Off to Berlin!
March 30, 2022 9:31 AM Subscribe
How an Ivy League School Turned Against a Student Mackenzie Fierceton was championed as a former foster youth who had overcome an abusive childhood and won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship. Then the University of Pennsylvania accused her of lying. SLNYer.
Previously.
Previously.
I am constantly surprised at how universities refuse to admit how incredibly fucking stupid 18-year-olds are. Some number of them will do anything wrong, no matter how easy and obvious you make it. Holding them to those errors -- years later, with the presumption that of course they made those mistakes intentionally -- is so far beyond malpractice as to be actively predatory.
posted by Etrigan at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2022 [55 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2022 [55 favorites]
I think this is just an acknowledgement that the function of the modern academic system is to drain the parents of any resources that might allow for intergenerational wealth transfer, siphon off all excess value from the family, and the fact that that mechanism failed in this circumstance is pissing off a bunch of bureaucrats.
posted by straw at 10:08 AM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
posted by straw at 10:08 AM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
I think this is just an acknowledgement that the function of the modern academic system is to drain the parents of any resources that might allow for intergenerational wealth transfer, siphon off all excess value from the family, and the fact that that mechanism failed in this circumstance is pissing off a bunch of bureaucrats.
im insulted by such a reductive take
i also want to publish papers to burnish my reputation thankyouverymuch
posted by lalochezia at 10:17 AM on March 30, 2022 [17 favorites]
It's like A Million Little Pieces, I read that book before Oprah got ahold of it. I KNEW it was fiction.
No matter what, this student experienced something that she utilized to write a story. We had a kid at CPS that would paint on her own bruises to escape the mental abuse she was suffering.
This is not how to handle this.
posted by lextex at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
No matter what, this student experienced something that she utilized to write a story. We had a kid at CPS that would paint on her own bruises to escape the mental abuse she was suffering.
This is not how to handle this.
posted by lextex at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
She was in foster care while she was a child. She had injuries severe enough to put her in the hospital. It is outrageous that the university position seems to be "Remember that time you got hit in the head? And it put you in the hospital for days and put you in foster care, and basically blew up your life forever? We think that was minor bruising, probably no big deal, and you should apologize for telling us about it. What's that? No, the lights in here didn't suddenly dim for no reason. "
posted by surlyben at 10:50 AM on March 30, 2022 [37 favorites]
posted by surlyben at 10:50 AM on March 30, 2022 [37 favorites]
It's like A Million Little Pieces
Wait did she make up the abuse? Did I miss part of the article? My takeaway from the article was that the low-income, first-generation aid and assistance were for the stereotypical immigrant family who worked hard, didn't speak English so their kid could attend college. A classic white savior trope.
Seems like she maybe at worst embellished a part of the story. I assumed that college applications are like dating: you don't tell your date you're a CIA agent, but you agree that you like to work out too even though the last time you did was a short job 3 months ago.
posted by geoff. at 10:58 AM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Wait did she make up the abuse? Did I miss part of the article? My takeaway from the article was that the low-income, first-generation aid and assistance were for the stereotypical immigrant family who worked hard, didn't speak English so their kid could attend college. A classic white savior trope.
Seems like she maybe at worst embellished a part of the story. I assumed that college applications are like dating: you don't tell your date you're a CIA agent, but you agree that you like to work out too even though the last time you did was a short job 3 months ago.
posted by geoff. at 10:58 AM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Is it unpleasant to do fact-finding around matters such as these? Yes.
Maybe one of the most prestigious journalistic outlets in the world that is famous for their insanely detailed and rigorous fact checking should investigate this and see what they uncover.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:00 AM on March 30, 2022 [11 favorites]
Maybe one of the most prestigious journalistic outlets in the world that is famous for their insanely detailed and rigorous fact checking should investigate this and see what they uncover.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:00 AM on March 30, 2022 [11 favorites]
LRB weighs in for a differnet perspective:
"I wonder if I, too, am defrauding the university. My mother subsisted on benefits for several years in my teens, and after that on a salary well below Crankstart’s upper income threshold. We often couldn’t afford to heat our home. On the other hand, both of my parents went to Oxbridge. My father was a philosophy professor. I boarded at a specialist music school, funded by the government’s Music and Dance Scheme, then at a highly academic private school on a full bursary. Among other huge boons, these facts – educated middle-class parents, a financially secure early childhood, elite schooling – ensured I never felt I didn’t belong at Oxford."
posted by geoff. at 11:07 AM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
"I wonder if I, too, am defrauding the university. My mother subsisted on benefits for several years in my teens, and after that on a salary well below Crankstart’s upper income threshold. We often couldn’t afford to heat our home. On the other hand, both of my parents went to Oxbridge. My father was a philosophy professor. I boarded at a specialist music school, funded by the government’s Music and Dance Scheme, then at a highly academic private school on a full bursary. Among other huge boons, these facts – educated middle-class parents, a financially secure early childhood, elite schooling – ensured I never felt I didn’t belong at Oxford."
posted by geoff. at 11:07 AM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
If it's the former, there's no real effort in the piece to sift through the claims. It focuses on Mackenzie's experience
Since the charges have to do with Mackenzie's experience, what, specifically, do you think she lied about, in any material way? What is the evidence to corroborate that? It seems to me that the New Yorker story sets out strong evidence that she was quite badly abused by both mother and mother's boyfriend, that she had to go into foster care in her teens, that she had no familial support in college because her mother turned on her viciously, a vendetta she was continuing years later.
As I pointed out last time, the idea that someone capable of winning a Rhodes Scholarship would even need to embellish their application to get into an MSW program is a fucking joke.
posted by praemunire at 11:14 AM on March 30, 2022 [30 favorites]
Since the charges have to do with Mackenzie's experience, what, specifically, do you think she lied about, in any material way? What is the evidence to corroborate that? It seems to me that the New Yorker story sets out strong evidence that she was quite badly abused by both mother and mother's boyfriend, that she had to go into foster care in her teens, that she had no familial support in college because her mother turned on her viciously, a vendetta she was continuing years later.
As I pointed out last time, the idea that someone capable of winning a Rhodes Scholarship would even need to embellish their application to get into an MSW program is a fucking joke.
posted by praemunire at 11:14 AM on March 30, 2022 [30 favorites]
I believe, given their standards, everything in the New Yorker article is true. Which means that we know that Mackenzie's stepdad sexually abused her. This is not just heresay, this was documented by teachers, case workers, etc.
But here, on metafilter, in the year 2022, we're still questioning whether someone was *REALLY REALLY abused*???
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:16 AM on March 30, 2022 [61 favorites]
But here, on metafilter, in the year 2022, we're still questioning whether someone was *REALLY REALLY abused*???
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:16 AM on March 30, 2022 [61 favorites]
It's such an awful story.
I keep thinking about how much the treatment of Mackenzie reminds me of a moral panic. People are obsessed with the idea that people might take advantage of resources and opportunities that they don't "deserve," especially when those resources and opportunities exist to lift up marginalized people.
Sometimes there are legitimate concerns, but often, it seems like a backlash against the existence of those resources and opportunities in the first place. They have to be jealously guarded, doled out carefully, or else people will "take advantage." There's a reason the NY Post found the story so appealing.
I do also wonder how much of it is misogyny; it's so satisfying to see a spoiled girl knocked down, isn't it?
I KNEW it was fiction.
Are you saying Mackenzie's story is fiction? How are you determining that?
We had a kid at CPS that would paint on her own bruises to escape the mental abuse she was suffering.
Mackenzie's injuries were real. She was hospitalized.
If she wasn't severely abused, then she certainly went to extremes: she concocted an elaborate story of abuse over a period of years, including a fake journal and multiple instances of injuring herself badly - to the point of hospitalization. Multiple people involved with the investigation or who knew her at the time still believe that she was severely abused.
In all of the stories I've seen about this case, I've yet to see any clear evidence that would allow us that she faked it all and that the truth came out, rather than the alternate interpretation, that she was a child abuse victim failed by the system and who is being pilloried now because the tabloid version of her story is perfect outrage bait.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2022 [54 favorites]
I keep thinking about how much the treatment of Mackenzie reminds me of a moral panic. People are obsessed with the idea that people might take advantage of resources and opportunities that they don't "deserve," especially when those resources and opportunities exist to lift up marginalized people.
Sometimes there are legitimate concerns, but often, it seems like a backlash against the existence of those resources and opportunities in the first place. They have to be jealously guarded, doled out carefully, or else people will "take advantage." There's a reason the NY Post found the story so appealing.
I do also wonder how much of it is misogyny; it's so satisfying to see a spoiled girl knocked down, isn't it?
I KNEW it was fiction.
Are you saying Mackenzie's story is fiction? How are you determining that?
We had a kid at CPS that would paint on her own bruises to escape the mental abuse she was suffering.
Mackenzie's injuries were real. She was hospitalized.
If she wasn't severely abused, then she certainly went to extremes: she concocted an elaborate story of abuse over a period of years, including a fake journal and multiple instances of injuring herself badly - to the point of hospitalization. Multiple people involved with the investigation or who knew her at the time still believe that she was severely abused.
In all of the stories I've seen about this case, I've yet to see any clear evidence that would allow us that she faked it all and that the truth came out, rather than the alternate interpretation, that she was a child abuse victim failed by the system and who is being pilloried now because the tabloid version of her story is perfect outrage bait.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2022 [54 favorites]
And let's not forget about the whole retaliation aspect at play here, where Penn is clearly going after someone who blew the whistle on their unsafe facilities and testified against them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:20 AM on March 30, 2022 [39 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:20 AM on March 30, 2022 [39 favorites]
Multiple people involved with the investigation or who knew her at the time still believe that she was severely abused.
She must have also been so good at convincing everyone that she was abused, when she really wasn't, that she fooled dozens of adults, case workers, and the Stacey and Henry Jackson President’s Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania Anne Norton so much that Norton let mackenzie live with her in her house!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:21 AM on March 30, 2022 [11 favorites]
She must have also been so good at convincing everyone that she was abused, when she really wasn't, that she fooled dozens of adults, case workers, and the Stacey and Henry Jackson President’s Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania Anne Norton so much that Norton let mackenzie live with her in her house!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:21 AM on March 30, 2022 [11 favorites]
But I also think it matters if somebody lies to gain an advantage in a situation like this one. Is it unpleasant to do fact-finding around matters such as these? Yes. That's usually the case. But that doesn't mean it can or should be avoided.
Do you have have any evidence that she lied, beyond the words of her abuser and a university whose position is compromised by the fact that she served as a whistleblower against them in a wrongful death suit?
No?
Then why should we take the argument that she lied seriously?
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:29 AM on March 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
Do you have have any evidence that she lied, beyond the words of her abuser and a university whose position is compromised by the fact that she served as a whistleblower against them in a wrongful death suit?
No?
Then why should we take the argument that she lied seriously?
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:29 AM on March 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
In all of the stories I've seen about this case, I've yet to see any clear evidence that would allow us that she faked it all and that the truth came out
I went into the original article perfectly ready to believe that Fierceton was a fabulist; it's hardly implausible. But when I read about a claim of misconduct, I automatically look for the supporting evidence, and I found virtually none from the beginning. (Minor errors in detail in recounting traumatic events doesn't count, because we now know how completely common that is.) I have to say this seems pretty damned basic to me. I'm going to use this as a salutary reminder of how the narratives we carry around in our pockets to measure the world with can make us stupid.
posted by praemunire at 11:30 AM on March 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
I went into the original article perfectly ready to believe that Fierceton was a fabulist; it's hardly implausible. But when I read about a claim of misconduct, I automatically look for the supporting evidence, and I found virtually none from the beginning. (Minor errors in detail in recounting traumatic events doesn't count, because we now know how completely common that is.) I have to say this seems pretty damned basic to me. I'm going to use this as a salutary reminder of how the narratives we carry around in our pockets to measure the world with can make us stupid.
posted by praemunire at 11:30 AM on March 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
Or to be more blunt, if your argument is that she needs to be put through the ringer to test her veracity because kids lie, then you are working with a fundamentally unserious (and frankly harmful, given how that argument is used to dismiss the words of children being harmed) viewpoint that deserves nothing more than a trite dismissal.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:33 AM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:33 AM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
Minor errors in detail in recounting traumatic events doesn't count
I was struck by how she was interrogated for describing her feeding tube as tasting like metal when it was in fact plastic. Like what is important there is that she lied about the material of the feeding tube, not the fact that she had one at all.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:37 AM on March 30, 2022 [50 favorites]
I was struck by how she was interrogated for describing her feeding tube as tasting like metal when it was in fact plastic. Like what is important there is that she lied about the material of the feeding tube, not the fact that she had one at all.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:37 AM on March 30, 2022 [50 favorites]
In any situation, who has the power to enforce their will and reap the benefits? That's the entity to be skeptical of and that's where investigations should start.
Holy shit, this, yes. In any situation different people, and sometimes not the ones we typically expect to, can have power and abuse it.
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 11:51 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Holy shit, this, yes. In any situation different people, and sometimes not the ones we typically expect to, can have power and abuse it.
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 11:51 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how people can think she "lied". She filled out the forms according to the standards the scholarship itself lists (to my knowledge at least). While her claims were apparently not consistent with the spirit of what the those writing the requirements intended, how is she supposed to know that? She's not a mindreader. Situations like this are why I constantly second guess myself when filling out forms.
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
Clearly some folks I have to assume are as decent as you and I are
Query who is granted the assumption of decency in this case, and who doesn't get it.
I think it matters very much if she lied. I see no real evidence that that occurred, plenty of third party evidence that she was abused and then abandoned as she reported, and perfectly legitimate bases for a young person and a non-lawyer to conclude in good faith that she fit the categories she identified herself in. If one is sufficiently ignorant of the modern understanding of how trauma affects memory that metal vs. plastic suggests lying to one, one should probably refrain from commenting on this case. Please stay off juries, also.
posted by praemunire at 11:59 AM on March 30, 2022 [24 favorites]
Query who is granted the assumption of decency in this case, and who doesn't get it.
I think it matters very much if she lied. I see no real evidence that that occurred, plenty of third party evidence that she was abused and then abandoned as she reported, and perfectly legitimate bases for a young person and a non-lawyer to conclude in good faith that she fit the categories she identified herself in. If one is sufficiently ignorant of the modern understanding of how trauma affects memory that metal vs. plastic suggests lying to one, one should probably refrain from commenting on this case. Please stay off juries, also.
posted by praemunire at 11:59 AM on March 30, 2022 [24 favorites]
The discrepancies between her account and her medical records are pretty much entirely within the realm of what a traumatized, confused patient with no patient advocate might misremember. It's difficult enough to understand one's own medical history fully - how many people miss important facts because just being at the doctor can be stressful and confusing?
I was in the hospital for an extended period when I was thirteen. I had my parents there every day. The consulting neurologist was a neighbor and actually stopped in at our house when I had a relapse. My parents were intelligent, educated people. None the less, we missed a number of significant facts about my condition and treatment that I only deduced much later by reading research papers. If I had been alone? If I had hit my head? Yeah, I bet there'd be "discrepancies" between my memories and the medical record. But that's not the same as as making shit up.
I don't know, anyone would think that most of us are incredibly accurate, scrupulous truth-tellers and have been that way from birth. It seems pretty normal to simplify complex things without actually changing the broad flow of events when you're writing a short essay, to misremember a bit over time, to go to college alone and maybe tell a slightly more palatable and comprehensible version of your experiences when asked. Why does this seem suspicious to people? This seems exactly like what a teenager would do. Exactly like what anyone would do - who wants to figure in our friends' anecdotes as the battered baby, the orphan of the storm?
posted by Frowner at 12:03 PM on March 30, 2022 [42 favorites]
I was in the hospital for an extended period when I was thirteen. I had my parents there every day. The consulting neurologist was a neighbor and actually stopped in at our house when I had a relapse. My parents were intelligent, educated people. None the less, we missed a number of significant facts about my condition and treatment that I only deduced much later by reading research papers. If I had been alone? If I had hit my head? Yeah, I bet there'd be "discrepancies" between my memories and the medical record. But that's not the same as as making shit up.
I don't know, anyone would think that most of us are incredibly accurate, scrupulous truth-tellers and have been that way from birth. It seems pretty normal to simplify complex things without actually changing the broad flow of events when you're writing a short essay, to misremember a bit over time, to go to college alone and maybe tell a slightly more palatable and comprehensible version of your experiences when asked. Why does this seem suspicious to people? This seems exactly like what a teenager would do. Exactly like what anyone would do - who wants to figure in our friends' anecdotes as the battered baby, the orphan of the storm?
posted by Frowner at 12:03 PM on March 30, 2022 [42 favorites]
So what if she lied. First of all its highly unlikely. But even if she did, she used the what little leverage she had gained to bring light to an appalling situation, and if she hadn't, there wouldn't be this scrutiny on her right now. Are we saying she only got into this college because she had been abused, and if she wasn't really abused, then she didn't deserve to go to college? That's bizarre. College isn't a reward for being abused. It's the mechanism by which we pass culture to the next generation. Even if she was lying who does it help to knock her down. It helps no one. Plus the idea that she's lying is preposterous. She's just being punished for stepping out of line. For the second time in her young life. Civilization is failing this person left and right.
posted by bleep at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
posted by bleep at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
Also a lot of "allegations" simply aren't going to be provable because abusers don't abuse their victims in front of an audience. How do you "prove" that someone's mom pushed them down the stairs if serious injuries consistent with being pushed down the stairs plus a history of abuse-adjacent symptoms and behavior aren't enough?
I grant that this is tricky and does allow the opportunity for lies, but we know that self-consistent long-term lies about stuff like this are very rare, especially when backed up with self-consistent physical evidence like ongoing injury and multiple bruises in various stages of healing. "Her mother didn't confess to the abuse and there are no witnesses so she should be assumed to be lying and closely scrutinized" is not actually a good standard.
posted by Frowner at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
I grant that this is tricky and does allow the opportunity for lies, but we know that self-consistent long-term lies about stuff like this are very rare, especially when backed up with self-consistent physical evidence like ongoing injury and multiple bruises in various stages of healing. "Her mother didn't confess to the abuse and there are no witnesses so she should be assumed to be lying and closely scrutinized" is not actually a good standard.
posted by Frowner at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
Whether serious allegations are demonstrable and mesh with evidence does, in fact, matter.
I suspect that you think that you're just asking questions here like some kind of studiously neutral observer, but you're coming across as yet another defender of the status quo that says, over and over again, "Well, of course I believe victims, but this one just seems... off."
posted by Etrigan at 12:09 PM on March 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
I suspect that you think that you're just asking questions here like some kind of studiously neutral observer, but you're coming across as yet another defender of the status quo that says, over and over again, "Well, of course I believe victims, but this one just seems... off."
posted by Etrigan at 12:09 PM on March 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
The piece does not present in substance those alleged discrepancies cited by officials at Penn and elsewhere. So it's hard to make a fair assessment.
The officials at Penn are compromised and cannot be treated as neutral on the grounds of her being a whistleblower against them. As for 'elsewhere', the only other person who is contesting her story is her abuser, and I would hope that I don't need to explain why they can't be seen as trustworthy whatsoever.
It's a very simple position to take that all accusers are by default telling the truth. But it doesn't take into account the necessity to verify claims that could end up ruining lives all around or, in this case, unfairly deny opportunities and resources to the deserving.
What necessity is there? Beyond the questions of how her actions rise to that, there's the damage that this "need" to prove virtue does in so many ways, in so many parts of society. This whole assumption about the worst in people is destroying our society, and I for one reject it.
If you have proof that she lied that doesn't come from a compromised source, then you are welcome to present it. Otherwise, your position that she must be tested to prove her virtue to you serves only to enable her abusers, and thus deserves to be rejected with contempt.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:16 PM on March 30, 2022 [27 favorites]
The officials at Penn are compromised and cannot be treated as neutral on the grounds of her being a whistleblower against them. As for 'elsewhere', the only other person who is contesting her story is her abuser, and I would hope that I don't need to explain why they can't be seen as trustworthy whatsoever.
It's a very simple position to take that all accusers are by default telling the truth. But it doesn't take into account the necessity to verify claims that could end up ruining lives all around or, in this case, unfairly deny opportunities and resources to the deserving.
What necessity is there? Beyond the questions of how her actions rise to that, there's the damage that this "need" to prove virtue does in so many ways, in so many parts of society. This whole assumption about the worst in people is destroying our society, and I for one reject it.
If you have proof that she lied that doesn't come from a compromised source, then you are welcome to present it. Otherwise, your position that she must be tested to prove her virtue to you serves only to enable her abusers, and thus deserves to be rejected with contempt.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:16 PM on March 30, 2022 [27 favorites]
And one last comment: How does one get to the "Mackenzie might very well be lying" part without assuming that she is some misogynist stereotype of a selfish, spoiled, vindictive girl who told serious lies about her mother over some petty frustration? No one has suggested that Mackenzie has the type of mental health problems that result in consistent, substantial, realistic delusions that cause self-harm - like, if you're that ill, you don't just bop around being totally normal except when you're having wildly realistic hallucinations and throwing yourself down the stairs. So why did Mackenzie make all this shit up?
I think that our culture tells us that teenage girls (and women generally) are predisposed to be vindictive liars who do disproportionate harm over slights, who don't care about their parents' love, who are selfish when they set boundaries, leave home, choose their own majors, etc. Kids, so say a thousand AITA threads on reddit and I know because I read them, should remember that their parents don't owe them anything, if their parents pay then their parents decide, etc. "Girls are meaner than boys". "Girls don't get in fights but they hurt each other much worse than boys do". Etc etc etc.
What did Mackenzie gain by lying? No parent to help her with college. No parent as a backstop for loans. No advice, no place to go on break, no emergency support. And she was cunning enough to make up a self-consistent lie over years just to hurt her mother...for what? "If I pretend to be seriously abused, I will go to foster care and when I go to foster care I can write a really strong college application essay and get into a better school than if I were simply the brilliant daughter of a well-connected mother"?
This is what I mean when I say that we need to think about who has power.
posted by Frowner at 12:20 PM on March 30, 2022 [71 favorites]
I think that our culture tells us that teenage girls (and women generally) are predisposed to be vindictive liars who do disproportionate harm over slights, who don't care about their parents' love, who are selfish when they set boundaries, leave home, choose their own majors, etc. Kids, so say a thousand AITA threads on reddit and I know because I read them, should remember that their parents don't owe them anything, if their parents pay then their parents decide, etc. "Girls are meaner than boys". "Girls don't get in fights but they hurt each other much worse than boys do". Etc etc etc.
What did Mackenzie gain by lying? No parent to help her with college. No parent as a backstop for loans. No advice, no place to go on break, no emergency support. And she was cunning enough to make up a self-consistent lie over years just to hurt her mother...for what? "If I pretend to be seriously abused, I will go to foster care and when I go to foster care I can write a really strong college application essay and get into a better school than if I were simply the brilliant daughter of a well-connected mother"?
This is what I mean when I say that we need to think about who has power.
posted by Frowner at 12:20 PM on March 30, 2022 [71 favorites]
None the less, we missed a number of significant facts about my condition and treatment that I only deduced much later by reading research papers. If I had been alone? If I had hit my head? Yeah, I bet there'd be "discrepancies" between my memories and the medical record. But that's not the same as as making shit up.
I have a vivid memory of reading a pathology report in the hospital that indicated a certain important fact about what I was being treated for. I have never been able to find that path report since; a document I came across the other day that I thought might be it wasn't. I was in the midst of a multiday stay in the hospital. If I had had some reason to provide that detail to someone, I guess it might be discrepant with the medical record (?). But I 100% remember it.
posted by praemunire at 12:21 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
I have a vivid memory of reading a pathology report in the hospital that indicated a certain important fact about what I was being treated for. I have never been able to find that path report since; a document I came across the other day that I thought might be it wasn't. I was in the midst of a multiday stay in the hospital. If I had had some reason to provide that detail to someone, I guess it might be discrepant with the medical record (?). But I 100% remember it.
posted by praemunire at 12:21 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
The discrepancies, again, were sufficient to give pause to prosecutors and other institutions. I'd wait to see what they've seen before making any sort of confident judgement myself.
Given what we know of the prosecutorial profession in the US, this is an extremely ill-informed take.
(Short version: since professional promotion for prosecutors is based on being successful in court, prosecutors do not like to take on well heeled defendants, and will look for an out to protect their record.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
Given what we know of the prosecutorial profession in the US, this is an extremely ill-informed take.
(Short version: since professional promotion for prosecutors is based on being successful in court, prosecutors do not like to take on well heeled defendants, and will look for an out to protect their record.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
There are two massive red flags:
1) The mother's willingness to laugh off the fact that her boyfriend groped her daughter is outrageous. At the very least, if you really and truly believe that it was an accident, you don't just laugh it off. You take it seriously. You do whatever you need to do to make your daughter feel safe including dumping the guy and filing charges. You don't just take it as some form of bizarre compliment on how youthful you are. (Also, seriously, what person will mistake a high-school student for a middle-aged woman? How plausible is that, really?)
