gungadin09
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010 Status: offline
|
If the school appointed a second valedictorian because of race, then i sincerely hope the court exposes them, and the people responsible lose their jobs. That said, i have serious problems with both articles. Neither of them contains any statement from the defendant (the school), nor do they say that the principal/superintendent/school board REFUSED to comment. Does that mean that nobody asked them for their side of the story? The student (Kymberly Wimberly) and her mother (Bratton?) claim that the principal nominated a co-valedictorian because Wimberly is black. Bratton, who works at the school, stated that she heard school personnel gossiping about how having Wimberly as valedictorian "might cause a big mess". She did NOT say (or at least, if she did, it wasn't reported) that she heard anyone say that the reason it would "cause a big mess" is because Wimberly is black. Could there be another reason (for example, the fact that she is a teen mother?) Bratton also states that the principal (Darrell Thompson) told her "that he had decided to name a white student as co-valedictorian". (HER words, HER paraphrase of what the principal told her, not a direct quote from the principal.) But what does that mean? Does that mean, the principal told her they were naming a second valedictorian (who also happened to be white?), or that the principal told her that they were naming "a white student" as second valedictorian BECAUSE he was white? Did he actually say "we have decided to name a WHITE student as a co-valedictorian"? Or did he say "we have decided to name so-and-so as a co-valedictorian?", and she assumed that it was because so-and-so was white? The reason Kimberly's mother was not allowed to appeal the case to the school board before graduation was because she supposedly filled out the wrong paperwork. Which, if true, is stupid and bureaucratic, but fair. The article states that the student body of this school is 54% white and 46% African American. That does not seem like an overwhelming majority of white students to be offended at a black valedictorian. The article also states the the last time the school had a black valedictorian was in 1989. That does look bad, especially for a school that's almost half black. But what is the school's criteria for choosing a valedictorian? How subjective is the criteria? Does the honor always go to the student with the highest GPA, or do they take other factors into account? Is it a straight GPA or weighted for honors and AP classes? Have any black students since 1989 met the criteria to be valedictorian and been passed over in favor of white students who did not meet the criteria? How common is it for the school to have multiple valedictorians? Why does the SCHOOL say that multiple valedictorians were named this year? i suspect the reason Wimberly was not allowed to be sole valedictorian was not because she's black, but because she's a teen mother. i bet that the school was afraid her history of sexual activity would offend people if she was allowed to represent the school as its sole valedictorian. Maybe the school also felt that their valedictorians need to demonstrate a certain "moral character", and that being sexually active outside of marriage doesn't fit with their ideas of what's moral. Personally, i think *that's* a bad reason to have appointed a co-valedictorian, too. However, depending on how the school has historically chosen it's valedictorians, their decision may have some validity to it. i would not have used sexual activity as a factor in choosing the school valedictorian. But do *they* have the right to do it? i don't know. These articles disturb me for two reasons. The first is the fact that the plaintiff is playing the race card when it might not be warranted. The claims from both mother and daughter seem exaggerated. They say that the school actively discouraged black students from taking honors and AP classes, because "the work was too hard". They say the school did not support African American students, and had a history of treating white and black students differently. (If that were true, is it possible that for so many years, no one else would have complained?) They say "school administrators and personnel treated the two other white students as heirs apparent to the valedictorian and salutatorian spots." (If that were true, then *why* was Wimberly declared valedictorian first?) They say that Wimberly seeks punitative damages for constitutional violations (which she is CERTAINLY entitled to if she was discriminated against because of her race)...but get this, mother and daughter are also seeking an injuction declaring Wimberly the sole valedictorian of the school's class of 2011. WTF? Graduation is over. Everybody already made their speeches. What good can it possibly do now to get an injuction declaring her SOLE VALEDICTORIAN? To me, that just smacks of prima donna behavior. No, i can't just be A VALEDICTORIAN, i have to be publicly recognised as THE ONE AND ONLY VALEDICTORIAN, despite the fact that graduation is already over. Is she suing for justice or pride? The second reason the articles disturb me is the willingness of the media to present only one side of a story, and the willingness of so many people to accept that story without question. Don't get me wrong. i realise it's entirely possible that Wimberly really *was* discriminated against because of her race, and if so, i hope they nail the fuckers who did it, but they better really be guilty. i do NOT think these articles did a good job of presenting a thorough and balanced viewpoint, and if Wimberly was discriminated against then the way her story was presented does not do her justice. But i believe it's just as likely that she and her mother are using race as a pretext to sue, because they know they CAN'T sue for discrimination against Wimberly because of her parenthood. Everybody loves a good crusade. But before you start waving those banners around and calling people to arms, please make sure it's because you've actually given the matter some thought, and NOT because it just feels good to jump on the bandwagon. pam
< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 7/26/2011 8:48:57 PM >
|