<p>Simba:</p>
<p>She lost her name? Nothing to do with Harvard as an institution. She did not “lose” her reputation; she threw it away. Furthermore, she keeps herself in the limelight by her actions. She could have withdrawn herself from consideration as a peer counselor and we would not have this discussion.</p>
<p>As I said before, why are we so determined that someone “deserves” a second chance, when I can’t possibly believe that there aren’t numerous deserving, qualified applicants who didn’t blow a first chance? Sometimes it seems like being the one who messes up gives you a leg up over those who just keep trying to do the right thing. Very disturbing, to me.</p>
<p>Criminals don’t get second life?</p>
<p>Simba, Harvard took no actions to punish her. She is being treated like a normal Harvard student. However, going out of their way to reward her with a peer advising position is above and beyond their duty to give her a “second chance.” Harvard is already giving her a second chance by letting her continue her studies.</p>
<p>may be Harvard had all the facts and determined that she either was not guilty, or no actions are required.</p>
<p>Hmmm. I see your point, marite, especially about the role model stuff. I agree with it. But I am not sure it is so clear. Maybe it is, but I am not that sure yet. Harvard may not “owe” VM anything, but by what line of reasoning would it pointedly deny her a spot as an advisor if it decided not to deny her as a student? I presume VM applied for the position legitimately, and that she could have been rejected. After she applied, Harvard would have had to deliberately stop her in her tracks. Harvard would be receiving a student, but for three years treating her as if she has a scarlet letter on her chest over something that purportedly has no relevance to the school’s mission. It seems clear to me that the real problem is having the girl at Harvard in the first place. Once we get past that, it seems to me the only real option is to just let the girl get on with her life like any other student.</p>
<p>MallomarCookie:</p>
<p>
Yeah, but you know how it is. Sure there are more qualified applicants. But maybe she got the luck of the draw. The question is, do her book circumstances disqualify her? And if so, then why dont they disqualify her as a student? What reasoning can we use to nail her as an advisor, but not as a student, if we claim her actions were not relevant to academics? That is the problem I am trying to deal with. I think Harvard is in a tough spot because of that issue.</p>
<p>The difference between KV and Blair Hornstine is that Blair Hornstine had not matriculated at Harvard when her plagiarism was uncovered, so her admission could be rescinded. KV was already a student at Harvard when her plagiarism was uncovered and it was unrelated to her work at Harvard (as was Blair Hornstine’s plagiarism which was by no means as extensive). Blair Hornstine was indeed punished. KV has not been.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier: By rejecting or rescinding KV’s application, Harvard would not be affixing a scarlet letter to her. None of the rejected applicant wear one. These applications and the decisions are confidential. They were not announced until early May. No one need have known that she had applied and been rejected, just as we do not know the name of the 100+ students who applied and were rejected.</p>
<p>I just want to know what she will advise the students. Certainly NOT you do wrong, and there are consequences. Let’s face it. It’s a crap shoot getting into H and you can’t tell me that her book did not play a major part in her being accepted. Since the book was not legitimate, she should have been kicked out. I don’t have a problem with second chances as criminals get, but they take their punishment first. There has been no real punishment here, except her second book will not be published (rightfully so, since it isn’t hers, anyway, and they stopped her first one, still not hers to publish). I, as a parent, would be on the phone (call it helicoptering if you must, but I have not called or made any decisions or interfered with D’s college life) to the Dean demanding a change of advisor. I can just see the advice - just chin out, a bit of chutzpah, and you can do anything you want and get away with it. I cheated which got me into H and I am still here. You, too, can do this. Let me see - what can kids fake and put on their apps to get into H? (It’s not like they check all these things - I have never had a college call me to verify if a student was in SNHS, where I am the sponsor). It’s open season now. The precedent has been set. I don’t think that people would be reacting quite as strongly against a youthful indiscretion if this were the local CC, but cheating and getting into H, when so many truly deserving kids cannot, is what rankles here. H’s argument that this had nothing to do with academics is obfuscation - it had a lot to do with her acceptance, and it therefore should have been rescinded.</p>
<p>“may be Harvard had all the facts and determined that she either was not guilty, or no actions are required.”</p>
<p>Simba, Harvard’s position is as clear as the guilt of KV. KV was exposed by students of Harvard who spent hours and weeks documenting the offenses. Ignoring the evidence is diminishing the value and importance of the opinion of KV’s peers in this case. It’s a tad simplistic to allege that jealousy is the main motivation of people decrying KV’s actions. </p>
<p>What has been missing, so far, is the contrition of the plagiarist. Let’s not confuse arrogance with innocence and insolence with ingenuity. Would we not be kinder to her were she to offer a true apology? </p>