A child said she was assaulted and the mother did nothing.
That reaction alone, by itself, makes her mother's claims to truly want what's best for the daughter utterly suspect.
2) Let's say that the mother's claim that Fierceton is disturbed (and had been as a child) is an honest assessment. The mother actually believes this (and that Firecton is concocting the abuse stories). Why didn't the mother get her therapy? Why didn't the mother respond to the child's putatively self-inflicted bruises, etc, by getting her real, effective medical help? The woman worked as hospital executive, she couldn't possibly claim to not understand the need for intervention.
A child was hurting herself and the mother did nothing.
Either of these failures paints her as *at best* a neglectful parent. (And that's being super generous.) Taken together the paint a picture of someone who *at the very least* abetted assault and neglected serious mental health concerns.
And that's just from the claims the mother puts forward in her own defense!
How you can acknowledge that and not find Fierceton credible is beyond me.
posted by oddman at 12:32 PM on March 30, 2022 [56 favorites]
1) The mother's willingness to laugh off the fact that her boyfriend groped her daughter is outrageous. At the very least, if you really and truly believe that it was an accident, you don't just laugh it off. You take it seriously. You do whatever you need to do to make your daughter feel safe including dumping the guy and filing charges. You don't just take it as some form of bizarre compliment on how youthful you are. (Also, seriously, what person will mistake a high-school student for a middle-aged woman? How plausible is that, really?)
A child said she was assaulted and the mother did nothing.
That reaction alone, by itself, makes her mother's claims to truly want what's best for the daughter utterly suspect.
2) Let's say that the mother's claim that Fierceton is disturbed (and had been as a child) is an honest assessment. The mother actually believes this (and that Firecton is concocting the abuse stories). Why didn't the mother get her therapy? Why didn't the mother respond to the child's putatively self-inflicted bruises, etc, by getting her real, effective medical help? The woman worked as hospital executive, she couldn't possibly claim to not understand the need for intervention.
A child was hurting herself and the mother did nothing.
Either of these failures paints her as *at best* a neglectful parent. (And that's being super generous.) Taken together the paint a picture of someone who *at the very least* abetted assault and neglected serious mental health concerns.
And that's just from the claims the mother puts forward in her own defense!
How you can acknowledge that and not find Fierceton credible is beyond me.
posted by oddman at 12:32 PM on March 30, 2022 [56 favorites]
If you are investigating a claim, it makes sense to focus on the inconsistent details, because those details might lead you to an understanding that invalidates the broader claim. Here, the broader claim is that she suffered a trauma severe enough to put her in the hospitable, estranged her from her parent, and in fact spent the rest of her childhood in foster care. That claim is backed up by hospital records, state records, her own journal, testimony from people who knew her at the time, and testimony from people who know her now. The broader claim is unequivocally true. Focusing on inconsistent details will not change that.
Even if we assume malicious intent and lies in every respect, she was still in the hospital, still in foster care, which means she still technically qualified as FGLI as far as her university was concerned, though maybe not the Rhodes scholarship. I don't know why we would assume malicious intent, though, given that her claims are broadly true, and so many people have come forward to say she's not lying.
The salient point is that she had a tube down her throat, not whether she rembers it as metal or (j'accuse!!!) plastic.
posted by surlyben at 12:35 PM on March 30, 2022 [29 favorites]
Even if we assume malicious intent and lies in every respect, she was still in the hospital, still in foster care, which means she still technically qualified as FGLI as far as her university was concerned, though maybe not the Rhodes scholarship. I don't know why we would assume malicious intent, though, given that her claims are broadly true, and so many people have come forward to say she's not lying.
The salient point is that she had a tube down her throat, not whether she rembers it as metal or (j'accuse!!!) plastic.
posted by surlyben at 12:35 PM on March 30, 2022 [29 favorites]
I'd wait to see what they've seen before making any sort of confident judgement myself.
If you were on a jury hearing charges against the boyfriend/husband, this would be the only appropriate attitude.
In ordinary life, you are allowed to reach conclusions based on substantial evidence generally consistent with the way the world works. To refuse to reach them out of mere deference to institutions who might have other evidence they just haven't put forward (and who in this case have at least some motive to be hostile to the person involved)...well, let me guess. You work in education administration or defense-side, right?
posted by praemunire at 12:36 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
If you were on a jury hearing charges against the boyfriend/husband, this would be the only appropriate attitude.
In ordinary life, you are allowed to reach conclusions based on substantial evidence generally consistent with the way the world works. To refuse to reach them out of mere deference to institutions who might have other evidence they just haven't put forward (and who in this case have at least some motive to be hostile to the person involved)...well, let me guess. You work in education administration or defense-side, right?
posted by praemunire at 12:36 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
Medical records aren't always even accurate. Seriously. Why is our when we can have long drawn out discussions about bias, healthcare burnout, misdiagnosis/incorrect diagnosis, terrible bedside manner all of a sudden a kid who is being abused had a perfect medical history.
Medical records have incorrect information in them ALL THE TIME.
posted by AlexiaSky at 12:55 PM on March 30, 2022 [21 favorites]
Medical records have incorrect information in them ALL THE TIME.
posted by AlexiaSky at 12:55 PM on March 30, 2022 [21 favorites]
Penn is clearly going after someone who blew the whistle on their unsafe facilities and testified against them.
This is ugly and I haven't seen any arguments that it's not true.
posted by doctornemo at 12:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
This is ugly and I haven't seen any arguments that it's not true.
posted by doctornemo at 12:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
Medical records aren't always even accurate. Seriously.
I just looked at mine for other reasons. I've had migraine with aura since adolescence. I'm in there as having migraine without aura. I had a significant medical procedure (i.e., serious enough to miss a couple weeks of work) done twice. It's only in there once. And I've been in the same health care system (with a two year absence covering neither of these omissions) for fifteen years!
posted by praemunire at 1:05 PM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
I just looked at mine for other reasons. I've had migraine with aura since adolescence. I'm in there as having migraine without aura. I had a significant medical procedure (i.e., serious enough to miss a couple weeks of work) done twice. It's only in there once. And I've been in the same health care system (with a two year absence covering neither of these omissions) for fifteen years!
posted by praemunire at 1:05 PM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
Penn continues to take a beating for their unconscionable and vindictive treatment of this student, and I am delighted to see it.
I hope this haunts them for generations.
Anybody who has any doubts that the investigation was adversarial rather than disinterested (much less seeking the truth!) need only note that she was interrogated about reporting a metallic taste from a feeding tube that was in fact plastic, because anything that happens in your mouth that causes the slightest bleeding induces a metallic taste, and inserting a feeding tube is not a minor procedure.
posted by jamjam at 1:32 PM on March 30, 2022 [38 favorites]
I hope this haunts them for generations.
Anybody who has any doubts that the investigation was adversarial rather than disinterested (much less seeking the truth!) need only note that she was interrogated about reporting a metallic taste from a feeding tube that was in fact plastic, because anything that happens in your mouth that causes the slightest bleeding induces a metallic taste, and inserting a feeding tube is not a minor procedure.
posted by jamjam at 1:32 PM on March 30, 2022 [38 favorites]
The thing about not believing her story, is that from this article and the earlier ones I’ve read, it’s entirely unclear to me what specific falsehoods she’s being accused of, other than picayune details of the specifics (rather than the fundamental facts) of her being hospitalized after being abused by her mother. It seems clear that she was hospitalized with significant, objective injuries, and placed in foster care on the basis of a finding that her mother was responsible. After that, what’s left to doubt that’s important?
posted by LizardBreath at 1:34 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
posted by LizardBreath at 1:34 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
I grew up with an abusive, manipulative mother. My parents divorced in my teens and I cut contact. She showed up at my work, and sent gifts. Even though my dad had full custody, we paid HER money.
Then in college there were points where it was so clear that they are ill equipped to handle even the most minor shift from a “standard” or “traditional” home life.
On financial forms online it asked for “mothers” financial information, job, income, address, etc. I didn’t know. And she was not, legally, in my life. I tried everything, enter “N/A’ or all zeros. Drop downs with no “other” options. The form rejected all of it.
I called financial aid, “hello, it’s asking for my mothers info. My parents are divorced. She lost custody. I am not in contact and she does not contribute financially to us. The form won’t let me move forward without her info. What do I do?”
After a confused sigh and being put on hold they responded, “um, I guess just mark her as ‘deceased’”.
They didn’t have a BASIC accommodation for a student with one parent. Surely I wasn’t the only one amongst thousands of students?
The school systems, like all systems of power and bias, are broken. It seems she answered these things to the best of her ability. And they seem to often fit within definitions provided. She didn’t seem to be purposefully trying to scam or lie, just get by without support.
posted by Crystalinne at 1:53 PM on March 30, 2022 [57 favorites]
Then in college there were points where it was so clear that they are ill equipped to handle even the most minor shift from a “standard” or “traditional” home life.
On financial forms online it asked for “mothers” financial information, job, income, address, etc. I didn’t know. And she was not, legally, in my life. I tried everything, enter “N/A’ or all zeros. Drop downs with no “other” options. The form rejected all of it.
I called financial aid, “hello, it’s asking for my mothers info. My parents are divorced. She lost custody. I am not in contact and she does not contribute financially to us. The form won’t let me move forward without her info. What do I do?”
After a confused sigh and being put on hold they responded, “um, I guess just mark her as ‘deceased’”.
They didn’t have a BASIC accommodation for a student with one parent. Surely I wasn’t the only one amongst thousands of students?
The school systems, like all systems of power and bias, are broken. It seems she answered these things to the best of her ability. And they seem to often fit within definitions provided. She didn’t seem to be purposefully trying to scam or lie, just get by without support.
posted by Crystalinne at 1:53 PM on March 30, 2022 [57 favorites]
It’s really hard for me to not read this as the Rhodes Scholarship people wanting to ensure that their precious money goes to Cinderella stories—and getting upset when they discover the recipients are real people. Their stated justification is that this is about (academic?) honesty. That sounds to me like a pretext for lashing out at someone who doesn’t fit their notions of an F.G.L.I. student. The salient facts (hospitalization, foster care, no parental money for college) are confirmed, so I don’t buy their “honesty” justification.
posted by Monochrome at 1:54 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by Monochrome at 1:54 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
The idea that she might not be poor enough or poor in the right way or abused enough or abused in the right way is pretty gross.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 1:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [33 favorites]
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 1:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [33 favorites]
I worked in graduate admissions for over 20 years and it was always very clear to me that college students applying to grad school are very much in the dark about all kinds of terms universities use every day (like "first generation") and even more, entirely unclear about what grad school was, even. I was always happy to explain everything I could but I can very much understand students misunderstanding or misinterpreting categories the university wanted them to use to self-identify.
We also made financial decisions based on self-reporting and never ever called students in to fact check or grill them about details of what they wrote. We had scholarships that required low income standing and those we could verify via FAFSA but if the funds also asked for "describing significant barriers to eduction" for example - we didn't call up their parents and family and ask if the student has *really* undergone whatever barriers they were describing. Are they really gay? Did their father really die young and leave the family destitute. Can we see medical records of your mom's trips to rehab? That's fucking gross.
We also accepted ethnicity as self-reported and didn't ask for DNA tests or whatever. The whole idea of picking apart every one of these kids' self-reported identities makes me so uncomfortable.
Mackenzie’s lawyers learned that the university was considering initiating a process in which Mackenzie’s bachelor’s degree could be revoked.
WTF. She did all the work in all the classes, right? That is fucked up. Whether or not she's technically first-generation should have no bearing on her years of undergraduate achievement, I am really so glad NOT to be working in higher ed anymore because it is a vastly unethical system.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 2:23 PM on March 30, 2022 [32 favorites]
We also made financial decisions based on self-reporting and never ever called students in to fact check or grill them about details of what they wrote. We had scholarships that required low income standing and those we could verify via FAFSA but if the funds also asked for "describing significant barriers to eduction" for example - we didn't call up their parents and family and ask if the student has *really* undergone whatever barriers they were describing. Are they really gay? Did their father really die young and leave the family destitute. Can we see medical records of your mom's trips to rehab? That's fucking gross.
We also accepted ethnicity as self-reported and didn't ask for DNA tests or whatever. The whole idea of picking apart every one of these kids' self-reported identities makes me so uncomfortable.
Mackenzie’s lawyers learned that the university was considering initiating a process in which Mackenzie’s bachelor’s degree could be revoked.
WTF. She did all the work in all the classes, right? That is fucked up. Whether or not she's technically first-generation should have no bearing on her years of undergraduate achievement, I am really so glad NOT to be working in higher ed anymore because it is a vastly unethical system.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 2:23 PM on March 30, 2022 [32 favorites]
I assume the university is playing hardball on things like her degree in order to give themselves leverage in litigation because of the outrageous nature of their conduct in their internal investigation and subsequent breach of her privacy in the disclosures they made and disruption of her Rhodes scholarship.
posted by interogative mood at 2:35 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 2:35 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
I assume the university is playing hardball on things like her degree in order to give themselves leverage in litigation because of the outrageous nature of their conduct in their internal investigation and subsequent breach of her privacy in the disclosures they made and disruption of her Rhodes scholarship.
They're playing hardball because she blew the whistle on the school.
Sure, but we're talking here about institutional adjudication of claims with stakes, not kicking something around on Twitter.
Then why do you keep ignoring that this is textbook retaliation? Penn cannot be trusted in their conduct here, given the fact that Fierceton openly testified about how unsafe their facilities were from her own experience in a wrongful death lawsuit against the university. The institution is compromised, and refuses to acknowledge this.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:48 PM on March 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
They're playing hardball because she blew the whistle on the school.
Sure, but we're talking here about institutional adjudication of claims with stakes, not kicking something around on Twitter.
Then why do you keep ignoring that this is textbook retaliation? Penn cannot be trusted in their conduct here, given the fact that Fierceton openly testified about how unsafe their facilities were from her own experience in a wrongful death lawsuit against the university. The institution is compromised, and refuses to acknowledge this.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:48 PM on March 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
Sure, but we're talking here about institutional adjudication of claims with stakes, not kicking something around on Twitter.
What are those stakes, and why are they so overwhelming that you feel you must give the university the benefit of the doubt based on absolutely nothing? Because you are pointing to nothing, just nothing of substance here, merely assuming that the university must know better (and that they are more trustworthy than the student is, based on...something, I guess). If your career choices have brought you to think this way, you need to rethink them. Why does the university get the benefit of the doubt, and this student, backed by substantial evidence, does not?
posted by praemunire at 2:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
What are those stakes, and why are they so overwhelming that you feel you must give the university the benefit of the doubt based on absolutely nothing? Because you are pointing to nothing, just nothing of substance here, merely assuming that the university must know better (and that they are more trustworthy than the student is, based on...something, I guess). If your career choices have brought you to think this way, you need to rethink them. Why does the university get the benefit of the doubt, and this student, backed by substantial evidence, does not?
posted by praemunire at 2:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
It’s really hard for me to not read this as the Rhodes Scholarship people wanting to ensure that their precious money goes to Cinderella stories
TBF, they don't much care about your Cinderella story. You're generally pretty well-connected to get a Rhodes in the first place. They just don't like scandal.
posted by praemunire at 2:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
TBF, they don't much care about your Cinderella story. You're generally pretty well-connected to get a Rhodes in the first place. They just don't like scandal.
posted by praemunire at 2:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
Why does the university get the benefit of the doubt, and this student, backed by substantial evidence, does not?
Especially in light of the fact that this student is a whistleblower against the university, and as such the university has been acting as if retaliating without performing any sort of procedure to show that their conduct is on the up and up?
They just don't like scandal.
Which is why the retaliation angle needs to be hammered, because how scandalous would "Rhodes Trust engages in retaliation against whistleblower" be, you think?
If I can't make you do the right thing because it's the right thing, I'll settle for you doing it because otherwise you'll look like a horrible organization.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:06 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Especially in light of the fact that this student is a whistleblower against the university, and as such the university has been acting as if retaliating without performing any sort of procedure to show that their conduct is on the up and up?
They just don't like scandal.
Which is why the retaliation angle needs to be hammered, because how scandalous would "Rhodes Trust engages in retaliation against whistleblower" be, you think?
If I can't make you do the right thing because it's the right thing, I'll settle for you doing it because otherwise you'll look like a horrible organization.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:06 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
They're playing hardball because she blew the whistle on the school.
Yes to clarify: My understanding is she blew the whistle, they engaged in probably illegal retaliation. Now the university is potentially on the hook for a huge legal settlement. Instead of seeking resolution and offering an apology they are digging in like when the police screw up and the prosecutor should drop all charges, but instead is pursuing the unjustified prosecution so that they can squeeze the victim not to sue in exchange for dropping the charges.
posted by interogative mood at 3:08 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Yes to clarify: My understanding is she blew the whistle, they engaged in probably illegal retaliation. Now the university is potentially on the hook for a huge legal settlement. Instead of seeking resolution and offering an apology they are digging in like when the police screw up and the prosecutor should drop all charges, but instead is pursuing the unjustified prosecution so that they can squeeze the victim not to sue in exchange for dropping the charges.
posted by interogative mood at 3:08 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
If we're going to do a deep dive investigation into everyone who says they're disadvantaged then a lot of actually disadvantaged students are going to be excluded too if because of the ways they've been disadvantaged they don't have God's perfect paper trail to speak up for them.
posted by bleep at 3:14 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
posted by bleep at 3:14 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
That's how need-based and (class-based) affirmative action policies work in practice.
tamarisk, are you professionally familiar with this topic? It would be quite helpful if you could share your “practical” background if you want your views to be taken with any weight.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
tamarisk, are you professionally familiar with this topic? It would be quite helpful if you could share your “practical” background if you want your views to be taken with any weight.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
That's how need-based and (class-based) affirmative action policies work in practice.
1) It does not, like, at all. This is either rank ignorance or a deliberate lie.
2) There was no affirmative action here.
3) There's no evidence, despite all the investigations, that Mackenzie lied.
Note: I know nearly everyone involved in this story and I'm gobsmacked some randos on the internet are out to get Mackenzie when nearly everyone I know, knows her story, knows how this admin treats people who get in their way, and knows what egregious wrongs have been done to her.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [38 favorites]
1) It does not, like, at all. This is either rank ignorance or a deliberate lie.
2) There was no affirmative action here.
3) There's no evidence, despite all the investigations, that Mackenzie lied.
Note: I know nearly everyone involved in this story and I'm gobsmacked some randos on the internet are out to get Mackenzie when nearly everyone I know, knows her story, knows how this admin treats people who get in their way, and knows what egregious wrongs have been done to her.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [38 favorites]
Let's set aside Penn for a second, because the Rhodes Trust came to the exact same conclusion about her honesty, and there's no allegation Rhodes had a grudge against MF.
Fruit of the poisoned tree. The only reason that the Trust opened the investigation is because of Penn, and as such are being used as a tool of the university's retaliation against Fierceton. You don't open an investigation at the behest of someone who wants to hurt someone else and then get to wash your hands of their behavior. Frankly, if I was in the Trust's position, I would be furious at Penn trying to use me as a catspaw, and would reinstate the scholarship on the grounds that the Trust will not be made a tool.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:47 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
Fruit of the poisoned tree. The only reason that the Trust opened the investigation is because of Penn, and as such are being used as a tool of the university's retaliation against Fierceton. You don't open an investigation at the behest of someone who wants to hurt someone else and then get to wash your hands of their behavior. Frankly, if I was in the Trust's position, I would be furious at Penn trying to use me as a catspaw, and would reinstate the scholarship on the grounds that the Trust will not be made a tool.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:47 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
The stakes are disadvantaged students missing out on opportunities because other students competing for same lied. That should be obvious.
It's not, because hounding Mackenzie won't give any opportunities "back" to anyone. And if that's the justification for your deferring endlessly to the institutions, here in 2022, your judgment is poor and/or professionally bought and paid for.
She affirmatively answered that she came from a low income family and was in the first generation to attend college in her MSW application. While the New Yorker article insinuates that she was just a victim of a coding error, she was asked the question quite straightforwardly on her MSW application. Four of her recommendation letter writers wrote she was raised in the foster care system. MF wrote "This was the day that I, once again, became a ward of the state" when she had never previously been a ward of the state. MF wrote "my identity as a low-income, first generation woman has given me an understanding of the unique barriers low-income females face in accessing higher education."
We've already discussed the interpretive issues around whether she was "first generation" or "low income." At worst, this is a good-faith error. This is not someone privileged making up fibs to sound better. This is someone struggling under genuine disadvantage whose story doesn't quite fit into any of the boxes and made what is retroactively being deemed a mistake. I have no doubt that, however many times she may have gone to the beach as a younger girl, she rapidly acquired an understanding of the unique barriers low-income women face in higher education. Have you ever known an emancipated student at an elite school? Because I have; it is tough.
"This was the day that I, once again, became a ward of the state" when she had never previously been a ward of the state.
Really? Come on.
posted by praemunire at 3:52 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
It's not, because hounding Mackenzie won't give any opportunities "back" to anyone. And if that's the justification for your deferring endlessly to the institutions, here in 2022, your judgment is poor and/or professionally bought and paid for.
She affirmatively answered that she came from a low income family and was in the first generation to attend college in her MSW application. While the New Yorker article insinuates that she was just a victim of a coding error, she was asked the question quite straightforwardly on her MSW application. Four of her recommendation letter writers wrote she was raised in the foster care system. MF wrote "This was the day that I, once again, became a ward of the state" when she had never previously been a ward of the state. MF wrote "my identity as a low-income, first generation woman has given me an understanding of the unique barriers low-income females face in accessing higher education."
We've already discussed the interpretive issues around whether she was "first generation" or "low income." At worst, this is a good-faith error. This is not someone privileged making up fibs to sound better. This is someone struggling under genuine disadvantage whose story doesn't quite fit into any of the boxes and made what is retroactively being deemed a mistake. I have no doubt that, however many times she may have gone to the beach as a younger girl, she rapidly acquired an understanding of the unique barriers low-income women face in higher education. Have you ever known an emancipated student at an elite school? Because I have; it is tough.
"This was the day that I, once again, became a ward of the state" when she had never previously been a ward of the state.
Really? Come on.
posted by praemunire at 3:52 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
i was not even physically abused as a kid and there are still giant fucking holes in my childhood memory. abuse literally fucks up your brain. if you're defending a fucking ivy league institution here i don't even have the words for how disgusting i find it. there are kids being abused right now who will bottle it up for years because they hear about this story.
posted by JimBennett at 3:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
posted by JimBennett at 3:59 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
"Let's set aside Penn for a second, because the Rhodes Trust came to the exact same conclusion about her honesty, and there's no allegation Rhodes had a grudge against MF."
Let's think this through a bit more.
The Rhodes Trust stewards of an upstanding, highly respected, well regarded, exemplar of all that is best in academic institutions receives a tip from UPenn an upstanding, highly respected, well regarded, exemplar of all that is best in academic institutions that a student may have pulled the wool over their eyes.
RT conducts an investigation and finds irregularities. It reached this conclusion via "a twenty-two-page letter written to the Rhodes Trust, in mid-December, by an anonymous sender who displayed a great deal of familiarity with Mackenzie’s childhood." Gosh! I wonder who sent that? Golly. Who could have done that? I'm sure they were entirely neutral in their presentation of her childhood! And then, while claiming that the abuse allegation were not in the scope of their investigation they offer an argument based in inconsistencies between her medical record and statements. So, the abuse does not matter but the results of the abuse do matter? Hmmm... I wonder why that would be?
RT was then faced with a choice it could side with it's prestigious peer-group institution or it could side with the student that had effectively no power. Of course if it sided with Fierceton it would be expected to explain what it thinks that UPenn got wrong.
Gosh, golly, all mighty I'm absolutely shocked. SHOCKED that RT chose to close ranks with UPenn.
Shocked! I say, shocked.
posted by oddman at 4:05 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
Let's think this through a bit more.
The Rhodes Trust stewards of an upstanding, highly respected, well regarded, exemplar of all that is best in academic institutions receives a tip from UPenn an upstanding, highly respected, well regarded, exemplar of all that is best in academic institutions that a student may have pulled the wool over their eyes.
RT conducts an investigation and finds irregularities. It reached this conclusion via "a twenty-two-page letter written to the Rhodes Trust, in mid-December, by an anonymous sender who displayed a great deal of familiarity with Mackenzie’s childhood." Gosh! I wonder who sent that? Golly. Who could have done that? I'm sure they were entirely neutral in their presentation of her childhood! And then, while claiming that the abuse allegation were not in the scope of their investigation they offer an argument based in inconsistencies between her medical record and statements. So, the abuse does not matter but the results of the abuse do matter? Hmmm... I wonder why that would be?
RT was then faced with a choice it could side with it's prestigious peer-group institution or it could side with the student that had effectively no power. Of course if it sided with Fierceton it would be expected to explain what it thinks that UPenn got wrong.
Gosh, golly, all mighty I'm absolutely shocked. SHOCKED that RT chose to close ranks with UPenn.
