll do it,' she said, adding that the board will also likely interview all those involved in Hornstine’s education, including her tutors and guidance counselors." How many students could withstand that kind of scrutiny of their entire high school careers? And there is no recored of a neutral, parallel investigation of the other students vying for the valedictorian honor.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM says: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions." Everything that happened stemmed Ms. Hornstine from what the court found was an illegal act of discrimination against her by the superintendent of schools.

But most importantly, this article is not about Ms. Hornstine. We reached a consensus on this talk page that she was covered by WP:BLP1E and that the article should be about the lawsuit. Ms. Hornstine remains a low profile individual, so there is no reason to revisit that decision. --agr (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)