<p>As far as this discussion, Marite reduce it to its bare essence:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many who cheat to become intel finalists, become eagle scouts, vals and sals of their high schools, cheat on their taxes and fin aid forms and so many things in life.</p>
<p>Chill. No one here knows all the facts.</p>
<p>marite: Okay, but (and please be patient with me here. I really want to answer my question) it seems we are just appealing here to ignorance and not really to the correct way of handling this student. In other words, by taking your position, it still seems we aren’t dealing with the actual basis upon which we should reject this applicant, but are only punishing her in secret for something we have publicly declared is irrelevant.</p>
<p>I am not defending Harvard, but I think it has made the best decision in view of its earlier decision (that earlier decision is the cause of all wrongs, but since it is really not at issue here, we can’t deal with it). It seems the only real solution here is to reject this girl as a student. Harvard could do this. Harvard should have done it, especially if her book influenced her acceptance. But I suspect that with so much water now under the bridge, the school just thinks it is best to keep going forward and let this kid get a life. We can’t bar her from every leadership opportunity, yet that is basically what we are saying if we think she is unfit as an advisor. At some point, we are gonna have to cut bait on this thing. For better or worse, I think that is what Harvard has done.</p>
<p>Xiggi: what about a scenerio that in reality she never wrote the book. She lent her name for fame, money and even admission to Harvard? Ghost writers wrote the book. I wonder if the girl of her intelligence even read that kind of ‘literature’.</p>
<p>She was THE candidate for Alloy. A very good looking, smart, rich, Harvard bound Indian Girl - a morden day princess. The potential book sales in India (They may not have heard of Princeton, but definitely know Harvard) - millions. Lots and lots of money.</p>
<p>Ah, the old, lots of people cheat, so why not her, or him, or me? defense.</p>
<p>Because, Simba, maybe I’m just not cynical enough, but I do believe that some people are ethical, and don’t cheat, and that, regardless of whatever you or I believe, it behooves an institution like Harvard to act as if making ethical choices is one of, if not the, highest goals it can and should promote.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier–lots of Harvard students are not going to get a position like this. They’re not barred, and they’re not being punished; they just didn’t make the cut. I would think there are lots of reasons in KV’s history why she now can be seen as making a poor advisor for freshmen–not a punishment, just a recognition of the situation. Not being punished any more than the other 300 students who didn’t make the cut.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>As the parent of a Harvard student who did NOT cheat, I agree with you. </p>
<p>I was brought up on the principle that “just because other people do it, or have it, does not mean that You should do it or have it.” And I have brought up my kids that way, too.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>
Absolutely. I think this is quite right. But I keep coming back to the fact that we are dealing with a kid with parents and, presumably, other advisors, including attorneys. Is this kid refusing to apologize all on her own, despite what her advisors are telling her? I just dont think so. Were she my kid, I would be leaning hard on her to come clean and beg to be let off the hook. If she would not do this, then I would go to the press myself to declare my conviction that she is lying and is contradicting everything we have taught her. I strongly suspect this kids family is behind her dishonor. I dont think she would be able to stand so strongly in this lie were this not so. I dont really scorn this kid for acting like a kid. She obviously has not learned some critical lessons about integrity, and she could not have learned them if she has parents and other authorities in her life who have never taught them.</p>
<p>garland: Okay, but many here think KV should not be an advisor specifically because of her book situation. I don’t think we address this particular issue by referring generally to KV’s past. We need to see if Harvard has an obligation, as many here seem to think, to deny this girl’s selection specifically because of the book. I think not, if we accept that the book is irrelevant to Harvard. The entire issue hinges on this. Again, it seems to me that we are hammering on this while overlooking the real problem.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier:</p>
<p>Just because Harvard has decided not to kick out KV over the book does not mean it is not relevant to other decisions it might make. Obviously the book is relevant otherwise we would not have this discussion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If she has not, what qualifies her to be a peer advisor?</p>
<p>Back to the losing her name idea, I don’t think she has lost it at all. Corporate industry is apparently ready to embrace her:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the university is acting in the most hands-off way imaginable. </p>
<p>I was always under the impression that young people learn a sense of honor or dishonor from the reactions of those around them: parents, extended family, the larger community. Perhaps we have just moved beyond this? Young and old alike can do nothing truly dishonorable and suffer no long-term discomfort. It’s all just mistakes, to be forgiven and forgotten and moved beyond? The talented or famous just get the free pass? (Mel Gibson anyone? – well, at least he apologized and admitted he’d been stupid.)</p>