Shocked! I say, shocked.
posted by oddman at 4:05 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
I find it darkly amusing that we are discussing whether two entities named after millionaires -- one a century old, one coming up on thrice that -- were somehow unfairly hoodwinked by a teenager about precisely how bad her upbringing was, to the extent that she deserves to have her educational credentials revoked.
posted by Etrigan at 4:10 PM on March 30, 2022 [50 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 4:10 PM on March 30, 2022 [50 favorites]
"Answering that she was "once again" a ward of the state wasn't honest"
This is what the article states: In her applications to college and to social-work school, she had written that, in 2014, she had become a ward of the state “once again”—Mackenzie said that she was referring to her involvement in the family-court system as a child but acknowledged that the phrase was confusing.
She wasn't answering anything; she wrote that in her admissions essays. I dare you to find me an admissions essay to a competitive college that doesn't embellish details or use dramatic phrasing. She wrote that when she was 16 or 17 (and later when she was, gasp, an 18 or 19 year old college sophomore!) ! That's a foundation for suspending an MA that she earned? Come on. Even if she intentionally misstated her situation that punishment far far outstrips the supposed crime.
Additionally you fault her for contacting "a financial aid director to ask, under the pretense of asking for other students,"
This is what the article state: When concerns were initially raised about her first-generation status, Mackenzie had e-mailed the associate director of admissions and recruitment at Penn’s social-work school to ask how former foster youth should answer the question. “I personally believe the education level (or/and financial status) of the biological parents would be irrelevant,” the associate director responded.
In that long quote there is no clear statement that a "fomer foster youth" is supposed be another student. Clearly Fierceton is a former foster youth. The quote suggests that she stated it as a hypothetical instead of saying "I may have messed up" or something like that. So, maybe you could insist that it's a lie by omission. But, again, find me a person who hasn't gone to their boss and said "So, what would happen if X" knowing full well that they were not really asking a hypothetical because X was very much happening.
Here too, it seems to me that the crime, presenting a circumstance as a hypothetical, is so far below the threshold for having degrees revoked that it's terrifying that anyone would actually think that sentence fit the crime. And note, that the director agreed with her! So, literally the only thing that she could actually be accused of is stating a concern over a line she might have crossed (but didn't'! by the officer's own estimation) as a hypothetical.
If you really think that embellishing admissions essays and asking hypotheticals are grounds for revoking degrees, then I've got some shocking news for you about a stupendously large number of degree holding people that you know.
posted by oddman at 4:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [31 favorites]
This is what the article states: In her applications to college and to social-work school, she had written that, in 2014, she had become a ward of the state “once again”—Mackenzie said that she was referring to her involvement in the family-court system as a child but acknowledged that the phrase was confusing.
She wasn't answering anything; she wrote that in her admissions essays. I dare you to find me an admissions essay to a competitive college that doesn't embellish details or use dramatic phrasing. She wrote that when she was 16 or 17 (and later when she was, gasp, an 18 or 19 year old college sophomore!) ! That's a foundation for suspending an MA that she earned? Come on. Even if she intentionally misstated her situation that punishment far far outstrips the supposed crime.
Additionally you fault her for contacting "a financial aid director to ask, under the pretense of asking for other students,"
This is what the article state: When concerns were initially raised about her first-generation status, Mackenzie had e-mailed the associate director of admissions and recruitment at Penn’s social-work school to ask how former foster youth should answer the question. “I personally believe the education level (or/and financial status) of the biological parents would be irrelevant,” the associate director responded.
In that long quote there is no clear statement that a "fomer foster youth" is supposed be another student. Clearly Fierceton is a former foster youth. The quote suggests that she stated it as a hypothetical instead of saying "I may have messed up" or something like that. So, maybe you could insist that it's a lie by omission. But, again, find me a person who hasn't gone to their boss and said "So, what would happen if X" knowing full well that they were not really asking a hypothetical because X was very much happening.
Here too, it seems to me that the crime, presenting a circumstance as a hypothetical, is so far below the threshold for having degrees revoked that it's terrifying that anyone would actually think that sentence fit the crime. And note, that the director agreed with her! So, literally the only thing that she could actually be accused of is stating a concern over a line she might have crossed (but didn't'! by the officer's own estimation) as a hypothetical.
If you really think that embellishing admissions essays and asking hypotheticals are grounds for revoking degrees, then I've got some shocking news for you about a stupendously large number of degree holding people that you know.
posted by oddman at 4:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [31 favorites]
The whole thing is so baffling and infuriating. She graduated summa with no family support during a goddamn pandemic and Penn's utter ghoul of a general counsel even threatened to take that away?
Obviously the provost's office was embarrassed getting the mother's side, taking it at face value, and feeling like they got taken for a ride putting her up for the Rhodes, but the rest of it is just shockingly punitive. Unthinkable to act like this towards a student who, at worst, painted extremely real, extremely relevant, extremely recent trauma with a few colorful flourishes in an admissions application. Half the student body would be out the door if they did this to everyone.
And of course RT wasn't unbiased. Their reputation and Penn's are intertwined as higher ed gatekeepers, and Winkelstein's shoddy investigation and testimony from MF's abuser started them down this path.
Aside from the GC and Winkelstein* I see a huge amount of blame resting with the Penn press office and the Inquirer puff piece writers. They played up MF's disadvantaged background much more than she ever did; poverty porn plain and simple, and it's hard to imagine anyone taking much notice of whatever small discrepancies existed without it.
* I'm an alum, and I'm angry at myself for how shocked I was by the whole thing. Terribly naive and privileged in retrospect. One thing I wasn't shocked about was the article's depiction of Winkelstein, having had a couple classes with her. Lawful evil alignment, that one. Smirking about whatever lost sleep MF's lawsuit is causing her.
posted by supercres at 4:40 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
Obviously the provost's office was embarrassed getting the mother's side, taking it at face value, and feeling like they got taken for a ride putting her up for the Rhodes, but the rest of it is just shockingly punitive. Unthinkable to act like this towards a student who, at worst, painted extremely real, extremely relevant, extremely recent trauma with a few colorful flourishes in an admissions application. Half the student body would be out the door if they did this to everyone.
And of course RT wasn't unbiased. Their reputation and Penn's are intertwined as higher ed gatekeepers, and Winkelstein's shoddy investigation and testimony from MF's abuser started them down this path.
Aside from the GC and Winkelstein* I see a huge amount of blame resting with the Penn press office and the Inquirer puff piece writers. They played up MF's disadvantaged background much more than she ever did; poverty porn plain and simple, and it's hard to imagine anyone taking much notice of whatever small discrepancies existed without it.
* I'm an alum, and I'm angry at myself for how shocked I was by the whole thing. Terribly naive and privileged in retrospect. One thing I wasn't shocked about was the article's depiction of Winkelstein, having had a couple classes with her. Lawful evil alignment, that one. Smirking about whatever lost sleep MF's lawsuit is causing her.
posted by supercres at 4:40 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
It also wasn't honest when, after she was approached with concerns about her honesty, she emailed a financial aid director to ask, under the pretense of asking for other students, whether her understanding of the definition of "first generation" was correct.
It's dishonest to ask if your understanding of a rule is correct unless you admit you're asking on your own behalf? If anything, the fact that she sought confirmation of her understanding suggests that she had not previously intended to deceive--if she had, why would she bother?
Whew. Some institutionalized people in this thread, and I say that as someone who spent more than ten years of her life at Ivies and as a lawyer who spends a lot of time scrutinizing other people's narratives.
posted by praemunire at 4:41 PM on March 30, 2022 [22 favorites]
It's dishonest to ask if your understanding of a rule is correct unless you admit you're asking on your own behalf? If anything, the fact that she sought confirmation of her understanding suggests that she had not previously intended to deceive--if she had, why would she bother?
Whew. Some institutionalized people in this thread, and I say that as someone who spent more than ten years of her life at Ivies and as a lawyer who spends a lot of time scrutinizing other people's narratives.
posted by praemunire at 4:41 PM on March 30, 2022 [22 favorites]
Dear lord, please never let me hire a lawyer who says you’re guilty if you call the cops and ask a hypothetical.
posted by Etrigan at 5:04 PM on March 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 5:04 PM on March 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
All from the Big Trial website about lawsuit being filed by Mackenzie against Penn:
Lawsuit: 'Pillow Talk' Conspiracy Between Penn's News Officer & Philly Inquirer's Top Editor Targeted Grad Student For Smear Job
In 'Pillow Talk' Conspiracy, Penn's Stonewall Cracks
Penn Loses Round One In 'Pillow Talk' Conspiracy Case
The New Yorker Gives UPenn A Black Eye
posted by LostInUbe at 5:05 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
Lawsuit: 'Pillow Talk' Conspiracy Between Penn's News Officer & Philly Inquirer's Top Editor Targeted Grad Student For Smear Job
In 'Pillow Talk' Conspiracy, Penn's Stonewall Cracks
Penn Loses Round One In 'Pillow Talk' Conspiracy Case
The New Yorker Gives UPenn A Black Eye
posted by LostInUbe at 5:05 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Bit of derail that needed some cleaning up. Let's refrain from getting *into* it on these threads! Feel free to take it to Mefi Mail next time.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:05 PM on March 30, 2022
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:05 PM on March 30, 2022
One of the real problems with the NY piece is that it really doesn't address the allegations against her.
…
As a lawyer myself, I get rather suspicious when somebody plays the sympathy card heavily while dodging the substance of a dispute.
It’s a correcting-the-record and human interest article, following up on the previous NY Post semi-hit-piece in Fierceton. None of the details reported are new; this is not a news article, it’s analysis. It’s also not a witness deposition in a legal proceeding. You get suspicious at this, yet misrepresenting or ignoring the context is hunky dory? Or should we also be quite suspicious of your story? Are you connected in some way to the situation? Or is there some reason you feel a need to have an opinion on the matter? Are you really that certain that you would be able to fully explain and defend the misrepresentations and inconsistencies in your comments on this thread in detail against hostile questioning by a sharp-witted and well-trained cross examiner?
I of course am not actually implying or claiming anything. I don’t know, and thus have reserved judgement. I’m just trying to reach the truth of the matter in what your potential personal relationship to this story might be. As a human being with some modicum of basic empathy, I get rather suspicious when someone plays the devil’s advocate card heavily without providing any such details on their personal relationship to the matter in question and while studiously ignoring and flattening any context.
posted by eviemath at 5:06 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
…
As a lawyer myself, I get rather suspicious when somebody plays the sympathy card heavily while dodging the substance of a dispute.
It’s a correcting-the-record and human interest article, following up on the previous NY Post semi-hit-piece in Fierceton. None of the details reported are new; this is not a news article, it’s analysis. It’s also not a witness deposition in a legal proceeding. You get suspicious at this, yet misrepresenting or ignoring the context is hunky dory? Or should we also be quite suspicious of your story? Are you connected in some way to the situation? Or is there some reason you feel a need to have an opinion on the matter? Are you really that certain that you would be able to fully explain and defend the misrepresentations and inconsistencies in your comments on this thread in detail against hostile questioning by a sharp-witted and well-trained cross examiner?
I of course am not actually implying or claiming anything. I don’t know, and thus have reserved judgement. I’m just trying to reach the truth of the matter in what your potential personal relationship to this story might be. As a human being with some modicum of basic empathy, I get rather suspicious when someone plays the devil’s advocate card heavily without providing any such details on their personal relationship to the matter in question and while studiously ignoring and flattening any context.
posted by eviemath at 5:06 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
She did grow up poor and in foster care, unless the assertion is that 15 year olds are already grown up. It may be surprising to learn that poor/foster care and growing up with a middle class family aren't mutually exclusive things. It's not even that uncommon if the people I know who were in foster care are any indication.
posted by surlyben at 5:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [21 favorites]
posted by surlyben at 5:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [21 favorites]
Penn’s claim that she deliberately mischaracterized her background is suspect given that appears to be widely disputed by people who knew her while she studied there. It also doesn’t square with this interview she gave to Penn’s alumni magazine after receiving the Rhodes:
Fierceton notes that her experience in the foster system, while still difficult, was an exception to the rule. She went to a private high school, where the adults looked out for her, almost approximating a sense of family. Teachers showed up at soccer games and theater performances, while friends’ families invited her over for holidays and ensured she had clothes and “everything she needed” while she moved through the system.
“For foster youth, in particular, your success is determined by your social support and social capital,” she says. “I got where I am today because I don’t face the innumerable racial, educational, and sociopolitical marginalizations that the vast majority of foster youth experience. That’s why I was able to go to Penn, and why I have access to so many spaces.”
posted by ardita at 5:08 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
Fierceton notes that her experience in the foster system, while still difficult, was an exception to the rule. She went to a private high school, where the adults looked out for her, almost approximating a sense of family. Teachers showed up at soccer games and theater performances, while friends’ families invited her over for holidays and ensured she had clothes and “everything she needed” while she moved through the system.
“For foster youth, in particular, your success is determined by your social support and social capital,” she says. “I got where I am today because I don’t face the innumerable racial, educational, and sociopolitical marginalizations that the vast majority of foster youth experience. That’s why I was able to go to Penn, and why I have access to so many spaces.”
posted by ardita at 5:08 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
Factory123, I tracked down that passage you are referencing:
Mackenzie’s email does not disclose that concerns had been raised, and Mackenzie believes this contributed to the Rhodes Report describing her as “canny”; she states she felt that asking a general question would be more likely to get an unbiased response (id.). OSC understands that Mackenzie was reluctant to disclose the real reason these emails were sent. However, depending on the circumstances, when someone answers a question without understanding the full context in which the question is being posed, the evidentiary weight of the answer can be lessened considerably.8 OSC learned that having more information very likely would have changed how this exchange was handled, and that, in general, the expectation in SP2 admissions/financial aid is that a person similarly situated to Mackenzie (raised by a biological parent who graduated from college, and who had access to resources and socialization around American higher education as a result) would answer “NO” to the question.
Note how OSC "understands that Mackenzie was reluctant to disclose the real reason these emails were sent." So, the OSC itself admits that there is nothing inherently wrong with asking a question in a way that obscures personal details. But, in this case, had the director known all of the details she would have given Fierceton a different answer.
Literally none of that is damning unless you are already inclined to think that Fierceton was intentionally misleading for nefarious reasons (i.e. not to hide her personal details which OSC accepts as not nefarious). So, without question begging as to her guilt, that's an innocent (and unfortunate) omission by Fierceton. I don't believe that supports your thesis that the OSC and OT where acting in a totally neutral non-judgmental way.
AND even if your reading that she she intentionally fished for answers that suited her needs is right, do you really think that merits the punishments she received? Do you think her omissions and embellishments are unusual in some egregious way?
Side note: the OSC report does something which I can't stand. Notice that they use her first name, Mackenzie, while referring to every other adult by title and family name? That subtle infantilization serves to undermine Fierceton's credibility. It's a thing institutions do to make their agents Dr. Smith, Ms. Jones, AVP Gonzales, etc. seem authoritative and trustworthy while making the students seem less-than by comparison.
It's gross.
posted by oddman at 5:19 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
Mackenzie’s email does not disclose that concerns had been raised, and Mackenzie believes this contributed to the Rhodes Report describing her as “canny”; she states she felt that asking a general question would be more likely to get an unbiased response (id.). OSC understands that Mackenzie was reluctant to disclose the real reason these emails were sent. However, depending on the circumstances, when someone answers a question without understanding the full context in which the question is being posed, the evidentiary weight of the answer can be lessened considerably.8 OSC learned that having more information very likely would have changed how this exchange was handled, and that, in general, the expectation in SP2 admissions/financial aid is that a person similarly situated to Mackenzie (raised by a biological parent who graduated from college, and who had access to resources and socialization around American higher education as a result) would answer “NO” to the question.
Note how OSC "understands that Mackenzie was reluctant to disclose the real reason these emails were sent." So, the OSC itself admits that there is nothing inherently wrong with asking a question in a way that obscures personal details. But, in this case, had the director known all of the details she would have given Fierceton a different answer.
Literally none of that is damning unless you are already inclined to think that Fierceton was intentionally misleading for nefarious reasons (i.e. not to hide her personal details which OSC accepts as not nefarious). So, without question begging as to her guilt, that's an innocent (and unfortunate) omission by Fierceton. I don't believe that supports your thesis that the OSC and OT where acting in a totally neutral non-judgmental way.
AND even if your reading that she she intentionally fished for answers that suited her needs is right, do you really think that merits the punishments she received? Do you think her omissions and embellishments are unusual in some egregious way?
Side note: the OSC report does something which I can't stand. Notice that they use her first name, Mackenzie, while referring to every other adult by title and family name? That subtle infantilization serves to undermine Fierceton's credibility. It's a thing institutions do to make their agents Dr. Smith, Ms. Jones, AVP Gonzales, etc. seem authoritative and trustworthy while making the students seem less-than by comparison.
It's gross.
posted by oddman at 5:19 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
Ten months, okay, still technically correct, which is to say, correct.
posted by surlyben at 5:22 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by surlyben at 5:22 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Fierceton, according to this and previous reports, spent the majority of her last two years of high school (after her hospitalization “early in her junior year”), which included stints in three separate foster homes plus couch-surfing with multiple friends. Where is this “ten months at age seventeen” coming from? The article linked in this thread doesn’t mention her age or birthday, for example. Again, it raises the question factory123 of what, if anything, your personal connection to this story is? Why are you avoiding addressing this question if you are just a neutral commenter and all is above-board?
posted by eviemath at 5:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 5:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
Factory123 may be referring to this line on page 17 of the OSC report he linked to above: With two exceptions (outlined below), OSC does not find Mackenzie’s own statements in application materials to state or strongly imply that she spent time in foster care other than September 2014-August 2015. .
Factory123 has clearly read the OSC report pretty carefully.
It's interesting that in that section OSC clearly acknowledges that Fierceton does not distort her status in any of her application materials. Their "two exceptions" are (1) from Fierceton's application to study abroad programs. (I can't imagine that her study abroad applications were part of her application to the Rhodes. So I don't see how that can possibly count as deceiving them.)
and (2) this wonderful bit of thinking "OSC has not been provided with clear evidence that Mackenzie was a “ward of the state” prior to September, 2014, i.e., that a legal process had placed her custody with someone other than her biological mother. . . . She and a supporting witness emphasized that obtaining years-old records related to child welfare bureaucracies can be very challenging (OSC Response, pgs. 14-15)."
So, you know, it's really hard to get that evidence that we insist that she has to have to prove her innocence. Therefore she must be guilty. That's some, shall we say, highly motivated reasoning, right there.
The more I read that report, the more it seems to be an fine example of an institution that is determined to justify the punishment it wants to impose.
posted by oddman at 5:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
Factory123 has clearly read the OSC report pretty carefully.
It's interesting that in that section OSC clearly acknowledges that Fierceton does not distort her status in any of her application materials. Their "two exceptions" are (1) from Fierceton's application to study abroad programs. (I can't imagine that her study abroad applications were part of her application to the Rhodes. So I don't see how that can possibly count as deceiving them.)
and (2) this wonderful bit of thinking "OSC has not been provided with clear evidence that Mackenzie was a “ward of the state” prior to September, 2014, i.e., that a legal process had placed her custody with someone other than her biological mother. . . . She and a supporting witness emphasized that obtaining years-old records related to child welfare bureaucracies can be very challenging (OSC Response, pgs. 14-15)."
So, you know, it's really hard to get that evidence that we insist that she has to have to prove her innocence. Therefore she must be guilty. That's some, shall we say, highly motivated reasoning, right there.
The more I read that report, the more it seems to be an fine example of an institution that is determined to justify the punishment it wants to impose.
posted by oddman at 5:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
Two years is a lot when you are seventeen. I mean, do you remember high school? Two years is forever! The most recent two years loom extremely large, partly because the first four/five/six years of your life aren't really full memories, so two years at seventeen feels like about 20% of your whole life.
A couple of years of foster care following on escalating abuse - the whole thing was probably her whole high school experience. This is a kid who seemed to be afraid that her mother was going to kill her with a gun. Can you even imagine feeling like your parent with whom you are forced to live really, actually might murder you?
~~
On another note, I wonder how my college admission essay would hold up, truth-wise. I remember that I changed a few details to obscure people's identities, but would that look innocent if people thought I was a liar? I am pretty sure I engaged in a bit of hyperbole and I'm even more sure that my take on "I worked a crummy job for a summer and my older working class coworker had a breakdown over a pregnancy scare and now I am very shocked by class injustice", while sincere, was rooted in a near total unfamiliarity with how adults deal with life. A critic could probably claim that my essay was full of small lies, and if it was full of small lies, how did they know that the pregnancy scare, the class injustice stuff or even the job actually happened as I described them? If I was willing to fib a bit about my coworkers at Arby's, maybe I made the whole thing up.
~~
Also, I bet this girl is a stubborn, inward-turning, rule-reading person - that's how she sounds, and that's exactly the kind of person who would think carefully about the letter of the rules, stick to her guns about her assertions and just seem weird and suspicious to the uncharitably minded.
posted by Frowner at 5:40 PM on March 30, 2022 [17 favorites]
A couple of years of foster care following on escalating abuse - the whole thing was probably her whole high school experience. This is a kid who seemed to be afraid that her mother was going to kill her with a gun. Can you even imagine feeling like your parent with whom you are forced to live really, actually might murder you?
~~
On another note, I wonder how my college admission essay would hold up, truth-wise. I remember that I changed a few details to obscure people's identities, but would that look innocent if people thought I was a liar? I am pretty sure I engaged in a bit of hyperbole and I'm even more sure that my take on "I worked a crummy job for a summer and my older working class coworker had a breakdown over a pregnancy scare and now I am very shocked by class injustice", while sincere, was rooted in a near total unfamiliarity with how adults deal with life. A critic could probably claim that my essay was full of small lies, and if it was full of small lies, how did they know that the pregnancy scare, the class injustice stuff or even the job actually happened as I described them? If I was willing to fib a bit about my coworkers at Arby's, maybe I made the whole thing up.
~~
Also, I bet this girl is a stubborn, inward-turning, rule-reading person - that's how she sounds, and that's exactly the kind of person who would think carefully about the letter of the rules, stick to her guns about her assertions and just seem weird and suspicious to the uncharitably minded.
posted by Frowner at 5:40 PM on March 30, 2022 [17 favorites]
Oh. My bad. I was also referring to the Rhodes report. It quotes the OSC and I may have gotten attributions crossed.
However, I believe my analysis is accurate. Please correct me if I erred.
posted by oddman at 5:47 PM on March 30, 2022
However, I believe my analysis is accurate. Please correct me if I erred.
posted by oddman at 5:47 PM on March 30, 2022
Relevantly, the administrators at Penn and Rhodes seem to be rather uninformed about issues around domestic violence, stalking, and stalking and abuse by proxy.
Abuse by proxy
Proxy stalking (very briefly), from the Twitter feed of the Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center
posted by eviemath at 5:49 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
Abuse by proxy
Proxy stalking (very briefly), from the Twitter feed of the Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center
posted by eviemath at 5:49 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
"She wasn't answering anything; she wrote that in her admissions essays. I dare you to find me an admissions essay to a competitive college that doesn't embellish details or use dramatic phrasing."
Yeah, honestly, the most irritating part of this to me is Penn's total (pretend) shock that a student might have embellished an admissions essay. Wait until they hear how many of their students are paying $1000 bucks to have someone else write it for them! Writing it yourself and having it "polished up" by (alleged) experts on admissions runs $500. If Penn is this concerned about truthfulness in admissions essays, I look forward to them auditing the essays of every admitted student, and withholding their degrees when they find exaggerations or misstatements (let alone outright fabrications).
I also am amused by people suggesting she "correct" Penn's PR department's presentation of her. Everybody knows how this works. It's a college PR department, of course they're engaging in puffery about their students. That is literally their job, it is routine, everyday behavior that everyone with even a passing acquaintance with top-tier colleges is familiar with. Anyone who went to one has a friend who was puffed up beyond recognition in a college PR publication. It's just what they do!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:52 PM on March 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
Yeah, honestly, the most irritating part of this to me is Penn's total (pretend) shock that a student might have embellished an admissions essay. Wait until they hear how many of their students are paying $1000 bucks to have someone else write it for them! Writing it yourself and having it "polished up" by (alleged) experts on admissions runs $500. If Penn is this concerned about truthfulness in admissions essays, I look forward to them auditing the essays of every admitted student, and withholding their degrees when they find exaggerations or misstatements (let alone outright fabrications).
I also am amused by people suggesting she "correct" Penn's PR department's presentation of her. Everybody knows how this works. It's a college PR department, of course they're engaging in puffery about their students. That is literally their job, it is routine, everyday behavior that everyone with even a passing acquaintance with top-tier colleges is familiar with. Anyone who went to one has a friend who was puffed up beyond recognition in a college PR publication. It's just what they do!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:52 PM on March 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
I’m certainly not accusing you of anything one way or the other, factory123. I just see a real life person being hounded out of her school and career path by random internet stranger pile-ons. I don’t care for that, and it got me curious about the motivations of those doing the piling-on. I’m sure you understand. But to continue the line of questioning, is there some reason you see another Metafilter commenter as a real human worthy of such sympathy, and not the subject of a news article? Have you considered said commenters’ Metafilter posting history fully, for example, to ensure that they are fully deserving of your defence? Should you not be picking that apart to the same level of detail as we are dissecting Fierceton’s statements, before throwing your support behind them?
posted by eviemath at 5:56 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 5:56 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
And what of the accounts by numerous Penn faculty that the administrators there did not properly follow their own student disciplinary proceedings?
posted by eviemath at 5:57 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 5:57 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
I scanned this thread, saw a user getting dogpiled for having the very reasonable position that you should look at the evidence in the case and take that into consideration when making a judgment
I'm sorry, but what's reasonable about arguing that the important question is whether or not a victim of abuse may have pumped up her admissions essay, and not the massive gaping issue of the University of Pennsylvania engaging in retaliation against a whistleblower?
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
I'm sorry, but what's reasonable about arguing that the important question is whether or not a victim of abuse may have pumped up her admissions essay, and not the massive gaping issue of the University of Pennsylvania engaging in retaliation against a whistleblower?
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
More to the point, though, where exactly did this notion that she grew up a poor foster child come from?
Easily, from the Inquirer reporter looking at her association wit a low income group at Penn and drawing conclusions. I wouldn't read too much into it. I have a somewhat famous friend of 20+ years and have seen articles written about him that make innocuous but patently wrong details about his life that I can verify because ... I was there. That amounts to just puff pieces so it doesn't matter, but I would take things from less than reputable papers with a grain of salt unless it purports to be a quote.
posted by geoff. at 6:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Easily, from the Inquirer reporter looking at her association wit a low income group at Penn and drawing conclusions. I wouldn't read too much into it. I have a somewhat famous friend of 20+ years and have seen articles written about him that make innocuous but patently wrong details about his life that I can verify because ... I was there. That amounts to just puff pieces so it doesn't matter, but I would take things from less than reputable papers with a grain of salt unless it purports to be a quote.
posted by geoff. at 6:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Oddman, wrt to the ward of the state thing, she wrote that she was a ward of the state "once again" - she had never been a ward of the state previously, so this is a pretty clear bright line lie
It’s not a “bright line lie” for anyone who has been involved with the family court system. When asked about the claim, she explained that she was referring to being appointed a guardian ad litem during her parents’ divorce proceedings. Guess what the legal term is for a child who has been assigned a guardian ad litem? “Ward.”
posted by ardita at 6:40 PM on March 30, 2022 [32 favorites]
It’s not a “bright line lie” for anyone who has been involved with the family court system. When asked about the claim, she explained that she was referring to being appointed a guardian ad litem during her parents’ divorce proceedings. Guess what the legal term is for a child who has been assigned a guardian ad litem? “Ward.”
posted by ardita at 6:40 PM on March 30, 2022 [32 favorites]
Why is it implausible? As a child, she almost certainly heard the term used to describe her many, many times.
posted by ardita at 6:57 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by ardita at 6:57 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
From the New Yorker article:
She had become estranged from her father, a former soap-opera actor, against whom her mother had filed an order of protection, alleging that he posed a physical threat to Mackenzie; a guardian ad litem had been appointed to protect Mackenzie’s interests during the custody proceedings, which were prolonged and bitter.posted by metaplectic at 6:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Glossing the difference between Ward of the Court and Wars of the State is not a lie. She did have blood in her hair. The feeding tube did taste metallic. Her ribs were badly bruised. These are all facts substantiated in the article by witness. She did not lie.
posted by metaplectic at 7:11 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by metaplectic at 7:11 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
institutional bodies that have had their doubts in this case are part of a grand conspiracy rooted in some unexplained hatred of this particular person or some strange affinity for abusers
Tamarisk, I don’t know if you read the New Yorker article all the way through, but FYI - I don’t think anyone is saying that the reason Penn is going to these extreme lengths to discredit Fierceton are a mystery or unexplained.
Fierceton’s claim (which I personally find credible) is that it’s retaliation for her participation in a wrongful death lawsuit against the university by another student’s widow.
posted by ardita at 7:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
Tamarisk, I don’t know if you read the New Yorker article all the way through, but FYI - I don’t think anyone is saying that the reason Penn is going to these extreme lengths to discredit Fierceton are a mystery or unexplained.
Fierceton’s claim (which I personally find credible) is that it’s retaliation for her participation in a wrongful death lawsuit against the university by another student’s widow.
posted by ardita at 7:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
I don’t understand the people who’ve decided to dig in and defend the conduct of the University here. I don’t find a lot of merit in the argument that her statements rose to the level of a lie and that those statements justify any of the punishment she received. I hope that the few people digging in to defend the University will take a moment to reconsider their position and contemplate why many on this thread disagree with them.
posted by interogative mood at 7:36 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 7:36 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Abuse allegations ought to be taken deadly seriously. But
Yep. This is always what it comes down to.
But
posted by Etrigan at 7:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
Yep. This is always what it comes down to.
But
posted by Etrigan at 7:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
I scanned this thread, saw a user getting dogpiled for having the very reasonable position that you should look at the evidence in the case and take that into consideration when making a judgment
The position taken was while there wasn't any evidence the user could point to, nor any particular rebuttal to the information presented by the article, there were decent people at the university who thought she'd lied and that must mean something. That is not weighing evidence; the user put forth none. That is forfeiting one's judgment to a pair of powerful institutions. I'm sorry, in 2022 that's just shameful.
posted by praemunire at 7:39 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
The position taken was while there wasn't any evidence the user could point to, nor any particular rebuttal to the information presented by the article, there were decent people at the university who thought she'd lied and that must mean something. That is not weighing evidence; the user put forth none. That is forfeiting one's judgment to a pair of powerful institutions. I'm sorry, in 2022 that's just shameful.
posted by praemunire at 7:39 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
I guess I see this differently.
I’m assuming that the decision on whether to admit students or give them a Rhodes isn’t made on how many bones are broken or how many times you were in foster care or whatever. But if you are, then I think you need a fact checking mechanism that is applied to all candidates up front.
Because that’s not an equity issue - it’s not ensuring that spaces go to historically marginalized individuals. It’s not that she wasn’t in foster care or was hiding financial assets or lying about her race. (Even if she chose to be estranged, she was. Her mother wasn’t filling her bank account.)
It’s saying you have to be The Very Worst Case. And if that counts like a transcript then you should not be demanding transcripts of some people but not others. Have the other 24 Rhodes recipients had to put their essay claims up to this level of scrutiny? If they say they “shattered” their wrist at 14 playing basketball do they send X-rays?
Like to me, this conversation is whack. If your goal is inclusion, then you included someone who clearly needed help. If your goal was to pick the poorest student when they were 10 then get their family’s financial statements from that year. If first gen is a critical piece of information then it can’t be randomly assigned because there are blank spots on your form.
Humans are inaccurate all the time. If we accept that a child, ostracized at her high school for a public abuse scandal and entered into foster care in high school, applying to Penn with the help of a program for at-risk youth, was capable of deliberately deceiving the institution by choosing the exact. Right. Lies, and then had a bone infection and seizures during her undergrad and talked her way into a Masters and then again managed to produce the exact shades of obfuscation to place herself onto the Rhodes list - I mean really, while doing that quality of academic and service work and gathering references and everything— and these huge, well-funded, decades and centuries old institutions were somehow naively deceived…that is a massive indictment of their systems. Not of her.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:45 PM on March 30, 2022 [43 favorites]
I’m assuming that the decision on whether to admit students or give them a Rhodes isn’t made on how many bones are broken or how many times you were in foster care or whatever. But if you are, then I think you need a fact checking mechanism that is applied to all candidates up front.
Because that’s not an equity issue - it’s not ensuring that spaces go to historically marginalized individuals. It’s not that she wasn’t in foster care or was hiding financial assets or lying about her race. (Even if she chose to be estranged, she was. Her mother wasn’t filling her bank account.)
It’s saying you have to be The Very Worst Case. And if that counts like a transcript then you should not be demanding transcripts of some people but not others. Have the other 24 Rhodes recipients had to put their essay claims up to this level of scrutiny? If they say they “shattered” their wrist at 14 playing basketball do they send X-rays?
Like to me, this conversation is whack. If your goal is inclusion, then you included someone who clearly needed help. If your goal was to pick the poorest student when they were 10 then get their family’s financial statements from that year. If first gen is a critical piece of information then it can’t be randomly assigned because there are blank spots on your form.
Humans are inaccurate all the time. If we accept that a child, ostracized at her high school for a public abuse scandal and entered into foster care in high school, applying to Penn with the help of a program for at-risk youth, was capable of deliberately deceiving the institution by choosing the exact. Right. Lies, and then had a bone infection and seizures during her undergrad and talked her way into a Masters and then again managed to produce the exact shades of obfuscation to place herself onto the Rhodes list - I mean really, while doing that quality of academic and service work and gathering references and everything— and these huge, well-funded, decades and centuries old institutions were somehow naively deceived…that is a massive indictment of their systems. Not of her.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:45 PM on March 30, 2022 [43 favorites]
Yep. This is always what it comes down to.
But
If you were engaging in good faith, you'd note what comes after the "but".
Believe me, I was doing you a favor by not reproducing the bog-standard nonsense about how this particular assertion is magically different from all the other ones that you claim you take "deadly seriously", nor the supremely disingenuous claim that your true fear is that her crimes were so horrible as to make all other victims suffer from disbelief.
It's sad that you're coming so hard to the defense of institutions that do not give a tinker's dam about you. It's ridiculous that you're doing it with such utterly unoriginal talking points and think you're some kind of arbiter of truth and justice and what's really important. But it's purely offensive that you think this person shares the blame the next time an abuser walks free.
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
But
If you were engaging in good faith, you'd note what comes after the "but".
Believe me, I was doing you a favor by not reproducing the bog-standard nonsense about how this particular assertion is magically different from all the other ones that you claim you take "deadly seriously", nor the supremely disingenuous claim that your true fear is that her crimes were so horrible as to make all other victims suffer from disbelief.
It's sad that you're coming so hard to the defense of institutions that do not give a tinker's dam about you. It's ridiculous that you're doing it with such utterly unoriginal talking points and think you're some kind of arbiter of truth and justice and what's really important. But it's purely offensive that you think this person shares the blame the next time an abuser walks free.
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
Exactly what evidence are you offering to vindicate claims of malfeasance on the part of prosecutors, review panels, etc.?
The testimony of the social workers, teachers, and doctors who strongly believe that Fierceton was abused; and the testimony of the majority of faculty at Penn who have knowledge of the university’s proceedings and say that they were highly, strongly unusual and didn’t follow Penn’s own student disciplinary process. For starters.
posted by eviemath at 7:49 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
The testimony of the social workers, teachers, and doctors who strongly believe that Fierceton was abused; and the testimony of the majority of faculty at Penn who have knowledge of the university’s proceedings and say that they were highly, strongly unusual and didn’t follow Penn’s own student disciplinary process. For starters.
posted by eviemath at 7:49 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
Mod note: Tamarisk and Etrigan, let’s please pause here in the discussion and take things to MeFi Mail. Thanks!
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 7:53 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 7:53 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
It can be both.
Or it could be a teen and then young adult telling their story as best they can.
And then an incredibly sick system being super weird.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:54 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Or it could be a teen and then young adult telling their story as best they can.
And then an incredibly sick system being super weird.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:54 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
As I've said before, I don't know what happened.
No, you’re just awfully certain that Fierceton lied, and did so in trulybsubstantive ways that really matter in the given contexts. And sure, in this Metafilter thread there is definitely more support for Fierceton, but overall on the internet your comments contribute to the general pile-on against Fierceton. And your comments imply that you think that the numerous professionals - including faculty at a top Ivy university, as well as doctors, social workers, and teachers where Fierceton went to high school - are, what, also lying? Just really dumb and blind? What, exactly, is the narrative that you think explains away the fact that the majority of people with some relevant professional expertise who have direct knowledge of this whole situation believe Fierceton?
posted by eviemath at 7:56 PM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
No, you’re just awfully certain that Fierceton lied, and did so in trulybsubstantive ways that really matter in the given contexts. And sure, in this Metafilter thread there is definitely more support for Fierceton, but overall on the internet your comments contribute to the general pile-on against Fierceton. And your comments imply that you think that the numerous professionals - including faculty at a top Ivy university, as well as doctors, social workers, and teachers where Fierceton went to high school - are, what, also lying? Just really dumb and blind? What, exactly, is the narrative that you think explains away the fact that the majority of people with some relevant professional expertise who have direct knowledge of this whole situation believe Fierceton?
posted by eviemath at 7:56 PM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
My senior year of HS was spent homeless/in foster care. My experiences that year stood out brighter in my conscious identify formation work as a young adult than the 16+ years of familial abuse/neglect. I wrote about the foster care/homelessness in my applications for independent status at school and etc.
A quarter of a century later, my middle-aged self has a far more nuanced view of my childhood and young adult experiences, and the complexity therein.
posted by bindr at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
A quarter of a century later, my middle-aged self has a far more nuanced view of my childhood and young adult experiences, and the complexity therein.
posted by bindr at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2022 [23 favorites]
And for folks who find it hard to believe that the Penn administrators might do such a thing, etc.: are you at all familiar with how poorly most universities, especially Ivy Leagues with reputations to protect, deal with harassment and discrimination cases through their internal disciplinary processes? This situation is a little extreme perhaps… but only a very little.
posted by eviemath at 8:01 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:01 PM on March 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
She never corrected any of the Penn publicity pieces, Rhodes publicity pieces, or the Philly Inquirer article which represented her as growing up poor and in foster care.
This is incorrect. The OSC report makes it clear that Fierceton did ask the Inquirer reporter to correct the story. It includes the message she sent to the reporter and notes that the professor she was living with attests that she was aware of the attempts at correction at the time.
posted by ardita at 8:02 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
This is incorrect. The OSC report makes it clear that Fierceton did ask the Inquirer reporter to correct the story. It includes the message she sent to the reporter and notes that the professor she was living with attests that she was aware of the attempts at correction at the time.
posted by ardita at 8:02 PM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
You know this how?
Via the RTFA method, applied to both this post and the previous one, wherein they are quoted as such. And also by the comment of our fellow Mefite who has said they have direct knowledge of the situation.
posted by eviemath at 8:02 PM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
Via the RTFA method, applied to both this post and the previous one, wherein they are quoted as such. And also by the comment of our fellow Mefite who has said they have direct knowledge of the situation.
posted by eviemath at 8:02 PM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
I find that implausible - what she wrote was that she was placed in foster care and was once again a ward of the state. She didn't write that she was once appointed a gal, and now was suddenly a "ward" again, but under a completely different use of the term.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you're having to engage in increasingly narrow hair-splitting to support your argument that she intentionally misrepresented her past. First, you narrowed in on her claiming to be a "ward of the state" during a period of her life when she wasn't. Then, when it was pointed out that she actually was a "ward," you assert that she definitely meant it in the inaccurate sense.
There's a total lack of consideration of the big picture - or of empathy for this young woman. It seems pretty clear that Mackenzie suffered severe physical and sexual abuse and ended up in foster care as a result. No one disputes that she entered univeristy with no family ties or resources. She correctly identified herself as a first-generation, low-income student by the standards of the programs she was applying to. Some people assumed that meant she was always low income, and the question is whether or not she encouraged them to think that.
Meanwhile, the university called her in for questioning, which went like this:
Like, okay?
We also know her feeding tube was plastic, not metal.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:03 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
I don't know if you've noticed, but you're having to engage in increasingly narrow hair-splitting to support your argument that she intentionally misrepresented her past. First, you narrowed in on her claiming to be a "ward of the state" during a period of her life when she wasn't. Then, when it was pointed out that she actually was a "ward," you assert that she definitely meant it in the inaccurate sense.
There's a total lack of consideration of the big picture - or of empathy for this young woman. It seems pretty clear that Mackenzie suffered severe physical and sexual abuse and ended up in foster care as a result. No one disputes that she entered univeristy with no family ties or resources. She correctly identified herself as a first-generation, low-income student by the standards of the programs she was applying to. Some people assumed that meant she was always low income, and the question is whether or not she encouraged them to think that.
Meanwhile, the university called her in for questioning, which went like this:
After the meeting, Walter Licht, the faculty director of the Civic Scholars program, said that the staff member—who didn’t want to use her name, because her job at Penn is not secure—called him distraught. “She said she had never been party to such an interrogation,” he said. “She said it felt like an attack on a student.” Licht was disturbed that the conversation appeared to have been provoked by “a mother possibly seeking vengeance.”And threatened to revoke her degree:
Mackenzie’s lawyers learned that the university was considering initiating a process in which Mackenzie’s bachelor’s degree could be revoked. The university offered her a deal: as Raffaele described it to Mackenzie in an e-mail, the university would “take no action against your undergraduate degree,” if she gave up the Rhodes, along with her Latin honors (she’d graduated summa cum laude).And accused her of making up the abuse:
The university’s pleading portrayed Mackenzie as a discredited person who cannily concocted a tale of abuse: as a child, she had “regular temper tantrums, beyond the normal range for an adolescent.” Then she had “claimed to fall ill” at school and presented a “fictitious account of abuse by her mother.” According to the pleading, her claims of abuse kept her family “muzzled,” leaving her “in control of her narrative.”And you're here arguing what exactly she intended when she wrote that she was "a ward of the state."
Like, okay?
We also know her feeding tube was plastic, not metal.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:03 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
You know if you're willing to fake your own physical abuse, have multiple hospital visits including a feeding tube, falsely claim sexual abuse by your mom's boyfriend, give up all trappings of upper-middle class life to live a year in the foster care system, change your last name, disown your remaining family, work several jobs during college... all for a Rhodes Scholarship and an MSW at an Ivy League school, I say okay you're pretty dedicated to this, you earned it.
posted by geoff. at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2022 [31 favorites]
posted by geoff. at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2022 [31 favorites]
Man, I have so many things to say about this, but imma keep it to the following:
I think there are two separate things that have been questioned by people in this thread—whether the abuse was real, and whether Fierceton misrepresented herself on applications—and that they shouldn't be conflated.
I'd be really happy to leave the former question behind. Lying on an application form does not negate the material facts that she landed in a hospital and ended up in foster care, and Penn's general counsel did not need to repeatedly question whether Fierceton was actually abused as a child in order to defend the institution. Frankly, it seems like a vicious thing to do, and it's worth noting that Rhodes handled the matter differently, declining to come to a conclusion on the matter.
Similarly, inaccuracies on Fierceton's applications do negate the fact that she was estranged from her family and did not have their support. So she really was a low-income student by federal student-aid standards (definition of independent and EFC formula here, for the brave), even if she did not have a low-income childhood. So answering "yes" to "Do you come from a family with an annual income below established low income thresholds?" is, for the purposes of financial aid, correct. Which both Penn and Rhodes should know.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:19 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
I think there are two separate things that have been questioned by people in this thread—whether the abuse was real, and whether Fierceton misrepresented herself on applications—and that they shouldn't be conflated.
I'd be really happy to leave the former question behind. Lying on an application form does not negate the material facts that she landed in a hospital and ended up in foster care, and Penn's general counsel did not need to repeatedly question whether Fierceton was actually abused as a child in order to defend the institution. Frankly, it seems like a vicious thing to do, and it's worth noting that Rhodes handled the matter differently, declining to come to a conclusion on the matter.
Similarly, inaccuracies on Fierceton's applications do negate the fact that she was estranged from her family and did not have their support. So she really was a low-income student by federal student-aid standards (definition of independent and EFC formula here, for the brave), even if she did not have a low-income childhood. So answering "yes" to "Do you come from a family with an annual income below established low income thresholds?" is, for the purposes of financial aid, correct. Which both Penn and Rhodes should know.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:19 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
"What evidence is there for this claim?" [That Penn has retaliated against her for whistleblowing]
That would be the lawsuit she filed against Penn claiming she was retaliated against for whistleblowing, the 80-page rebuttal that Penn filed seeking to have the case dismissed or removed to what is essentially arbitration, and the judgment of the judge in the case who has access to evidentiary documents that the parties filed who said, "No, there is enough evidence supporting her claim that she was being retaliated against that we are taking this to a jury trial."
I mean literally the state authority who's in charge of looking at the evidence and deciding whether there is enough evidence for a case to move forward looked at the evidence and decided that there was so much evidence that she was entitled to a jury trial.
Also, you don't typically file an 80-page motion to rebut a claim that you find meritless, or that you are positive you're going to come out on the right side of. If we're playing, making assumptions based on how people are posturing in public, that reeks of desperation to me on Penn's part.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [30 favorites]
That would be the lawsuit she filed against Penn claiming she was retaliated against for whistleblowing, the 80-page rebuttal that Penn filed seeking to have the case dismissed or removed to what is essentially arbitration, and the judgment of the judge in the case who has access to evidentiary documents that the parties filed who said, "No, there is enough evidence supporting her claim that she was being retaliated against that we are taking this to a jury trial."
I mean literally the state authority who's in charge of looking at the evidence and deciding whether there is enough evidence for a case to move forward looked at the evidence and decided that there was so much evidence that she was entitled to a jury trial.
Also, you don't typically file an 80-page motion to rebut a claim that you find meritless, or that you are positive you're going to come out on the right side of. If we're playing, making assumptions based on how people are posturing in public, that reeks of desperation to me on Penn's part.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [30 favorites]
My senior year of HS was spent homeless/in foster care...
(Ack. My phone ghost-sent the comment before I finished. (Really, I know better than to compose live on mobile w/a cracked screen.) Anyway!)
I wanted to take a moment to question the lens were applying to this girls life -- and the university. The experiences, views of privilege, questions of (absolute) truth to a persons lived experience, an institution that recognizes learning across the life-span (theoretically) and the short-hand sibboliths used in academia and life. The university is absolutely being petty and not sensitive to the age/demographics they're supposedly working with. But it's no surprise university is unfair. I get why this is being aired.
Yet ...the standards and detailed inspection (airing) of her lifes experiences (occuring as a minor) by institutions, readers, papers and etc just seems...cruel.
That might not be the word I'm looking for, because I don't mean "mean", but like a harshness and some sort of moral wrong (to me). But I also know the world is full of people who don't tolerate lying liars, and that the questions of privilege and intent are also very important and worth elevating. I just wish it wasn't in a debate over a young woman's interpretation of her own lived experience.
(Also, homeless and foster-care of my senior year, is a shorthand kind of lie, where nuance really defeats the point of what I was trying to communicate. Maybe comment fields are sorta like an application box instead of open ended essay)
posted by bindr at 8:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
(Ack. My phone ghost-sent the comment before I finished. (Really, I know better than to compose live on mobile w/a cracked screen.) Anyway!)
I wanted to take a moment to question the lens were applying to this girls life -- and the university. The experiences, views of privilege, questions of (absolute) truth to a persons lived experience, an institution that recognizes learning across the life-span (theoretically) and the short-hand sibboliths used in academia and life. The university is absolutely being petty and not sensitive to the age/demographics they're supposedly working with. But it's no surprise university is unfair. I get why this is being aired.
Yet ...the standards and detailed inspection (airing) of her lifes experiences (occuring as a minor) by institutions, readers, papers and etc just seems...cruel.
That might not be the word I'm looking for, because I don't mean "mean", but like a harshness and some sort of moral wrong (to me). But I also know the world is full of people who don't tolerate lying liars, and that the questions of privilege and intent are also very important and worth elevating. I just wish it wasn't in a debate over a young woman's interpretation of her own lived experience.
(Also, homeless and foster-care of my senior year, is a shorthand kind of lie, where nuance really defeats the point of what I was trying to communicate. Maybe comment fields are sorta like an application box instead of open ended essay)
posted by bindr at 8:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
inaccuracies on Fierceton's applications do negate
Uhh, that was supposed to say "do not negate." My bad!
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:36 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Uhh, that was supposed to say "do not negate." My bad!
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:36 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Apparently the New Yorker put 8 months (!) in fact checking and reporting this story, this wasn't a "file by midnight" NY Post story.
posted by geoff. at 8:42 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by geoff. at 8:42 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
..I like this alt title.
The new yorker gives U Penn a black eye
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:02 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
The new yorker gives U Penn a black eye
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:02 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Maybe the same place a lot of people get the impression that abuse only happens in working-class families, and therefore a well-off doctor and her dipshit trophy boyfriend couldn’t possibly be capable of hurting a child?
I’ve watched women put up with abusive partners precisely because it was so important to them not to identify with the proverbial Lifetime movie protagonist who wore rhinestone-studded jeans and lived in a trailer.
I also watched the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping unfold on local news, and I was surprised to see how many middle-class-and-up people insisted her family must have staged it to hide a pregnancy or some other scandal. Ultimately, everybody swore what (it turned out) was actually happening to her could only ever happen on the wrong side of the tracks.
Penn has gone out of their way to attack MF’s credibility, and I gotta say, I would have expected an Ivy to do a better job of that — but there you go. That’s my own class bias talking.
posted by armeowda at 9:23 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
I’ve watched women put up with abusive partners precisely because it was so important to them not to identify with the proverbial Lifetime movie protagonist who wore rhinestone-studded jeans and lived in a trailer.
I also watched the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping unfold on local news, and I was surprised to see how many middle-class-and-up people insisted her family must have staged it to hide a pregnancy or some other scandal. Ultimately, everybody swore what (it turned out) was actually happening to her could only ever happen on the wrong side of the tracks.
Penn has gone out of their way to attack MF’s credibility, and I gotta say, I would have expected an Ivy to do a better job of that — but there you go. That’s my own class bias talking.
posted by armeowda at 9:23 PM on March 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
The OSC report went to extremes, and as this article notes, seemingly all media buzz stemmed from the Inquirer which itself seemed to be non-bias and in bed with the university. Examples of the OSC straining to discredit MacKenzie: "This effort descended to such absurdities as questioning her serving as doula to one of her foster mothers. (Mackenzie furnished her doula certificate and a photo of her with her arms still wet with blood from the birth)."
posted by geoff. at 9:30 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by geoff. at 9:30 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
If you want a big picture take on the case against her, this is it - a whole lot of people MF interacted with seem to have thought that MF grew up poor and in foster care. Makes you wonder where they got that impression.
Does it? The people who are documented as making that assumption (reporters, high level uni administrators) all seem to be folks who had pretty limited interaction with her. Meanwhile, those who knew her well (including the very professors whose recommendation letters Penn is claiming as proof of her dishonesty!) say she was always forthright with them about her background and they were not deceived. She is also quoted directly when interviewed about her Rhodes scholarship in the Penn Gazette speaking about the privileges that differentiate her from most kids who end up in the foster system:
For foster youth, in particular, your success is determined by your social support and social capital,” she says. “I got where I am today because I don’t face the innumerable racial, educational, and sociopolitical marginalizations that the vast majority of foster youth experience. That’s why I was able to go to Penn, and why I have access to so many spaces.”
The Occam’s Razor conclusion would be that people who had cursory contact with Fierceton heard “foster care” and “low income” - both of which are indisputably true - and made their own leap to “grew up poor.”
posted by ardita at 9:32 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
Does it? The people who are documented as making that assumption (reporters, high level uni administrators) all seem to be folks who had pretty limited interaction with her. Meanwhile, those who knew her well (including the very professors whose recommendation letters Penn is claiming as proof of her dishonesty!) say she was always forthright with them about her background and they were not deceived. She is also quoted directly when interviewed about her Rhodes scholarship in the Penn Gazette speaking about the privileges that differentiate her from most kids who end up in the foster system:
For foster youth, in particular, your success is determined by your social support and social capital,” she says. “I got where I am today because I don’t face the innumerable racial, educational, and sociopolitical marginalizations that the vast majority of foster youth experience. That’s why I was able to go to Penn, and why I have access to so many spaces.”
The Occam’s Razor conclusion would be that people who had cursory contact with Fierceton heard “foster care” and “low income” - both of which are indisputably true - and made their own leap to “grew up poor.”
posted by ardita at 9:32 PM on March 30, 2022 [25 favorites]
relying on a technical FAFSA definition when answering a non-FAFSA question isn't reasonable
If you have to regularly and repeatedly answer that same question on college forms and the correct answer on those forms is "yes," I don't think it's at all a stretch that someone would put "yes" on this form, too.
Either way, it can both be true that Fierceton exaggerated certain elements of her background and that Penn has done shitty things and is now in full-on CYA mode.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:46 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
If you have to regularly and repeatedly answer that same question on college forms and the correct answer on those forms is "yes," I don't think it's at all a stretch that someone would put "yes" on this form, too.
Either way, it can both be true that Fierceton exaggerated certain elements of her background and that Penn has done shitty things and is now in full-on CYA mode.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:46 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
She never corrected any of the Penn publicity pieces, Rhodes publicity pieces, or the Philly Inquirer article which represented her as growing up poor and in foster care.
When I was a kid, the New York Post covered my grandparents' 50th wedding anniversary (there was actually a news hook - they were Holocaust survivors and there were family members there who hadn't seen each other since before WWII). The article said my mom went to MIT and was now a judge. She worked at MIT and was a lawyer. She still clipped this story and it has a prized place in our family photo album. I'm sure if social media existed then, she would have shared it there. Should she have her law degree taken away for this egregious ethical failing?
posted by lunasol at 9:49 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
When I was a kid, the New York Post covered my grandparents' 50th wedding anniversary (there was actually a news hook - they were Holocaust survivors and there were family members there who hadn't seen each other since before WWII). The article said my mom went to MIT and was now a judge. She worked at MIT and was a lawyer. She still clipped this story and it has a prized place in our family photo album. I'm sure if social media existed then, she would have shared it there. Should she have her law degree taken away for this egregious ethical failing?
posted by lunasol at 9:49 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Tamarisk, whether one buys the conclusions in the OSC report or not, that list is a wild misrepresentation of the facts in evidence. Literally even Penn doesn’t go that far. In fact, the OSC report directly states that they could not find evidence she was dishonest in her applications:
While OSC finds that Mackenzie did not directly misrepresent her foster care experience in her undergraduate, SP2, or Rhodes applications, there is language in her applications and materials created as part of the application process that, when viewed holistically, could foreseeably lead to an unbiased reader misinterpreting Mackenzie’s background.
posted by ardita at 10:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
While OSC finds that Mackenzie did not directly misrepresent her foster care experience in her undergraduate, SP2, or Rhodes applications, there is language in her applications and materials created as part of the application process that, when viewed holistically, could foreseeably lead to an unbiased reader misinterpreting Mackenzie’s background.
posted by ardita at 10:07 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
i think maybe at this time we can all admit that there are two people in this thread who are gonna feel some type of way about this no matter how much discussion we put into things and that the rest of us can just move on and discuss this without them.
posted by JimBennett at 10:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [24 favorites]
posted by JimBennett at 10:26 PM on March 30, 2022 [24 favorites]
[The student's own step-mother (and mother of her sister) refuted both of these claims.]
Yet, in the paragraphs immediately following the step-mother’s statements, the report acknowledges that Fierceton did provide documentation that substantiated her work for the nonprofit as well as setting up and contributing to a 529 to support her sister’s education.
posted by ardita at 10:30 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
Yet, in the paragraphs immediately following the step-mother’s statements, the report acknowledges that Fierceton did provide documentation that substantiated her work for the nonprofit as well as setting up and contributing to a 529 to support her sister’s education.
posted by ardita at 10:30 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
But responsible adults in this case who deal with similarly troubling situations daily and who have every reason to pursue them in good faith seem to have been given pause, to have serious doubts, and they acted accordingly.
For all your talk of fairness, this illustrates my basic point perfectly: you continue to hold Mackenzie to a far higher standard than the university. All the evidence offered up on her side is outweighed for you by the fact that some people reached a different conclusion, on the basis of some evidence you seem to believe exists but haven't seen.
You're also acting as if Mackenzie were the accuser here, and the university a victim. You are bending over backwards to offer the university the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, and are certainly not doing the same for the student. But it's the university who has made serious charges against her, and visited serious consequences on her as a result, as well. If anyone ought to be held to a higher standard of proof, it's them.
(By the way, those of us not small children know why you barely use Mackenzie Fierceton's name, as you proudly noted: it's a classic rhetorical technique for coping with an antagonist who has appealing personal qualities, reducing her to "the student," not a real young woman molested by her stepfather and tortured by her mother.)
Let me tell you something as a lawyer. It's one thing to defend causes or institutions in a professional capacity that you have doubts about the virtue of personally. It's a job. Under most circumstances, people deserve a defense. But no one's paying you here--at least, I very much hope not. When you start buying your own bullshit, the moral damage can be profound.
posted by praemunire at 10:43 PM on March 30, 2022 [22 favorites]
For all your talk of fairness, this illustrates my basic point perfectly: you continue to hold Mackenzie to a far higher standard than the university. All the evidence offered up on her side is outweighed for you by the fact that some people reached a different conclusion, on the basis of some evidence you seem to believe exists but haven't seen.
You're also acting as if Mackenzie were the accuser here, and the university a victim. You are bending over backwards to offer the university the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, and are certainly not doing the same for the student. But it's the university who has made serious charges against her, and visited serious consequences on her as a result, as well. If anyone ought to be held to a higher standard of proof, it's them.
(By the way, those of us not small children know why you barely use Mackenzie Fierceton's name, as you proudly noted: it's a classic rhetorical technique for coping with an antagonist who has appealing personal qualities, reducing her to "the student," not a real young woman molested by her stepfather and tortured by her mother.)
Let me tell you something as a lawyer. It's one thing to defend causes or institutions in a professional capacity that you have doubts about the virtue of personally. It's a job. Under most circumstances, people deserve a defense. But no one's paying you here--at least, I very much hope not. When you start buying your own bullshit, the moral damage can be profound.
posted by praemunire at 10:43 PM on March 30, 2022 [22 favorites]
There's this thing people do. They first decide you aren't trustworthy, aren't good, and then they look for evidence and support, for ways to understand the things you say and do that twist them into the worst possible crimes. You are tainted, and therefore everything you do is only evidence of that taint. You are panicked, upset, and that panic and upset is further evidence against you. You are hurt, and that hurt you caused yourself. They don't look for, don't want to see, any other alternative.
And I see that here. They don't wonder if her feeding tube tasted metallic because of blood in her mouth or something. They know it was plastic, and she's a liar, and therefore that's just more evidence against her, instead of a neutral fact that can be explained otherwise. They've stopped looking for the truth.
And that is what this feels like. I feel a visceral sense of disgust at how this young woman was treated, and is treated even now.
Oh wait, I meant a tightness in my throat, that's not technically viceral. I too am inconsistent.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 11:15 PM on March 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
And I see that here. They don't wonder if her feeding tube tasted metallic because of blood in her mouth or something. They know it was plastic, and she's a liar, and therefore that's just more evidence against her, instead of a neutral fact that can be explained otherwise. They've stopped looking for the truth.
And that is what this feels like. I feel a visceral sense of disgust at how this young woman was treated, and is treated even now.
Oh wait, I meant a tightness in my throat, that's not technically viceral. I too am inconsistent.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 11:15 PM on March 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
But it's the university who has made serious charges against her, and visited serious consequences on her as a result, as well. If anyone ought to be held to a higher standard of proof, it's them.
Especially given that she is a whistleblower against the school. That alone changes the calculus of their behavior drastically.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Especially given that she is a whistleblower against the school. That alone changes the calculus of their behavior drastically.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:27 PM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Some relevant details from University of Pennsylvania’s policies:
Code of Academic Integrity
Code of Student Conduct
Charter of the University of Pennsylvania Student Disciplinary System
Revocation of Degrees
Confidentiality of Student Records
FERPA
Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy
Guidelines on Open Expression
posted by eviemath at 11:28 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Code of Academic Integrity
Code of Student Conduct
Charter of the University of Pennsylvania Student Disciplinary System
Revocation of Degrees
Confidentiality of Student Records
FERPA
Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy
Guidelines on Open Expression
posted by eviemath at 11:28 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's perfectly ok for people to disagree about facts in ambiguous circumstances. These situations are not all cut and dried, but rather are open to interpretation and discussion.
Given that you are a lawyer, can you, in your professional opinion, say that an organization can be trusted to be fair and unbiased towards a whistleblower? Because from what I've seen in this thread and in the various anti-retaliation training I've gone through, the answer is a resounding no, for reasons that I would think obvious.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
Given that you are a lawyer, can you, in your professional opinion, say that an organization can be trusted to be fair and unbiased towards a whistleblower? Because from what I've seen in this thread and in the various anti-retaliation training I've gone through, the answer is a resounding no, for reasons that I would think obvious.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
leaving aside for the moment unsubstantiated claims about the nature and severity of injuries allegedly sustained at the hands of her mother
You are gaslighting her and trolling all of us with this. The claims are WELL SUBSTANTIATED. Why do you choose to perpetuate her abuse?
posted by metaplectic at 11:43 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
You are gaslighting her and trolling all of us with this. The claims are WELL SUBSTANTIATED. Why do you choose to perpetuate her abuse?
posted by metaplectic at 11:43 PM on March 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
Jesus wept.
I'm going to talk for a while, as calmly as I can, because there is a whole lot of ignorance going on in this thread about abuse, the nature of trauma, the nature of college essays, and...a whole lot else.
First: trauma causes memory loss. TRAUMA CAUSES MEMORY LOSS. Post-traumatic stress causes memory loss. The idea that someone who had just survived being beaten by her mother is going to be paying attention to the doctors to know why she is being issued a feeding tube, or what the funny taste of the feeding tube comes from, is beyond obscene to the extent that I am going to question anyone hanging on this point why it matters so much.
Additionally - I have recently been applying through colleges and going through this. It is impossible to tell what categories anyone qualifies for, because these categories are made up bullshit categories meant to process people quickly because they don't want to pay people to do admissions interviews. Go ahead, ask me for cites, I've got them. The way that you get context about exactly how impoverished someone's life is, and what they meant by 'growing up' in a condition, is through an admissions interview. If you don't do one, you are not possibly going to get the nuance, because most of our lives are not as uncomplicated as upper class elites think they are.
What does it mean to grow up poor? I'm serious here, I'm not trying to be funny. How, precisely, does one quantify it? Is it by volume? By the worst experiences? What does it mean to grow up poor when you are a survivor of childhood abuse? What does it mean when there's money around you, but you can't touch it to escape, and have to keep going back into the abusive situation? What does it mean when things change?
My partner was homeless as a child. His parents were - at one point - wealthy, until they weren't, because addiction is a hell of a thing. He went from having landscaping and knowing what forks to use to not having running water, to having twisted teeth that still mark him at every interview he goes to so he's afraid to smile, to being so hungry his fucking hair fell out. So, did he grow up rich? Or did he grow up poor? How, assuming he ever goes back to college, should he write it in an admissions essay? Especially considering that if it's like every other admissions essay, it's supposed to be two pages, double-spaced - hardly enough time for nuance?
And let me talk about poverty porn, which is absolutely expected in these essays. I know, because I've had to write them. I've written sincere, heartfelt essays, and got them kicked back with "Describe how you FELT, what you SENSED, while this was happening." I recognize in Fierceton's "the taste of the straw" an essay that got kicked back similarly with instructions to "add more details". "Show the scene", even if you're straining to remember details because they're fucking traumatic. Because if you write in generalizations, no one cares - they'll just shoot it to the bottom of the pile and sigh, reaching for yet another essay to make them feel noble.
This is not Fierceton's fault and I really want to know why a few people feel like insisting it is.
posted by corb at 12:01 AM on March 31, 2022 [56 favorites]
I'm going to talk for a while, as calmly as I can, because there is a whole lot of ignorance going on in this thread about abuse, the nature of trauma, the nature of college essays, and...a whole lot else.
First: trauma causes memory loss. TRAUMA CAUSES MEMORY LOSS. Post-traumatic stress causes memory loss. The idea that someone who had just survived being beaten by her mother is going to be paying attention to the doctors to know why she is being issued a feeding tube, or what the funny taste of the feeding tube comes from, is beyond obscene to the extent that I am going to question anyone hanging on this point why it matters so much.
Additionally - I have recently been applying through colleges and going through this. It is impossible to tell what categories anyone qualifies for, because these categories are made up bullshit categories meant to process people quickly because they don't want to pay people to do admissions interviews. Go ahead, ask me for cites, I've got them. The way that you get context about exactly how impoverished someone's life is, and what they meant by 'growing up' in a condition, is through an admissions interview. If you don't do one, you are not possibly going to get the nuance, because most of our lives are not as uncomplicated as upper class elites think they are.
What does it mean to grow up poor? I'm serious here, I'm not trying to be funny. How, precisely, does one quantify it? Is it by volume? By the worst experiences? What does it mean to grow up poor when you are a survivor of childhood abuse? What does it mean when there's money around you, but you can't touch it to escape, and have to keep going back into the abusive situation? What does it mean when things change?
My partner was homeless as a child. His parents were - at one point - wealthy, until they weren't, because addiction is a hell of a thing. He went from having landscaping and knowing what forks to use to not having running water, to having twisted teeth that still mark him at every interview he goes to so he's afraid to smile, to being so hungry his fucking hair fell out. So, did he grow up rich? Or did he grow up poor? How, assuming he ever goes back to college, should he write it in an admissions essay? Especially considering that if it's like every other admissions essay, it's supposed to be two pages, double-spaced - hardly enough time for nuance?
And let me talk about poverty porn, which is absolutely expected in these essays. I know, because I've had to write them. I've written sincere, heartfelt essays, and got them kicked back with "Describe how you FELT, what you SENSED, while this was happening." I recognize in Fierceton's "the taste of the straw" an essay that got kicked back similarly with instructions to "add more details". "Show the scene", even if you're straining to remember details because they're fucking traumatic. Because if you write in generalizations, no one cares - they'll just shoot it to the bottom of the pile and sigh, reaching for yet another essay to make them feel noble.
This is not Fierceton's fault and I really want to know why a few people feel like insisting it is.
posted by corb at 12:01 AM on March 31, 2022 [56 favorites]
NoxAeternum, in the abstract I think it's very common for whistleblowers to suffer retaliation at the hands of an organization. Is that some of the dynamic here? Sure, I'd guess MF made no friends in the school as a whole, and that may have influenced either the desire to pursue the investigation or how strongly they pursued it.
This is "I believe victims of abuse, but..." structuring here. If, as you point out, it is very common for organizations to retaliate against whistleblowers, then why is this situation different, as you immediately go to without any argument or defense the position that the issue here is not Penn retaliating against a whistleblower, but that Fierceton was so disagreeable that it made the administration take a harder line stance with her. So if you want to argue that Penn isn't engaging in retaliation, show your work - because frankly, Fierceton and her legal team have shown theirs, and given that they got a judge to agree that there's enough evidence to go to a jury trial, dismissing Penn's argument not to, I'd say the onus is on you to make the argument for "not retaliation".
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:26 AM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
This is "I believe victims of abuse, but..." structuring here. If, as you point out, it is very common for organizations to retaliate against whistleblowers, then why is this situation different, as you immediately go to without any argument or defense the position that the issue here is not Penn retaliating against a whistleblower, but that Fierceton was so disagreeable that it made the administration take a harder line stance with her. So if you want to argue that Penn isn't engaging in retaliation, show your work - because frankly, Fierceton and her legal team have shown theirs, and given that they got a judge to agree that there's enough evidence to go to a jury trial, dismissing Penn's argument not to, I'd say the onus is on you to make the argument for "not retaliation".
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:26 AM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
I cannot believe we have come to making assumptions about this young woman's likeability being the reason for a (supposedly impartial) institution going harder after her. And that somehow being justifiable. What.
Co-signing on trauma causing significant memory loss/impairment.
posted by Nieshka at 12:47 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Co-signing on trauma causing significant memory loss/impairment.
posted by Nieshka at 12:47 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
I find it odd to say that the Rhodes Trust, UPenn, and The New Yorker all have roughly equal skill and expertise at investigation and fact-checking. One of those three's entire business model and existence relies on the public trusting they can do that well, whereas for the other two, it frankly doesn't matter all that much. So, if we're going to pit them against each other, count me on the NYer's side every day of the week.
posted by adrianhon at 1:06 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by adrianhon at 1:06 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
First, as I said above, the Rhodes Trust had no retaliatory motive, so I find their investigative process pretty reliable and trustworthy.
And as was explained to you, while the Trust had no direct retaliatory motive, for them to rule counter to Penn would be tantamount to the Trust calling Penn liars, which is Something That Is Just Not Done In Academia. So there's a serious question of how independent the Trust really is, given how academia works.
Second, the results of the report are there to see. That's the factual record, there doesn't seem to be much dispute about it - what MF wrote in her various applications, what was in the letters of recommendation, etc., none of that is really in dispute. She wrote what she wrote, you can see it right there.
And as has been pointed out by several people (including you), people disagree on what that all means, especially given the prevalence of "poverty porn" and the push by schools to boost their FGLI numbers. Given that the meaning of what she wrote is under dispute, arguing that "look at the record" isn't all that convincing.
Third, with respect to the MSW degree, my understanding is that her case on appeal (within Penn) was heard by a panel of students and profs. I find those folks to be sufficiently insulated from the admin to find their judgment trustworthy, and they found that she wasn't honest.
Now you're just engaging in special pleading. Why should we believe any Penn-affiliated tribunal will be fair? And "because I said so" isn't an answer - if this panel is truly "independent" as you assert, I'd imagine you can provide actual proof.
Basically, enough independent folks reviewed the facts and found fire in the smoke, so whether Penn held a grudge seems like a non-issue.
I'm not seeing a lot of independence, myself - just a lot of "well, these people are independent because otherwise my argument collapses."
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:22 AM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
And as was explained to you, while the Trust had no direct retaliatory motive, for them to rule counter to Penn would be tantamount to the Trust calling Penn liars, which is Something That Is Just Not Done In Academia. So there's a serious question of how independent the Trust really is, given how academia works.
Second, the results of the report are there to see. That's the factual record, there doesn't seem to be much dispute about it - what MF wrote in her various applications, what was in the letters of recommendation, etc., none of that is really in dispute. She wrote what she wrote, you can see it right there.
And as has been pointed out by several people (including you), people disagree on what that all means, especially given the prevalence of "poverty porn" and the push by schools to boost their FGLI numbers. Given that the meaning of what she wrote is under dispute, arguing that "look at the record" isn't all that convincing.
Third, with respect to the MSW degree, my understanding is that her case on appeal (within Penn) was heard by a panel of students and profs. I find those folks to be sufficiently insulated from the admin to find their judgment trustworthy, and they found that she wasn't honest.
Now you're just engaging in special pleading. Why should we believe any Penn-affiliated tribunal will be fair? And "because I said so" isn't an answer - if this panel is truly "independent" as you assert, I'd imagine you can provide actual proof.
Basically, enough independent folks reviewed the facts and found fire in the smoke, so whether Penn held a grudge seems like a non-issue.
I'm not seeing a lot of independence, myself - just a lot of "well, these people are independent because otherwise my argument collapses."
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:22 AM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Wow. What a sad awful story. I just read though the very long New Yorker piece and through this entire discussion and I'm shocked at the amount of sophistry displayed by those intent on mistrusting this woman despite all the facts corroborating her story of having suffered horrible abuse in her own family. I'm not American and I'm also shocked at the multiple levels of bias about who is more or less credible as a victim of child abuse or more or less deserving of help and financial support for the less fortunate. It's just ugh, awful. I hope she wins her case.
posted by bitteschoen at 2:40 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by bitteschoen at 2:40 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
the Rhodes Trust had no retaliatory motive, so I find their investigative process pretty reliable and trustworthy
The Rhodes Trust is set up to administer a big pile of Cecil Rhodes' ill-gotten money. The people who work for the Rhodes Trust are okay administering that money in ways other than returning it to the people of Zimbabwe and South Africa that it was stolen from. You should only trust them to act in their own self-interest.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:44 AM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
The Rhodes Trust is set up to administer a big pile of Cecil Rhodes' ill-gotten money. The people who work for the Rhodes Trust are okay administering that money in ways other than returning it to the people of Zimbabwe and South Africa that it was stolen from. You should only trust them to act in their own self-interest.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:44 AM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
I might read the comments later, and I know I'm late to this, but this post needs a trigger warning. As a victim of childhood abuse, I'm not really sure it is good for me to read the article. Now I have started, I will probably read it to the end. But welcome flashbacks.
posted by mumimor at 4:53 AM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 4:53 AM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Mumimor, I think the discussion itself needs a trigger warning what with it turning to essentially invalidating and denigrating a young woman for spurious reasons - be warned.
posted by doggod at 4:57 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by doggod at 4:57 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
In this very long and heated thread I think a key point is missing. To me, the reason to be interested in whether or not Fierceton is being truthful about her foster care experience has nothing to do with defending Penn or Rhodes. I do not give a single fuck about either institution. What I do care about is that if Fierceton is being untruthful about this—and, to be clear, I do not take a position on it either way—then she appears to be claiming a serious burden that she has not borne. In particular, she appears to be a white woman, raised mostly in wealth and privilege, claiming a burden that is disproportionately borne by people of color. To me, that would seem to be in the ballpark of Rachel Dolezal. I am not interested in championing such a person.
The whole situation is such a mess that I doubt I'd ever feel confident one way or the other about what happened. I certainly won't ever be riding for Penn on this, but neither do I feel compelled to support Fierceton.
posted by sinfony at 6:33 AM on March 31, 2022
The whole situation is such a mess that I doubt I'd ever feel confident one way or the other about what happened. I certainly won't ever be riding for Penn on this, but neither do I feel compelled to support Fierceton.
posted by sinfony at 6:33 AM on March 31, 2022
In particular, she appears to be a white woman, raised mostly in wealth and privilege, claiming a burden that is disproportionately borne by people of color.
She was a child and sexually abused by her stepfather and physically abused by her mother. This is not in dispute. My god.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:35 AM on March 31, 2022 [33 favorites]
She was a child and sexually abused by her stepfather and physically abused by her mother. This is not in dispute. My god.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:35 AM on March 31, 2022 [33 favorites]
To me, that would seem to be in the ballpark of Rachel Dolezal
What an astonishing thing to say. To me, it's barely comparable – not to mention a derail I really hope we can avoid prolonging.
When I read the piece, I felt that at worst she stretched the truth on occasion, but no more than I've seen done by innumerable others on similar application forms – and as others have pointed out, even the extent of her stretches are arguable given what she's been through. If we applied the level of scrutiny placed on Fierceton to every single student in UPenn or Rhodes, I am sure that barely half would make it through.
posted by adrianhon at 7:16 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
What an astonishing thing to say. To me, it's barely comparable – not to mention a derail I really hope we can avoid prolonging.
When I read the piece, I felt that at worst she stretched the truth on occasion, but no more than I've seen done by innumerable others on similar application forms – and as others have pointed out, even the extent of her stretches are arguable given what she's been through. If we applied the level of scrutiny placed on Fierceton to every single student in UPenn or Rhodes, I am sure that barely half would make it through.
posted by adrianhon at 7:16 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
" with respect to the MSW degree, my understanding is that her case on appeal (within Penn) was heard by a panel of students and profs. I find those folks to be sufficiently insulated from the admin to find their judgment trustworthy, and they found that she wasn't honest."
Committees are not truly independent.
Committee members are appointed by an administrator. That administrator has a very, very good understanding of individual professor's inclinations on various topics. So, when the administration wants to stack the deck in favor of a particular outcome, it's not very hard to do.* For example, if you want to form a committee that promotes extra- and co-curricular activities on campus, you know who to invite to that committee. It's not hard to find the sympathetic professors.
If UPenn wanted to ensure that its initial findings were upheld (and thus to insulate itself from accusations of retaliation) it could easily find professors who have demonstrated a propensity to support administrative decisions. They wouldn't be hard to find.
The insulation from administration that you appeal to is (when the administration wants it to be) largely just a fiction to give the institution needed cover. Given that there is a clear motive for UPenn to find Fierceton in violation of policy, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the administration was motivated to form a committee that was friendly to its interests.
Note that their were two entities which were not associated with the university, and not influenced by lawyers representing the mother or anonymous sources (who are of course not neutral). They both supported Fierceton's accounts "the D.S.S., which has its own procedures for assessing guilt, substantiated Mackenzie’s allegations. Morrison challenged this decision, but the Missouri Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board, an independent panel appointed by the governor, upheld the finding." (And yes, that's not the same issue as the one you keep harping on, but it does speak to her credibility overall.)
*It is possible to have administrators who act in good faith and do their best to appoint faculty that do not have conflicts of interest or are not simply handmaidens for the admins. It should be clear to anyone that understands power and institutional power that institutions do not deserve the benefit of the doubt on this.
posted by oddman at 7:23 AM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
Committees are not truly independent.
Committee members are appointed by an administrator. That administrator has a very, very good understanding of individual professor's inclinations on various topics. So, when the administration wants to stack the deck in favor of a particular outcome, it's not very hard to do.* For example, if you want to form a committee that promotes extra- and co-curricular activities on campus, you know who to invite to that committee. It's not hard to find the sympathetic professors.
If UPenn wanted to ensure that its initial findings were upheld (and thus to insulate itself from accusations of retaliation) it could easily find professors who have demonstrated a propensity to support administrative decisions. They wouldn't be hard to find.
The insulation from administration that you appeal to is (when the administration wants it to be) largely just a fiction to give the institution needed cover. Given that there is a clear motive for UPenn to find Fierceton in violation of policy, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the administration was motivated to form a committee that was friendly to its interests.
Note that their were two entities which were not associated with the university, and not influenced by lawyers representing the mother or anonymous sources (who are of course not neutral). They both supported Fierceton's accounts "the D.S.S., which has its own procedures for assessing guilt, substantiated Mackenzie’s allegations. Morrison challenged this decision, but the Missouri Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board, an independent panel appointed by the governor, upheld the finding." (And yes, that's not the same issue as the one you keep harping on, but it does speak to her credibility overall.)
*It is possible to have administrators who act in good faith and do their best to appoint faculty that do not have conflicts of interest or are not simply handmaidens for the admins. It should be clear to anyone that understands power and institutional power that institutions do not deserve the benefit of the doubt on this.
posted by oddman at 7:23 AM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
I feel like I'm repeating myself, so, for the last time:
I grew up around some pretty religious conservatives, and I've practiced law long enough to have heard quite a few oc make these kinds of sweeping judgments. To me, it seems like a way not to examine the facts of the matter but to bully somebody into agreeing with you.
"We should defer to the institution(s) involved, because they must be decent people who know things we do not know" is not an examination of the facts of the matter. It is mere institutional deference (and, I might note as someone else who grew up around religious conservatives more hardcore than you can imagine, exactly the kind of appeal made when abuse is being covered up by the church). A lawyer should know this.
Second, the results of the report are there to see. That's the factual record, there doesn't seem to be much dispute about it - what MF wrote in her various applications, what was in the letters of recommendation, etc., none of that is really in dispute. She wrote what she wrote, you can see it right there.
Yes, and the issues that Penn and Rhodes had dealt primarily not with the falsity of factual claims but with her application as a young student of an interpretive framework for her undoubted severe trauma and material hardship of several years which is widely known to be ambiguous and the use of which the university's own advisor described as correct when presented with it as a hypothetical. The rest is iterating increasingly finely through details trying to find minor discrepancies which no one would seriously argue on their own merit the withholding a degree or the termination of a scholarship.
Primarily, this thread splits into two groups: people who believe we should meekly accept that institutions know best and simply accept that "there must be fire," and people who think we should actually look at the evidence available and form our own judgments. Despite your attempt to position them thus, it's not the supporters of Penn who are in the latter group.
posted by praemunire at 7:36 AM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
I grew up around some pretty religious conservatives, and I've practiced law long enough to have heard quite a few oc make these kinds of sweeping judgments. To me, it seems like a way not to examine the facts of the matter but to bully somebody into agreeing with you.
"We should defer to the institution(s) involved, because they must be decent people who know things we do not know" is not an examination of the facts of the matter. It is mere institutional deference (and, I might note as someone else who grew up around religious conservatives more hardcore than you can imagine, exactly the kind of appeal made when abuse is being covered up by the church). A lawyer should know this.
Second, the results of the report are there to see. That's the factual record, there doesn't seem to be much dispute about it - what MF wrote in her various applications, what was in the letters of recommendation, etc., none of that is really in dispute. She wrote what she wrote, you can see it right there.
Yes, and the issues that Penn and Rhodes had dealt primarily not with the falsity of factual claims but with her application as a young student of an interpretive framework for her undoubted severe trauma and material hardship of several years which is widely known to be ambiguous and the use of which the university's own advisor described as correct when presented with it as a hypothetical. The rest is iterating increasingly finely through details trying to find minor discrepancies which no one would seriously argue on their own merit the withholding a degree or the termination of a scholarship.
Primarily, this thread splits into two groups: people who believe we should meekly accept that institutions know best and simply accept that "there must be fire," and people who think we should actually look at the evidence available and form our own judgments. Despite your attempt to position them thus, it's not the supporters of Penn who are in the latter group.
posted by praemunire at 7:36 AM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
First: trauma causes memory loss. TRAUMA CAUSES MEMORY LOSS. Post-traumatic stress causes memory loss.
Yeah. As do seizures and post-concussion syndrome, both of which Fierceton was diagnosed with.
My middle-class family fell off a metaphorical cliff in my late teens, and I got a brief window into what it's like when family court, lawyers, social workers, therapists, one or two home visits by the NYPD, institutionalization, and the threat of incarceration are thrown into your family life.
Everybody in my family who was involved in the chaos has a different memory and opinion of the things that happened. Our accounts conflict not just in terms of interpretation but material facts, and they are all, in various ways, clouded by trauma, mental health issues, denial, and the drive toward self-preservation. The sheer fact of our different realities has always felt as tragic as anything else that happened.
And my memory was shot. It was wild. I couldn't really read for a while because as soon as I started reading a new sentence I'd forget what the previous one had said.
Despite that, I've repeatedly had to trot out a cohesive and comprehensible 500-700 word story about what happened for school administrators, college admissions offices, and financial aid departments. I just re-read the application essays I wrote in my mid-20s when I finally went back and got my bachelor's degree, and while they're accurate from my perspective, I definitely elided a couple of things ("I took x job for a change of pace"? Ha ha, nah, I was broke as shit and rent was due and nobody was hiring me and I needed A Job.)
If you had double-checked those essays with my dad? I'm not at all sure what he would have said. He was in denial about a whole lot of stuff until the day he died.
And I still, to this day, have to elide things on applications, because that's the social norm. You're only supposed to provide neat stories that fit in tidy boxes, and honest, full disclosure is considered unprofessional. Hiring managers do not want you to respond to the prompt "explain the gaps on your resume" with "yeah, I sometimes have major depressive episodes and don't leave the house for a year," even if that is the god-honest truth. I have a hard time navigating all of that now, and I was much, much worse at it in my late teens and early 20s.
From my perspective, the way we handle college and job applications is awful and broken. Is it fucked up to exaggerate stuff on an application? Yes. Should people be held accountable for that? Sure. Should a young person who experienced trauma be expected to have a perfect account of what happened to them, or have the person accused of abusing them brought into their academic life, or know the exact terms of art for their legal status as an elementary-school-aged child, or expected to know exactly how an institution is defining a term that the institution itself defines three different ways? Probably not. Should a large, rich institution be literally litigating the fact of their childhood abuse, possibly in retaliation to another lawsuit? Absolutely not.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:42 AM on March 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
Yeah. As do seizures and post-concussion syndrome, both of which Fierceton was diagnosed with.
My middle-class family fell off a metaphorical cliff in my late teens, and I got a brief window into what it's like when family court, lawyers, social workers, therapists, one or two home visits by the NYPD, institutionalization, and the threat of incarceration are thrown into your family life.
Everybody in my family who was involved in the chaos has a different memory and opinion of the things that happened. Our accounts conflict not just in terms of interpretation but material facts, and they are all, in various ways, clouded by trauma, mental health issues, denial, and the drive toward self-preservation. The sheer fact of our different realities has always felt as tragic as anything else that happened.
And my memory was shot. It was wild. I couldn't really read for a while because as soon as I started reading a new sentence I'd forget what the previous one had said.
Despite that, I've repeatedly had to trot out a cohesive and comprehensible 500-700 word story about what happened for school administrators, college admissions offices, and financial aid departments. I just re-read the application essays I wrote in my mid-20s when I finally went back and got my bachelor's degree, and while they're accurate from my perspective, I definitely elided a couple of things ("I took x job for a change of pace"? Ha ha, nah, I was broke as shit and rent was due and nobody was hiring me and I needed A Job.)
If you had double-checked those essays with my dad? I'm not at all sure what he would have said. He was in denial about a whole lot of stuff until the day he died.
And I still, to this day, have to elide things on applications, because that's the social norm. You're only supposed to provide neat stories that fit in tidy boxes, and honest, full disclosure is considered unprofessional. Hiring managers do not want you to respond to the prompt "explain the gaps on your resume" with "yeah, I sometimes have major depressive episodes and don't leave the house for a year," even if that is the god-honest truth. I have a hard time navigating all of that now, and I was much, much worse at it in my late teens and early 20s.
From my perspective, the way we handle college and job applications is awful and broken. Is it fucked up to exaggerate stuff on an application? Yes. Should people be held accountable for that? Sure. Should a young person who experienced trauma be expected to have a perfect account of what happened to them, or have the person accused of abusing them brought into their academic life, or know the exact terms of art for their legal status as an elementary-school-aged child, or expected to know exactly how an institution is defining a term that the institution itself defines three different ways? Probably not. Should a large, rich institution be literally litigating the fact of their childhood abuse, possibly in retaliation to another lawsuit? Absolutely not.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:42 AM on March 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
This piece and this discussion really stayed with me overnight and on my drive this morning.
What a system this is. Obviously no matter what tertiary education system you have, you will have limited spaces. But in this case you have the Ivy League, with its tendrils of power that flow throughout adulthood in a winner-take-all society, creating this system of "merit." We know so-called merit-based systems are flawed, and one way to address those flaws is to create what I guess I would call alternative pathways. And that's important, and accountability checks are important.
But that's not quite what happens here. Here, it's a nearly literal trauma Olympics.
It's called "poverty porn," but what it also is is inculcation and rank colonialism, deciding who "deserves" to be raised up into the elite ranks based on who has suffered the most and yet maintained their positive outcomes. It's deeply toxic and as we see in this discussion, it keeps the focus on the failings of the applicants rather than the craziness of the system.
If "the good people" get the scholarships then hey, the system works, right? Even this story which gives you the figure of The Deceptive Woman* is drawing the line for hundreds of applicants - don't bother trying because if you have the tiniest inaccuracy we'll take your degrees away. But still tell us the most compelling tale. That's a very convenient story for the school.
It also creates the idea -- an idea that seems to me to be unsound on a deep intellectual basis -- that you can somehow gauge trauma in order to target support. Who has given selection committees this power? What training do they have? What rubric are they using?
Additionally, are these standards being applied consistently? Or just if you've been too loud about something?
Narratives about one's own life are notoriously hard to build, even for grounded adults. If you're basing your table scraps on the best tale told, you aren't fixing any problems. The structure that it's the people with the least power who have to be the most morally pure to get help is really not good.
* I listen to the teen to young adult staff I work with. And when they tell stories of what we have experienced together, their inexperience shines though. That's normal.
I wonder why the institution that is supposed to be expert at guiding and supporting young bright minds was unable to do so except in this horrific way. Even if this is a what, half-traumatized, half lying-for-profit young woman, she needs help. Yanking all her degrees away from her is crazy. Did they take Stephen Glass's degree away??? The whole discussion is inappropriate.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
What a system this is. Obviously no matter what tertiary education system you have, you will have limited spaces. But in this case you have the Ivy League, with its tendrils of power that flow throughout adulthood in a winner-take-all society, creating this system of "merit." We know so-called merit-based systems are flawed, and one way to address those flaws is to create what I guess I would call alternative pathways. And that's important, and accountability checks are important.
But that's not quite what happens here. Here, it's a nearly literal trauma Olympics.
It's called "poverty porn," but what it also is is inculcation and rank colonialism, deciding who "deserves" to be raised up into the elite ranks based on who has suffered the most and yet maintained their positive outcomes. It's deeply toxic and as we see in this discussion, it keeps the focus on the failings of the applicants rather than the craziness of the system.
If "the good people" get the scholarships then hey, the system works, right? Even this story which gives you the figure of The Deceptive Woman* is drawing the line for hundreds of applicants - don't bother trying because if you have the tiniest inaccuracy we'll take your degrees away. But still tell us the most compelling tale. That's a very convenient story for the school.
It also creates the idea -- an idea that seems to me to be unsound on a deep intellectual basis -- that you can somehow gauge trauma in order to target support. Who has given selection committees this power? What training do they have? What rubric are they using?
Additionally, are these standards being applied consistently? Or just if you've been too loud about something?
Narratives about one's own life are notoriously hard to build, even for grounded adults. If you're basing your table scraps on the best tale told, you aren't fixing any problems. The structure that it's the people with the least power who have to be the most morally pure to get help is really not good.
* I listen to the teen to young adult staff I work with. And when they tell stories of what we have experienced together, their inexperience shines though. That's normal.
I wonder why the institution that is supposed to be expert at guiding and supporting young bright minds was unable to do so except in this horrific way. Even if this is a what, half-traumatized, half lying-for-profit young woman, she needs help. Yanking all her degrees away from her is crazy. Did they take Stephen Glass's degree away??? The whole discussion is inappropriate.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
she appears to be a white woman, raised mostly in wealth and privilege, claiming a burden that is disproportionately borne by people of color
Seriously?
This is what I mean by that kind of shocking level of bias about the perfect believable victim...
I know that there's something stupid and insidious and racist in the tendency to go all "oh I don't see color, race doesn't matter, can't we all get along" in contexts where it actually matters quite a lot, but there can also be something insidious in a tendency to reduce everything to racial differences. In this case her race is pretty much irrelevant to her story of being a victim of child abuse in her own family. That can happen to anyone, anywhere. Sadly. It's not a prerogative among any race ffs. What an obtuse thing to suggest! And a bit racist too, no?
If you don't believe her story of being a victim of child abuse at all, ok, we can all infer our conclusions about that level of mistrust, but to base that mistrust on her race and the class of her family of origin is really in a category of absurd all of its own.
posted by bitteschoen at 7:50 AM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
Seriously?
This is what I mean by that kind of shocking level of bias about the perfect believable victim...
I know that there's something stupid and insidious and racist in the tendency to go all "oh I don't see color, race doesn't matter, can't we all get along" in contexts where it actually matters quite a lot, but there can also be something insidious in a tendency to reduce everything to racial differences. In this case her race is pretty much irrelevant to her story of being a victim of child abuse in her own family. That can happen to anyone, anywhere. Sadly. It's not a prerogative among any race ffs. What an obtuse thing to suggest! And a bit racist too, no?
If you don't believe her story of being a victim of child abuse at all, ok, we can all infer our conclusions about that level of mistrust, but to base that mistrust on her race and the class of her family of origin is really in a category of absurd all of its own.
posted by bitteschoen at 7:50 AM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
AFAICT, the claims that Fierceton has in some way been dishonest has revolved around three particular points (one of which, as a matter of assessing any sort of dishonesty, really needs to be bifurcated into two separate subcategories:
1. there are details incidental to her narrative (specifics of her hospitalization and sister's 529 trust, etc.) about which her statements are counter either to established facts or to a (possibly itself erroneous) official record,
2. one central pillar of her story, the allegation of abuse, has not been fully substantiated in a court of law,
3. the essential "sense" put forward by writing (a) about her and (b) by her creates a false impression of her life, even without specific false statements.
My sense, reading through the story, is that what really has people riled up is point #3 --- which is to a large degree specifically 3(a) --- and that has them scrambling to shore up points #1 and #2, which are weak and feel like grasping at straws to find some claim of factual error they can hang on her as a "lie".
So, let's look at those two in turn. As to #1: as has been pointed out previously, people are unreliable on details, and acute trauma victims more so. The exact details of her experiences when hospitalized are pretty weaksauce because none of the refutations of them really dispute the core indisputed fact that she was hospitalized with severe injuries, which those are really just narrative flourishes on. The 529 trust, the FGLI classification, and the question of how many times she was a "ward of the state": those are getting into some pretty abstruse nits which in the course of a simple statement few people would be inclined to give the full details on (and which, in the case of FGLI classification, varies depending whose definitions you're using). Nobody's disputed that she was involved in setting up her sister's 529 trust, or that she was financially unsupported and practically unparented by the time she reached college, or that she was emeshed with government guardianship at least twice. Trying to spin an informal statement of these facts as a "lie" because it doesn't conform to the exact meaning in law of these concepts is a stretch, and anyone sensible would know it.
Now point #2: the standard for prosecution is (or should be --- it's not if you're not white or rich, but that's another story) high. There's a great deal of evidence of abuse which substantiates her story. Is it enough for a prosecution against a competently defended perpetrator? I don't know that for sure (evidently a prosecutor thought not), but even then "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and the evidence isn't even absent here. Whether or not injuries consistent with abuse, an abuse allegation, and no evidence of confabulated prior accusations is enough for a court of law, it's certainly enough to substantiate the story against any lower standard of proof.
So that brings us to point #3, which I thought it important to divide into two cases, because there is a lot of #3(a) appearing either in print or in people's heads, and importantly, that is not something Fierceton can control. Everyone who said that they thought she'd come from a poor family and had been in foster care since early childhood but couldn't point to specific statements which led them to that belief did that, and they did it to themselves. Certainly the early encomiums tended to fall into this trap, providing a sketchy idea of her background which leads one to think she was always poor, and notably not quoting her saying any such thing (and it's worth noting that the Penn Gazette specifically quotes her contrasting her case with most in foster care; how many reporters did she say something similar to that decided not to use the quote because it didn't fit their narrative?). And importantly, this particular case is what emotively hooks most people. The only thing, perhaps, which makes people angrier than being fooled is when they fool themselves: even if she never said, "I grew up poor", all the people who decided she did grow up poor on the basis of no evidence at all will tie themselves into knots trying to find some way that their misconception is her fault.
Now, #3(b) is the sub-point I would consider most blameworthy, in that it would have been a direct way Fierceton was deceiving people, but it is both the one for which there is the least evidence and, in many ways, completely explicable. Most of the statements Fierceton is alleged to have created a deceptive impression with were in short-form essays, works which are at their best impressionistic. Creating a quick impression relies on tropes, so you can say "I was in foster care" and let your audience imagine the bunk beds, the hostile roommates, the chipped paint, the meager meals, etc. Convenient if that's your experience, not so convenient if you were an atypical foster child. Now, I believe Mackenzie Fierceton is not stupid and was aware of this trope, and was willing to let it do a bit of heavy lifting for her. But because I believe she's not stupid, I believe she was fully aware of the other trope too, and was careful not to explain her circumstance too deeply lest they decide she belonged in that box.
Because there are two tropes. One is the Poor Kid Who Makes Good. If you're an academic success and you say "foster care", you get to be a PKWMG feel-good story and everyone assumes you never had an ounce of privilege. Everyone loves the PKWMG because they mean America is a meritocracy where anyone can succeed despite humble backgrounds. But then there's the PKWMG's nemesis, the Rich Kid Who Lies About Misfortune. The RKWLAM is a good outrage story and everybody enjoys hating on them (see under: Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens", Rachel Dolezal, that white South African kid who applied for a scholarship for African Americans). Astute observers may note that these two opposing stereotypes perpetuate the same policy decision from different directions, namely, that it's not necessary to provide any support to the disadvantaged, since the Worthy Poor will succeed without it and the Evil Rich will just misappropriate it.
The point of the above paragraph is that whether or not Fierceton is a RKWLAM (which I don't think she is; as far as I can tell, there are very few real people who fit the trope), she knows that stereotypically there are exactly two types of people who receive aid, and viewed through different lenses, her story could look like either. If you're writing a brief sketch of yourself to people who are going to pigeonhole you into one of two classes, which one are you going to lean into? It's worth noting that to those who she got to know better, for whom the sum of her interaction wasn't a puff-piece of feelgood journalism or a short-form essay, she seems to have been straightforward about how there's nuance that doesn't fit easily into a type.
posted by jackbishop at 7:51 AM on March 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
1. there are details incidental to her narrative (specifics of her hospitalization and sister's 529 trust, etc.) about which her statements are counter either to established facts or to a (possibly itself erroneous) official record,
2. one central pillar of her story, the allegation of abuse, has not been fully substantiated in a court of law,
3. the essential "sense" put forward by writing (a) about her and (b) by her creates a false impression of her life, even without specific false statements.
My sense, reading through the story, is that what really has people riled up is point #3 --- which is to a large degree specifically 3(a) --- and that has them scrambling to shore up points #1 and #2, which are weak and feel like grasping at straws to find some claim of factual error they can hang on her as a "lie".
So, let's look at those two in turn. As to #1: as has been pointed out previously, people are unreliable on details, and acute trauma victims more so. The exact details of her experiences when hospitalized are pretty weaksauce because none of the refutations of them really dispute the core indisputed fact that she was hospitalized with severe injuries, which those are really just narrative flourishes on. The 529 trust, the FGLI classification, and the question of how many times she was a "ward of the state": those are getting into some pretty abstruse nits which in the course of a simple statement few people would be inclined to give the full details on (and which, in the case of FGLI classification, varies depending whose definitions you're using). Nobody's disputed that she was involved in setting up her sister's 529 trust, or that she was financially unsupported and practically unparented by the time she reached college, or that she was emeshed with government guardianship at least twice. Trying to spin an informal statement of these facts as a "lie" because it doesn't conform to the exact meaning in law of these concepts is a stretch, and anyone sensible would know it.
Now point #2: the standard for prosecution is (or should be --- it's not if you're not white or rich, but that's another story) high. There's a great deal of evidence of abuse which substantiates her story. Is it enough for a prosecution against a competently defended perpetrator? I don't know that for sure (evidently a prosecutor thought not), but even then "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and the evidence isn't even absent here. Whether or not injuries consistent with abuse, an abuse allegation, and no evidence of confabulated prior accusations is enough for a court of law, it's certainly enough to substantiate the story against any lower standard of proof.
So that brings us to point #3, which I thought it important to divide into two cases, because there is a lot of #3(a) appearing either in print or in people's heads, and importantly, that is not something Fierceton can control. Everyone who said that they thought she'd come from a poor family and had been in foster care since early childhood but couldn't point to specific statements which led them to that belief did that, and they did it to themselves. Certainly the early encomiums tended to fall into this trap, providing a sketchy idea of her background which leads one to think she was always poor, and notably not quoting her saying any such thing (and it's worth noting that the Penn Gazette specifically quotes her contrasting her case with most in foster care; how many reporters did she say something similar to that decided not to use the quote because it didn't fit their narrative?). And importantly, this particular case is what emotively hooks most people. The only thing, perhaps, which makes people angrier than being fooled is when they fool themselves: even if she never said, "I grew up poor", all the people who decided she did grow up poor on the basis of no evidence at all will tie themselves into knots trying to find some way that their misconception is her fault.
Now, #3(b) is the sub-point I would consider most blameworthy, in that it would have been a direct way Fierceton was deceiving people, but it is both the one for which there is the least evidence and, in many ways, completely explicable. Most of the statements Fierceton is alleged to have created a deceptive impression with were in short-form essays, works which are at their best impressionistic. Creating a quick impression relies on tropes, so you can say "I was in foster care" and let your audience imagine the bunk beds, the hostile roommates, the chipped paint, the meager meals, etc. Convenient if that's your experience, not so convenient if you were an atypical foster child. Now, I believe Mackenzie Fierceton is not stupid and was aware of this trope, and was willing to let it do a bit of heavy lifting for her. But because I believe she's not stupid, I believe she was fully aware of the other trope too, and was careful not to explain her circumstance too deeply lest they decide she belonged in that box.
Because there are two tropes. One is the Poor Kid Who Makes Good. If you're an academic success and you say "foster care", you get to be a PKWMG feel-good story and everyone assumes you never had an ounce of privilege. Everyone loves the PKWMG because they mean America is a meritocracy where anyone can succeed despite humble backgrounds. But then there's the PKWMG's nemesis, the Rich Kid Who Lies About Misfortune. The RKWLAM is a good outrage story and everybody enjoys hating on them (see under: Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens", Rachel Dolezal, that white South African kid who applied for a scholarship for African Americans). Astute observers may note that these two opposing stereotypes perpetuate the same policy decision from different directions, namely, that it's not necessary to provide any support to the disadvantaged, since the Worthy Poor will succeed without it and the Evil Rich will just misappropriate it.
The point of the above paragraph is that whether or not Fierceton is a RKWLAM (which I don't think she is; as far as I can tell, there are very few real people who fit the trope), she knows that stereotypically there are exactly two types of people who receive aid, and viewed through different lenses, her story could look like either. If you're writing a brief sketch of yourself to people who are going to pigeonhole you into one of two classes, which one are you going to lean into? It's worth noting that to those who she got to know better, for whom the sum of her interaction wasn't a puff-piece of feelgood journalism or a short-form essay, she seems to have been straightforward about how there's nuance that doesn't fit easily into a type.
posted by jackbishop at 7:51 AM on March 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
the way the whole "purity test" thing manifests in different MeFi spaces is pretty much the one thing that makes me want to give up, some days
we are quick to find the fault in others, is my point.. anyhow, this is all very depressing. I'm sorry for Fierceton and I'm sorry for anyone, any background and colour of skin, who has to deal with trauma. I visited a guy yesterday who lives with trauma, he is making terrible choices and great choices, I think he's doing better than he was 3 months ago, politically he represents the worst of what Canada has to offer, and just knowing a bit about his childhood and his time with the military and what trauma means in his case, I have some idea what it means.
If this world needs more judging and less compassion, count me out.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:13 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
we are quick to find the fault in others, is my point.. anyhow, this is all very depressing. I'm sorry for Fierceton and I'm sorry for anyone, any background and colour of skin, who has to deal with trauma. I visited a guy yesterday who lives with trauma, he is making terrible choices and great choices, I think he's doing better than he was 3 months ago, politically he represents the worst of what Canada has to offer, and just knowing a bit about his childhood and his time with the military and what trauma means in his case, I have some idea what it means.
If this world needs more judging and less compassion, count me out.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:13 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
If you're writing a brief sketch of yourself to people who are going to pigeonhole you into one of two classes, which one are you going to lean into?
Oh my god, this part. For work purposes, my story is that I grew up middle class in Manhattan and went to a fancy high school and got a degree from a fancy college, and got a fancyish job when I was 21, and now I work at a place that does stuff that sounds high-minded on paper.
Privately, if you get to know me? I'm a high-school and college dropout from a fucked-up blue-collar family who had to go back to school as an adult. I have mental health issues that have repeatedly resulted in my being un- or underemployed for more than a year at a time. And I'm an increasingly middle-aged woman who works an admin job.
In work settings, I'm expected to skip over the private stuff for the sake of being professional. Nobody wants to hear that shit! In academic settings, I'm supposed to dig deep into the bad stuff because my transcripts are a mess and they demand that I explain myself. It is fraught and exhausting and emotionally draining and part of why I have never applied to grad school.
Which story do you want? Both are true. I'm both privileged and messy. What do I put down on your application, and how much am I really supposed to disclose? Am I allowed to cop to being queer even if I'm in a straight relationship? What happens if I guess wrong?
It's like being a human mullet. Business in front, shitshow in the back.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2022 [33 favorites]
Oh my god, this part. For work purposes, my story is that I grew up middle class in Manhattan and went to a fancy high school and got a degree from a fancy college, and got a fancyish job when I was 21, and now I work at a place that does stuff that sounds high-minded on paper.
Privately, if you get to know me? I'm a high-school and college dropout from a fucked-up blue-collar family who had to go back to school as an adult. I have mental health issues that have repeatedly resulted in my being un- or underemployed for more than a year at a time. And I'm an increasingly middle-aged woman who works an admin job.
In work settings, I'm expected to skip over the private stuff for the sake of being professional. Nobody wants to hear that shit! In academic settings, I'm supposed to dig deep into the bad stuff because my transcripts are a mess and they demand that I explain myself. It is fraught and exhausting and emotionally draining and part of why I have never applied to grad school.
Which story do you want? Both are true. I'm both privileged and messy. What do I put down on your application, and how much am I really supposed to disclose? Am I allowed to cop to being queer even if I'm in a straight relationship? What happens if I guess wrong?
It's like being a human mullet. Business in front, shitshow in the back.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2022 [33 favorites]
The Rhodes Trust did just that. And they had no dog in the fight between MF and Penn.
You are profoundly ignorant of the way these elite academic institutes collude and cooperate with each other without any formal arrangements, and the way they do everything they can to save face and put their reputations above all else.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:41 AM on March 31, 2022 [20 favorites]
You are profoundly ignorant of the way these elite academic institutes collude and cooperate with each other without any formal arrangements, and the way they do everything they can to save face and put their reputations above all else.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:41 AM on March 31, 2022 [20 favorites]
Astute observers may note that these two opposing stereotypes perpetuate the same policy decision from different directions, namely, that it's not necessary to provide any support to the disadvantaged, since the Worthy Poor will succeed without it and the Evil Rich will just misappropriate it.
Thank you for naming the political narratives that these stereotypes serve. I think it's a really important aspect of the case; she's been reduced to these stereotypes twice, and neither time does this reduction serve the interests of disadvantaged students.
When I see the zeal with which people want to hang Fierceton for minor discrepancies in her account, I don't see a zeal for truth and honesty and fairness. Even if you believe Fierceton intentionally misled people (which is in dispute), exaggerating the amount of time she spent in foster care is much lesser crime than how Penn has handled itself. Again, Penn has actually released a pleading accusing her of fabricating a history abuse, and it's not unreasonable to suspect that they went after Fierceton (a) in retaliation for a lawsuit, and (b) on information given to them by her abusive mother.
Yet we have people in this thread who are still harping on minor discrepancies in her admissions issues such as the fact that when she said she was a ward of the state again, she was clearly lying because she was actually a ward in a different sense the first time.
Yeah, no. This isn't about protecting opportunities given to disadvantaged students, because Penn's behavior is fucking chilling for disadvantaged students and is being largely ignored by these people.
I'm so appalled by this thread that I need to remove it from my recent activity; I keep checking it to see if it has gotten worse and finding yes, it has. Oh my God.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:41 AM on March 31, 2022 [20 favorites]
Thank you for naming the political narratives that these stereotypes serve. I think it's a really important aspect of the case; she's been reduced to these stereotypes twice, and neither time does this reduction serve the interests of disadvantaged students.
When I see the zeal with which people want to hang Fierceton for minor discrepancies in her account, I don't see a zeal for truth and honesty and fairness. Even if you believe Fierceton intentionally misled people (which is in dispute), exaggerating the amount of time she spent in foster care is much lesser crime than how Penn has handled itself. Again, Penn has actually released a pleading accusing her of fabricating a history abuse, and it's not unreasonable to suspect that they went after Fierceton (a) in retaliation for a lawsuit, and (b) on information given to them by her abusive mother.
Yet we have people in this thread who are still harping on minor discrepancies in her admissions issues such as the fact that when she said she was a ward of the state again, she was clearly lying because she was actually a ward in a different sense the first time.
Yeah, no. This isn't about protecting opportunities given to disadvantaged students, because Penn's behavior is fucking chilling for disadvantaged students and is being largely ignored by these people.
I'm so appalled by this thread that I need to remove it from my recent activity; I keep checking it to see if it has gotten worse and finding yes, it has. Oh my God.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:41 AM on March 31, 2022 [20 favorites]
And they had no dog in the fight between MF and Penn.
You keep saying that, but...no? It is infinitely easier, institutionally, for the Trust to endorse the decision made by the referring school than to back the student. Infinitely. My experience with Rhodes (I did not apply, but I have a friend who was a Rhodes Scholar and we were at Oxford together for a year while I did dissertation research) is that it is the most blinkered, self-satisfied, and comfortably privileged institution associated with education I have ever come across and very unlikely to put up a fuss to defend a single scholar lacking good connections facing even modest scandal.
Further, it is downright weird to suggest that the issue of whether she misrepresented herself as FGLI was a matter of indifference to the Trust and had no effect on its analysis. The idea that she would lose her scholarship over just how much support she contributed to her younger sister's care, or her exact degree of involvement with a nonprofit? Are you kidding me?
I genuinely find it difficult to understand how Western adults in 2022 could repose such blind faith in powerful institutions. Students lie. Fraud exists. Much of my professional career has been dealing with fraud of various forms. I nonetheless wouldn't "just trust" any powerful institution about its existence, especially when dealing with a disadvantaged person.
posted by praemunire at 8:48 AM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
You keep saying that, but...no? It is infinitely easier, institutionally, for the Trust to endorse the decision made by the referring school than to back the student. Infinitely. My experience with Rhodes (I did not apply, but I have a friend who was a Rhodes Scholar and we were at Oxford together for a year while I did dissertation research) is that it is the most blinkered, self-satisfied, and comfortably privileged institution associated with education I have ever come across and very unlikely to put up a fuss to defend a single scholar lacking good connections facing even modest scandal.
Further, it is downright weird to suggest that the issue of whether she misrepresented herself as FGLI was a matter of indifference to the Trust and had no effect on its analysis. The idea that she would lose her scholarship over just how much support she contributed to her younger sister's care, or her exact degree of involvement with a nonprofit? Are you kidding me?
I genuinely find it difficult to understand how Western adults in 2022 could repose such blind faith in powerful institutions. Students lie. Fraud exists. Much of my professional career has been dealing with fraud of various forms. I nonetheless wouldn't "just trust" any powerful institution about its existence, especially when dealing with a disadvantaged person.
posted by praemunire at 8:48 AM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
. In particular, she appears to be a white woman, raised mostly in wealth and privilege, claiming a burden that is disproportionately borne by people of color. To me, that would seem to be in the ballpark of Rachel Dolezal. I am not interested in championing such a person.
This is an insanely gross and pretty fucking racist thing to say, especially if you're white. It's like the definition of the 'fake liberal' nonsense Frowner discusses above. I think this quote from the article addresses it well:
Anthony Jack, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who studies low-income and first-generation college students, told me that he would not consider a student like Mackenzie first-generation. But he was troubled that her status as a low-income student had ever been challenged. “When we allow stereotype to be our stand-in for disadvantaged groups, we are actually doing them a disservice,” he said. “That’s what scares me about this case. It’s, like, ‘You’re not giving us the right sob story of what it means to be poor.’ The university is so focussed on what box she checked, and not the conditions—her lack of access to the material, emotional, and social resources of a family—that made her identify with that box.” He went on, “Colleges are in such a rush to celebrate their ‘first Black,’ their ‘first First Gen’ for achievements, but do they actually care about the student? Or the propaganda campaign that they can put behind her story?”
posted by armadillo1224 at 8:49 AM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
This is an insanely gross and pretty fucking racist thing to say, especially if you're white. It's like the definition of the 'fake liberal' nonsense Frowner discusses above. I think this quote from the article addresses it well:
Anthony Jack, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who studies low-income and first-generation college students, told me that he would not consider a student like Mackenzie first-generation. But he was troubled that her status as a low-income student had ever been challenged. “When we allow stereotype to be our stand-in for disadvantaged groups, we are actually doing them a disservice,” he said. “That’s what scares me about this case. It’s, like, ‘You’re not giving us the right sob story of what it means to be poor.’ The university is so focussed on what box she checked, and not the conditions—her lack of access to the material, emotional, and social resources of a family—that made her identify with that box.” He went on, “Colleges are in such a rush to celebrate their ‘first Black,’ their ‘first First Gen’ for achievements, but do they actually care about the student? Or the propaganda campaign that they can put behind her story?”
posted by armadillo1224 at 8:49 AM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
Rhodes did in fact incorporate Penn's assessment into its own (as it quotes Penn liberally in its report) and so its conclusions cannot be said to be independent. Literally, if X incorporates Y, X is not independent of Y. Your insistence that their findings are logically independent (not just numerically distinct) is, absent a massive amount of exegetical work that you have not done, simply not credible.
But lets put that aside. You've said some version of this several times: "The Rhodes trust isn't affiliated with Penn,."
This is a good example of using a fact to obscure the truth.
I and others have tried in good faith to explain to you that while it is of course a fact that Rhodes and Penn are distinct entities, they have common interests, common perspectives and common goals. They are birds of a feather. They are members of the same group (elite institutions of academia) with significant incentives to agree with other and to support each other. Were Rhodes to support Fierceton it would be at odds with its esteemed colleague. The prmia facie expectation is that the incentive is for Rhodes to agree with Penn. That is so clear to almost everyone else that its frankly surprising that you refuse to acknowledge it.
You have not provided an argument disputing either of these two points. You simply continue to insist that crediting them with neutral and pure motivations is the right stance. You maintain this stance despite multiple attempts by others to demonstrate that institutions of power don't deserve the benefit of the doubt and that these two institutions are conflicted in this case (Penn's conflict being greater than Rhodes').
I am forced to conclude that you are simply unwilling to admit these fact and I, at least, won't engage with you anymore. I no longer believe that you are participating in good faith.
posted by oddman at 8:50 AM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
But lets put that aside. You've said some version of this several times: "The Rhodes trust isn't affiliated with Penn,."
This is a good example of using a fact to obscure the truth.
I and others have tried in good faith to explain to you that while it is of course a fact that Rhodes and Penn are distinct entities, they have common interests, common perspectives and common goals. They are birds of a feather. They are members of the same group (elite institutions of academia) with significant incentives to agree with other and to support each other. Were Rhodes to support Fierceton it would be at odds with its esteemed colleague. The prmia facie expectation is that the incentive is for Rhodes to agree with Penn. That is so clear to almost everyone else that its frankly surprising that you refuse to acknowledge it.
You have not provided an argument disputing either of these two points. You simply continue to insist that crediting them with neutral and pure motivations is the right stance. You maintain this stance despite multiple attempts by others to demonstrate that institutions of power don't deserve the benefit of the doubt and that these two institutions are conflicted in this case (Penn's conflict being greater than Rhodes').
I am forced to conclude that you are simply unwilling to admit these fact and I, at least, won't engage with you anymore. I no longer believe that you are participating in good faith.
posted by oddman at 8:50 AM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Plus: given that the top administrators at Penn seem to have flagrantly violated their own student disciplinary procedures at various points in this process, even if one believed that Fierceton exaggerated minor details in a college admissions essay, that's not even a remotely comparable wrong. As those above noted, none of Fierceton's purported misdeeds, if true, would cause nearly the same level of harm to other disadvantaged students or prospective students as the misconduct of the Penn administrators.
posted by eviemath at 8:50 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:50 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Just a reminder for those quadrupling down on their attacks on MF. This isn’t a high school debate, there is no judge at the end of this who will award trophies. Also your credibility is kind of shot at this point. You’ve made accusations from evidence while omitting key details and engaging in assumptions and exaggerations. You look pretty silly clinging to the idea that a young woman’s life should be completely upended her academic career and future prospects erased and trashed for what seems to be the very thing you are doing in this thread. As this seems to be a pattern of conduct in this thread, I will assume that your own biography is full of this conduct and perhaps if you are as passionate about this subject as you claim you should ask your university to rescind your degrees.
posted by interogative mood at 9:12 AM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 9:12 AM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
I believe in the principle of holding people to the standards they set for others. On that principle, it must be noted that the following characterization by factory123 of a fellow user being “hounded out of the thread”
I'll tell you exactly what my nefarious agenda is, eviemath. I scanned this thread, saw a user getting dogpiled for having the very reasonable position that you should look at the evidence in the case and take that into consideration when making a judgment
. You'll see that that user was hounded out of the thread. I don't care for that, and it got me curious about the facts of the case.
has been shown to be factually inaccurate. Based on their own arguments, it is clearly important that we now consider what else they have been dishonest about in their participation in this thread. Does it rise to the level of having their comments, or even Metafilter membership, rescinded? I’m not passing judgement on that, but the harms to the community of other Mefites from such dishonesty and misrepresentation, if true, are serious enough that clearly we need to pick apart all of factory123‘s background in public on the internet here in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.
/s
posted by eviemath at 9:25 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
I'll tell you exactly what my nefarious agenda is, eviemath. I scanned this thread, saw a user getting dogpiled for having the very reasonable position that you should look at the evidence in the case and take that into consideration when making a judgment
. You'll see that that user was hounded out of the thread. I don't care for that, and it got me curious about the facts of the case.
has been shown to be factually inaccurate. Based on their own arguments, it is clearly important that we now consider what else they have been dishonest about in their participation in this thread. Does it rise to the level of having their comments, or even Metafilter membership, rescinded? I’m not passing judgement on that, but the harms to the community of other Mefites from such dishonesty and misrepresentation, if true, are serious enough that clearly we need to pick apart all of factory123‘s background in public on the internet here in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.
/s
posted by eviemath at 9:25 AM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Oh, a late addition to my comment earlier I'd forgotten about. Of course the RKWLAM narrative also includes Stella Liebeck, of McDonalds coffee fame. Like Reagan's welfare queens, the actual nefarious profiteering or confabulation of trauma in the narrative doesn't conform to actual reality. People who turn a fictitious sob story into riches are actually not that common: look closer at most cases and you find that the sob story is actually a real tragedy, or the riches never happened (or, in many cases, including Liebeck's, both). The closest I can find to a case where made-up misfortunes turned into success was James Frey.
posted by jackbishop at 9:35 AM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by jackbishop at 9:35 AM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
MF also had an interest in putting forth a false story.
Ah yeah, what a sly little devil, this girl, inflicting injury upon injury on herself to get herself removed from her well-off privileged family so she could end up in foster care and poor so that she could obtain a scholarship!
Seriously, I'm in awe of the mental contortions required to call her a liar. She must be simultaneously an evil Machiavellian genius who fooled everyone including doctors and child protection services and stupid enough not to have taken advantage in the first place of the privilege and wealth her mother had given her...
posted by bitteschoen at 9:38 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Ah yeah, what a sly little devil, this girl, inflicting injury upon injury on herself to get herself removed from her well-off privileged family so she could end up in foster care and poor so that she could obtain a scholarship!
Seriously, I'm in awe of the mental contortions required to call her a liar. She must be simultaneously an evil Machiavellian genius who fooled everyone including doctors and child protection services and stupid enough not to have taken advantage in the first place of the privilege and wealth her mother had given her...
posted by bitteschoen at 9:38 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
She wrote what she wrote, you can see it right there.
I think it's important to say that not one word she wrote was an actual lie. If you feel differently, I challenge you to provide one piece of writing that wasn't subject to interpretation. And because I'm now I suppose semi-academic, I'll cite the University report you seem to love and tear it to pieces as it justly deserves, showing what the real fucking sin here was.
First, from the university report: "was selected as a Rhodes Scholar because she offered an inspiring story –an ambitious and driven student who succeeded in the face of extraordinary odds"(University Bullshit, 3). This, right here, explains the true sin. She was chosen because a lot of wealthy and powerful people love the PKWMG story - and let me be more clear about how racist that story is, because it is is not just poverty porn, it is, as somone mentioned above, poverty colonialism. It is an opportunity for a wealthy group of people to think, "She has come out of the shit, but still acts just like us!" The very existence of these opportunities for what the wealthy believe to be the most "ambitious" and "driven" students coming from the perceived muck is to justify the subjugation of the other students.
This report, by the way, is astonishingly mean-spirited - Penn denies even the facts which both should not be in dispute in the case and also don't matter in the case, such as Fierceton's current address, as an attempt to throw doubt upon Fierceton's credibility from the start (UB, 4)
And I think - if we want to look at how Penn responds to situations where it may have liability, we need to look not just at its response to Fierceton, but its response to Driver, the widow of the student who died as a result in part of inadequate medical services. We can see this as fiercely protective - denying, for example, not only whether cellphone service was spotty or not in the basement -which is highly likely, given the characteristics of most basements - but also the number of classes that took place in the basement itself as well as a number of other details (UB 9-17).
And now let's look at some of the other denials that take place in the Penn document:
Fierceton says that Ruderman (a school employee) called her and told her there had been an anonymous complaint (UB, 21). Penn says, and I quote,
I want to hold here on what a violation that is. I'm an abuse victim myself: if I found out that my school had at any point done anything but hang up the phone on my abuser, I would be looking for a new school and going to the newspapers. Yet the school officials at Penn apparently saw nothing wrong with doing so. And this, somehow, convinces you they're a neutral and fair party?
posted by corb at 9:48 AM on March 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
I think it's important to say that not one word she wrote was an actual lie. If you feel differently, I challenge you to provide one piece of writing that wasn't subject to interpretation. And because I'm now I suppose semi-academic, I'll cite the University report you seem to love and tear it to pieces as it justly deserves, showing what the real fucking sin here was.
First, from the university report: "was selected as a Rhodes Scholar because she offered an inspiring story –an ambitious and driven student who succeeded in the face of extraordinary odds"(University Bullshit, 3). This, right here, explains the true sin. She was chosen because a lot of wealthy and powerful people love the PKWMG story - and let me be more clear about how racist that story is, because it is is not just poverty porn, it is, as somone mentioned above, poverty colonialism. It is an opportunity for a wealthy group of people to think, "She has come out of the shit, but still acts just like us!" The very existence of these opportunities for what the wealthy believe to be the most "ambitious" and "driven" students coming from the perceived muck is to justify the subjugation of the other students.
This report, by the way, is astonishingly mean-spirited - Penn denies even the facts which both should not be in dispute in the case and also don't matter in the case, such as Fierceton's current address, as an attempt to throw doubt upon Fierceton's credibility from the start (UB, 4)
And I think - if we want to look at how Penn responds to situations where it may have liability, we need to look not just at its response to Fierceton, but its response to Driver, the widow of the student who died as a result in part of inadequate medical services. We can see this as fiercely protective - denying, for example, not only whether cellphone service was spotty or not in the basement -which is highly likely, given the characteristics of most basements - but also the number of classes that took place in the basement itself as well as a number of other details (UB 9-17).
And now let's look at some of the other denials that take place in the Penn document:
Fierceton says that Ruderman (a school employee) called her and told her there had been an anonymous complaint (UB, 21). Penn says, and I quote,
"After reasonable investigation, Penn lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint and, therefore, the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint are denied."So this is their employee. Presumably, their employee has phone records that can reveal whether or not a phone call was made to Fierceton, or the school does, or could acquire them. But they claim here that they investigated and just couldn't figure out whether their own employee made a phone call. We're not even addressing the substance of the phone call - if they agreed the phone call had happened, but denied the substance of what was said, they would have said "Admitted in part, denied in part". No, they're claiming that the institution has no idea about what phone calls its own employees made. And I think we get to ask: why? If they really thought Fierceton was a lying liar what lied, then surely they would have been eager to counter yet another lie? No, I think that what happened was that their employee absolutely made that phone call, and it absolutely said exactly what Fierceton said it did - and that means that an employee of Penn, knowing, as we now know, that the 'anonymous source' was in fact Fierceton's abuser, was willing to speak to a known abuser of their student and lie about it, claiming it was anonymous.
I want to hold here on what a violation that is. I'm an abuse victim myself: if I found out that my school had at any point done anything but hang up the phone on my abuser, I would be looking for a new school and going to the newspapers. Yet the school officials at Penn apparently saw nothing wrong with doing so. And this, somehow, convinces you they're a neutral and fair party?
posted by corb at 9:48 AM on March 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
One can simultaneously feel bad for a young person and have serious concerns about their character.
Oh, jeeze, this? Is Penn State shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here. Even in worst case senario, MF has no trait that labels her as less truthful than the average Penn student, and—I must stress—that is believing the worst about her.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
Oh, jeeze, this? Is Penn State shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here. Even in worst case senario, MF has no trait that labels her as less truthful than the average Penn student, and—I must stress—that is believing the worst about her.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
None of that is excused or even clearly explained by her "trauma",
According to whom exactly?
posted by some loser at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
According to whom exactly?
posted by some loser at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
College admissions are an absolute scam, and beyond excluding people who are actually malignant like racists and homophobes, I would be perfectly content with any random student going anywhere. The idea that there were more deserving students that she stole a spot from is absolutely laughable.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:00 AM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:00 AM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
I don’t know, mate. What’s ““trauma””? I’m unfamiliar with the bunny-quote version that you seem to be discussing. Please provide bright-line definition.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 10:13 AM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 10:13 AM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
That doesn't even make sense and bears no relevance to the case in question.
posted by JenMarie at 10:14 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 10:14 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
I know they can hurt more deserving young people.
I am a person who has suffered physical and sexual abuse; I was, incidentally, also rejected from Penn. I still care about Fierceton - why don't you?
Going back to the actual documents:
Do you feel that the Penn process was fair, either when Penn disallowed Fierceton's academic advisor from acting as an advocate, and prevented him from questioning witnesses? (UB 42-43), or during the semi-byzantine processes that happened afterwards? (UB 43-49)
Do you believe Penn that Fierceton "suffered no harm or damages" from its actions during this whole process? (UB 49-52)
For those who claim that Fierceton lied in her essays, I quote Penn's own pleadings, which state:
"the first of six locations I would live in and be moved from over the next ten months" (UB, 61). The ten month period is specifically stated.
Much is argued of Fierceton's saying that she is the first in her family to complete college. But I ask you - what is a family? Once again, I'm not trying to be precious. Is a family biological parents who you have no contact with? Should adopted students be forced to search out and find their biological family to determine how much money they will...not have access to support from? Or is a family the people who live with and support a student? This is, again, not hypothetical to me. I have a daughter of college age. Is her family the sperm donor who beat me, who we had to flee from? Or am I her family?
posted by corb at 10:14 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I am a person who has suffered physical and sexual abuse; I was, incidentally, also rejected from Penn. I still care about Fierceton - why don't you?
Going back to the actual documents:
Do you feel that the Penn process was fair, either when Penn disallowed Fierceton's academic advisor from acting as an advocate, and prevented him from questioning witnesses? (UB 42-43), or during the semi-byzantine processes that happened afterwards? (UB 43-49)
Do you believe Penn that Fierceton "suffered no harm or damages" from its actions during this whole process? (UB 49-52)
For those who claim that Fierceton lied in her essays, I quote Penn's own pleadings, which state:
"the first of six locations I would live in and be moved from over the next ten months" (UB, 61). The ten month period is specifically stated.
Much is argued of Fierceton's saying that she is the first in her family to complete college. But I ask you - what is a family? Once again, I'm not trying to be precious. Is a family biological parents who you have no contact with? Should adopted students be forced to search out and find their biological family to determine how much money they will...not have access to support from? Or is a family the people who live with and support a student? This is, again, not hypothetical to me. I have a daughter of college age. Is her family the sperm donor who beat me, who we had to flee from? Or am I her family?
posted by corb at 10:14 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
tamarisk,
I think you and factory123, and everyone else in this thread really need to step back and just agree to disagree.
I was abused as a child and teenager. I thankfully had family that weren't dicks who I could fall back on so I didn't go into foster care. However, even if this woman (then a child) lied, got advantages I didn't (or couldn't) I HONESTLY DON'T GIVE A SHIT. Bad things happened to her, and she was brave enough to tell at least most of that story to a bunch of stuck-up rich assholes who got to decide if she was "deserving" enough. I wasn't brave enough to do that when I was 18. Consequentially I didn't get my B.S. until I was 35.
So what if she lied. Tons of people lie. Deserving people LIE too. The world isn't fair. This one case isn't going to litigate every unfair decision that Penn or Rhodes makes to discard some "more" deserving (a sickening concept) poor or disadvantaged child who didn't LIE well enough on their entrance essays. Maybe Penn and Rhodes shouldn't fucking PUNCH DOWN against one student. Perhaps they could instead use this as an internal teaching moment on how fucked up some families are and how a little more introspection on their parts is warranted before blowing up a young person's life.
American higher education is a shit-show. We've made our whole society and advancement in it contingent on how well you can work the system. This woman saw her mother lie, lie, lie, her whole life growing up. Seemed to work out for her. She probably had plenty of people in her life at that time helping her with her admissions who regaled her with tales on how they embellished their own admissions essays, why not her?
This is exactly the kind of shit story that makes me GLAD I didn't try to get scholarships when I was 18-24. My past is not an open book for rich assholes to pick over. I'll check some boxes based on well-explained criteria, and you can either give me money or not, but don't expect me to supplicate myself at the alter of someone else high-mindedness.
I'm glad for her to get as far as she did. Every other person who's been treated like crap by their parent(s) and the people in their life who are supposed to love them unconditionally, should be happy for her to get as far as she has. It's only a zero-sum game because those same high-minded assholes want us to believe it, work to make it that way. Fuck them.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:18 AM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
I think you and factory123, and everyone else in this thread really need to step back and just agree to disagree.
I was abused as a child and teenager. I thankfully had family that weren't dicks who I could fall back on so I didn't go into foster care. However, even if this woman (then a child) lied, got advantages I didn't (or couldn't) I HONESTLY DON'T GIVE A SHIT. Bad things happened to her, and she was brave enough to tell at least most of that story to a bunch of stuck-up rich assholes who got to decide if she was "deserving" enough. I wasn't brave enough to do that when I was 18. Consequentially I didn't get my B.S. until I was 35.
So what if she lied. Tons of people lie. Deserving people LIE too. The world isn't fair. This one case isn't going to litigate every unfair decision that Penn or Rhodes makes to discard some "more" deserving (a sickening concept) poor or disadvantaged child who didn't LIE well enough on their entrance essays. Maybe Penn and Rhodes shouldn't fucking PUNCH DOWN against one student. Perhaps they could instead use this as an internal teaching moment on how fucked up some families are and how a little more introspection on their parts is warranted before blowing up a young person's life.
American higher education is a shit-show. We've made our whole society and advancement in it contingent on how well you can work the system. This woman saw her mother lie, lie, lie, her whole life growing up. Seemed to work out for her. She probably had plenty of people in her life at that time helping her with her admissions who regaled her with tales on how they embellished their own admissions essays, why not her?
This is exactly the kind of shit story that makes me GLAD I didn't try to get scholarships when I was 18-24. My past is not an open book for rich assholes to pick over. I'll check some boxes based on well-explained criteria, and you can either give me money or not, but don't expect me to supplicate myself at the alter of someone else high-mindedness.
I'm glad for her to get as far as she did. Every other person who's been treated like crap by their parent(s) and the people in their life who are supposed to love them unconditionally, should be happy for her to get as far as she has. It's only a zero-sum game because those same high-minded assholes want us to believe it, work to make it that way. Fuck them.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:18 AM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
tamarisk---what you continue to not do, despite others with more information and familiarity with the sociological context of this case, is to try and understand that every embellishment that Mackenzie did is perfectly in line with EVERY PERSONAL STATEMENT OR ESSAY MADE BY AN IVY LEAGUE UNDERGRAD FOR LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Have you taught these kids? Have you spent time in any of these institutions?
This is like executing someone for driving 5 mph over the speed limit. They all spin the truth. They all sell themselves. They all try and present the best possible version of themselves. They all present an image of themselves that others may reasonably disagree with. If you investigate any on of them, you're going to find something to quibble with.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:27 AM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
This is like executing someone for driving 5 mph over the speed limit. They all spin the truth. They all sell themselves. They all try and present the best possible version of themselves. They all present an image of themselves that others may reasonably disagree with. If you investigate any on of them, you're going to find something to quibble with.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:27 AM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Also my god, I am left horrified that anyone, anyone, could read the Penn document and not want to metaphorically burn that school to the ground. The sliming of Fierceton is truly despicable.
When describing Fierceton as an 8 year old:
Once again, so much of this turns on subjective impressions of what a family is, what 'growing up' is - because these institutions, because academia itself, likes clean narratives.
I believe that Fierceton probably did grow up more in her ten months of foster care than in the time before her mother began to abuse her.
very embellishment that Mackenzie did is perfectly in line with EVERY PERSONAL STATEMENT OR ESSAY MADE BY AN IVY LEAGUE UNDERGRAD FOR LITERALLY EVERYTHING
Here's a good example. She is being called a liar because she said she "knew every police officer in her county by name at the age of 8". Penn spends great effort saying "There were 99 police officers, ha ha, she couldn't have known all of them!" (UB 75). But this is a rhetorical flourish based on the memories of an 8 year old. Did she know every officer? No. Did it feel like she did? Likely absolutely. Likely the same officers were coming to her house time after time, and an 8 year old isn't going to interrogate and say "well, exactly how many WERE there, isn't it likely this is just from one PRECINCT, or just the people tasked with child welfare?" This is a perfectly normal rhetorical flourish and is generally understood that way.
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on March 31, 2022 [22 favorites]
When describing Fierceton as an 8 year old:
Fierceton discovered how to make hot line calls and learned what a “mandated reporter” was.The Penn argument is actually: no no, she suffered abuse as a CHILD, so no one should believe the abuse that happened to her as a TEEN because she struggled to get to school because she KNEW teachers were mandated reporters! (UB 65-69)
Once again, so much of this turns on subjective impressions of what a family is, what 'growing up' is - because these institutions, because academia itself, likes clean narratives.
I believe that Fierceton probably did grow up more in her ten months of foster care than in the time before her mother began to abuse her.
very embellishment that Mackenzie did is perfectly in line with EVERY PERSONAL STATEMENT OR ESSAY MADE BY AN IVY LEAGUE UNDERGRAD FOR LITERALLY EVERYTHING
Here's a good example. She is being called a liar because she said she "knew every police officer in her county by name at the age of 8". Penn spends great effort saying "There were 99 police officers, ha ha, she couldn't have known all of them!" (UB 75). But this is a rhetorical flourish based on the memories of an 8 year old. Did she know every officer? No. Did it feel like she did? Likely absolutely. Likely the same officers were coming to her house time after time, and an 8 year old isn't going to interrogate and say "well, exactly how many WERE there, isn't it likely this is just from one PRECINCT, or just the people tasked with child welfare?" This is a perfectly normal rhetorical flourish and is generally understood that way.
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on March 31, 2022 [22 favorites]
Let's have bright lines
No, let's not. Bright lines don't help in situations like this involving actual humans, where memory and evidence is fallible – at least, that's clearly what a lot of people in this thread, including me, believe.
posted by adrianhon at 10:36 AM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
No, let's not. Bright lines don't help in situations like this involving actual humans, where memory and evidence is fallible – at least, that's clearly what a lot of people in this thread, including me, believe.
posted by adrianhon at 10:36 AM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
Since it's a rigged system. Yes, I firmly believe that, then everyone should be able to lie.
We're fighting over this because we live in a country where gate-keeping to higher education has been made into a fierce competition where the disadvantaged have to lie and cheat and rip each other to shreds to please the egos of rich people doling out money.
So, sincerely, SCREW THOSE GUYS.
If we lived in a just world, everyone who demonstrated interest would get a shot at higher ed. There would be no personal essays or statements. No one would get to make a decision over someone else's whole future based on how deserving or not they think they are.
But we don't live in that world. Looking back at the personal histories of the vast majority of the people who set up these Universities, Institutions, or Scholarships shows deeply flawed, greedy, and in some instances evil people who donated money for not really great reasons. Who spent most of their lives using serial dishonestly in the pursuit of advantage over others. We don't interrogate why their dirty money is now good enough to judge others with. A hundred years pass and suddenly it's the institutions they found that get the benefit of the doubt.
Mackenzie followed the spirit of the rules as laid out. That means lying to get an advantage. It's baked into the system. She had the misfortune of having a mother willing to go to extreme lengths to ruin her life, and an internal "justice" system of a University that was willing to play along with that mother.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:37 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
We're fighting over this because we live in a country where gate-keeping to higher education has been made into a fierce competition where the disadvantaged have to lie and cheat and rip each other to shreds to please the egos of rich people doling out money.
So, sincerely, SCREW THOSE GUYS.
If we lived in a just world, everyone who demonstrated interest would get a shot at higher ed. There would be no personal essays or statements. No one would get to make a decision over someone else's whole future based on how deserving or not they think they are.
But we don't live in that world. Looking back at the personal histories of the vast majority of the people who set up these Universities, Institutions, or Scholarships shows deeply flawed, greedy, and in some instances evil people who donated money for not really great reasons. Who spent most of their lives using serial dishonestly in the pursuit of advantage over others. We don't interrogate why their dirty money is now good enough to judge others with. A hundred years pass and suddenly it's the institutions they found that get the benefit of the doubt.
Mackenzie followed the spirit of the rules as laid out. That means lying to get an advantage. It's baked into the system. She had the misfortune of having a mother willing to go to extreme lengths to ruin her life, and an internal "justice" system of a University that was willing to play along with that mother.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:37 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
corb, that line about her knowing what a mandated reporter is filled me with white hot rage. Anyone who has worked with at-risk or system-involved youth can tell you - they all know about mandated reporters.
For Penn’s administration to claim this knowledge is evidence of some kind of nefariousness or “canny” manipulation of the system just underscores how indifferent that institution is to vulnerable young people.
posted by ardita at 10:45 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
For Penn’s administration to claim this knowledge is evidence of some kind of nefariousness or “canny” manipulation of the system just underscores how indifferent that institution is to vulnerable young people.
posted by ardita at 10:45 AM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Let's not forget that all this started when Fierceton had a seizure in class and it took emergency responders over an hour to get her out of the building. Their response was delayed because there was not cell service in the thick walls of the basement where the classroom was and EMS couldn't get a stretcher or other equipment into the elevator or up the stairwells. As a result she ended up in intensive care for 3 days and spent 5 days in the hospital. When she complained and learned that another student had died under similar circumstances and blew the whistle on the school for this clear danger to public safety of its facilities, that's when the school suddenly found Jesus and decided any of this mattered. Until then they were active participants in whatever lies/exagerations you want to accuse her of.
posted by interogative mood at 10:47 AM on March 31, 2022 [27 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 10:47 AM on March 31, 2022 [27 favorites]
I think we can have this discussion and explore the various perspectives that are definitely out there, being mindful that there are people in the thread (including me!) with traumatic backgrounds. In fact, my sister was homeless (couch surfing) due to my parents kicking her out for the last year of high school, and we would have presented very differently to a committee. The one of us who got help got the degree.
I see kids every day who need (and deserve) a hand up far, far, far more desperately than this kid did, and they don't fucking lie when asked to tell their stories.
How much "trauma" do you have to have before you get a free pass for serial dishonesty in pursuit of advantage over others?
I get why it burns if you think there's a possibility of a true meritocratic approach to these kinds of small, elite scholarship programs. I don't see it that way, partly because of having been on an admissions committee for an elite educational institution. You can do a rough cut and you depend on honesty for certain goals (race, finances, etc.) Committees really can't compare human beings and come out on the right side of things, although they sorta end up having to sit there. I worry for any committee that thinks they can absolutely confer scholarships 100% correctly.
My feeling is a few small details in a story like MF's are far outweighed by the gatekeeping in the system and the entire structure of colonialism in elite educational institutions. Way more kids, in other words, give up on themselves before they write the essay than essay fabulists that somehow make it through, and succeed well enough at the undergraduate level to be put up for the Rhodes.
I'm also not sure how many stories of personal trauma have as much background information as MF's. She has her foster care history, a 22 day hospitalization, a court case involving a parent of a kid in her class as the lawyer for her mother, and what, 5 years of attending Penn including professors who cared enough to house her and pay a year's tuition? Like... ... ...I'm trying to imagine an application with more factual information. Malala Yousafzai's I guess?
I also have worked briefly with homeless and other at-risk youth, and I've seen a couple lie worse when asked to tell their stories. There are lots of reasons for that. A lifetime of being disbelieved. A desperation to get an opportunity, any opportunity. Just coming from a family where the story changed every day due to addiction or other issues. And sure, straight out lying. None of that changed my conviction that all the kids deserved help. What's more, there are ways to handle it, even remove scholarships, that don't involve what happened here.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:51 AM on March 31, 2022 [26 favorites]
I see kids every day who need (and deserve) a hand up far, far, far more desperately than this kid did, and they don't fucking lie when asked to tell their stories.
How much "trauma" do you have to have before you get a free pass for serial dishonesty in pursuit of advantage over others?
I get why it burns if you think there's a possibility of a true meritocratic approach to these kinds of small, elite scholarship programs. I don't see it that way, partly because of having been on an admissions committee for an elite educational institution. You can do a rough cut and you depend on honesty for certain goals (race, finances, etc.) Committees really can't compare human beings and come out on the right side of things, although they sorta end up having to sit there. I worry for any committee that thinks they can absolutely confer scholarships 100% correctly.
My feeling is a few small details in a story like MF's are far outweighed by the gatekeeping in the system and the entire structure of colonialism in elite educational institutions. Way more kids, in other words, give up on themselves before they write the essay than essay fabulists that somehow make it through, and succeed well enough at the undergraduate level to be put up for the Rhodes.
I'm also not sure how many stories of personal trauma have as much background information as MF's. She has her foster care history, a 22 day hospitalization, a court case involving a parent of a kid in her class as the lawyer for her mother, and what, 5 years of attending Penn including professors who cared enough to house her and pay a year's tuition? Like... ... ...I'm trying to imagine an application with more factual information. Malala Yousafzai's I guess?
I also have worked briefly with homeless and other at-risk youth, and I've seen a couple lie worse when asked to tell their stories. There are lots of reasons for that. A lifetime of being disbelieved. A desperation to get an opportunity, any opportunity. Just coming from a family where the story changed every day due to addiction or other issues. And sure, straight out lying. None of that changed my conviction that all the kids deserved help. What's more, there are ways to handle it, even remove scholarships, that don't involve what happened here.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:51 AM on March 31, 2022 [26 favorites]
I should add that Mackenzies alleged big lies and schemes was to get her a.... MSW? I know a couple people who have that exact degree from Penn and they make 60 grand a year talking people out of suicide. If only all our fabulists were like Mackenzie!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:55 AM on March 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:55 AM on March 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
I think it's also worth looking at the actual essays in question, because doing so means you can easily see how Fierceton wrote accurately within the norms of college applications, and also how people made their own images in their head about what that meant and are angry and probably genuinely, at least in the case of the Rhodes scholarship folks, genuinely feel tricked.
And reading the documents of the Rhodes report, which Penn included, I am struck so much by how these upper class people simply do not understand abuse. They're saying that Fierceton lied about getting harassed by her abuser and contacting the police about it, because the packages she received were 'benign' and the police kept no records of the incidents. Because after all, her successful, wealthy mom just wanted to give her a bracelet, and how can anyone think THAT is threatening? As a survivor of abuse myself, however, I know that anytime you receive a physical item from your abuser, it means they know where to find you. Something can be a bracelet, a 'gift', and still an attempt at intimidation, of claiming.
And it's important to note that part of their 'evidence' is that after the first time, when she reported the package to the police and they didn't give a fuck, she didn't contact them again. Why the fuck would she? Given how helpful they had been the last time?
posted by corb at 10:57 AM on March 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
"My 17-year old mind is spinning. This is the sixth place I have lived since my last birthday" (UB 88)True. She was placed in multiple foster care homes, and at at least one of them, she was unhappy and tried to live with multiple different friends. But to the well-educated upper-class people overseeing this system, they breathe a sigh. They are dipping their toe in the world of poverty and saying "How frightful!" And assuming that this is moment is reflective of the entire life. If they want to cover the entire life they should grant more than two pages.
And reading the documents of the Rhodes report, which Penn included, I am struck so much by how these upper class people simply do not understand abuse. They're saying that Fierceton lied about getting harassed by her abuser and contacting the police about it, because the packages she received were 'benign' and the police kept no records of the incidents. Because after all, her successful, wealthy mom just wanted to give her a bracelet, and how can anyone think THAT is threatening? As a survivor of abuse myself, however, I know that anytime you receive a physical item from your abuser, it means they know where to find you. Something can be a bracelet, a 'gift', and still an attempt at intimidation, of claiming.
And it's important to note that part of their 'evidence' is that after the first time, when she reported the package to the police and they didn't give a fuck, she didn't contact them again. Why the fuck would she? Given how helpful they had been the last time?
posted by corb at 10:57 AM on March 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
Here's a question that's more pertinent to the actual linked story we all read (at least I assume we've been reading the same story, it doesn't always seem like it!): how many recorded injuries and hospitalizations and child protection services interventions and months in foster care and adults helping her and supporting her and corroborating her story does a minor need to have before you believe that she did suffer awful abuse that landed her in actual poverty and with no family to support her and therefore disadvantaged and fully deserving of help?
posted by bitteschoen at 10:57 AM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
posted by bitteschoen at 10:57 AM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
Timothy Burke on this case and specifically on how universities demand that students take responsibility for what they themselves do while the administrations take no responsibility.
Check out Betrayal Trauma by Jennifer Freyd for how trauma, especially trauma by people that a person is dependent on, damages memory.
A general thing-- children of rich, abusive families are *very* vulnerable and unlikely to get protected. It speaks to how bad the abuse was that she was put into foster care.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:22 AM on March 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
Check out Betrayal Trauma by Jennifer Freyd for how trauma, especially trauma by people that a person is dependent on, damages memory.
A general thing-- children of rich, abusive families are *very* vulnerable and unlikely to get protected. It speaks to how bad the abuse was that she was put into foster care.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:22 AM on March 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
free pass for serial dishonesty
OK, story time. This is a story which doesn't involve abuse, or awards, or trauma. It is a very low-key story with very low stakes.
Many years ago, my father was involved in planning a major multi-day event far from home. There is absolutely no way anyone could have been at the event without their presence being officially noted. Due to other commitments, he was not scheduled to be at the actual event, and there is no official record of him being there, but he was deeply logistically involved in the several-months-long runup to the event itself. However, there were numerous people (mostly intelligent, rational people with, AFAICT, no serious hallucination disorders or propensity for lying) who asserted fairly strenuously that he was there. Some even had memories of specific things he had done while there (which were obviously false, because he wasn't).
I tell this story precisely because it is so low-key and low-stakes. There's not a lot of room in it for malice, or any way such malice could have accomplished anything. It is utterly absurd to suggest that a lot of people conspired to lie about his whereabouts in a way which isn't to anybody's benefit (he wasn't there, he concedes he wasn't there, most people who claimed he was there ended up pretty vague on details, and neither being there nor not being there helped him establish an alibi or any such folderol). And yet, from the outside, it sure looks nefarious: why would all these people tell the same verifiable untruth? Mostly because it fit a narrative. The event was his passion: of course he would have been at it! The fact that he wasn't physically there didn't stop people from filling his presence in where it was convenient.
My point is, lack of truth, even quite widespread lack of truth, is quite a different thing from dishonesty. When something doesn't seem to make sense, perceptions are amazingly malleable. And I daresay there is a lot in Mackenzie Fierceton's upbringing that didn't make sense to her.
posted by jackbishop at 11:23 AM on March 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
OK, story time. This is a story which doesn't involve abuse, or awards, or trauma. It is a very low-key story with very low stakes.
Many years ago, my father was involved in planning a major multi-day event far from home. There is absolutely no way anyone could have been at the event without their presence being officially noted. Due to other commitments, he was not scheduled to be at the actual event, and there is no official record of him being there, but he was deeply logistically involved in the several-months-long runup to the event itself. However, there were numerous people (mostly intelligent, rational people with, AFAICT, no serious hallucination disorders or propensity for lying) who asserted fairly strenuously that he was there. Some even had memories of specific things he had done while there (which were obviously false, because he wasn't).
I tell this story precisely because it is so low-key and low-stakes. There's not a lot of room in it for malice, or any way such malice could have accomplished anything. It is utterly absurd to suggest that a lot of people conspired to lie about his whereabouts in a way which isn't to anybody's benefit (he wasn't there, he concedes he wasn't there, most people who claimed he was there ended up pretty vague on details, and neither being there nor not being there helped him establish an alibi or any such folderol). And yet, from the outside, it sure looks nefarious: why would all these people tell the same verifiable untruth? Mostly because it fit a narrative. The event was his passion: of course he would have been at it! The fact that he wasn't physically there didn't stop people from filling his presence in where it was convenient.
My point is, lack of truth, even quite widespread lack of truth, is quite a different thing from dishonesty. When something doesn't seem to make sense, perceptions are amazingly malleable. And I daresay there is a lot in Mackenzie Fierceton's upbringing that didn't make sense to her.
posted by jackbishop at 11:23 AM on March 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
Let's have bright lines.
That's not how human beings work. We are sloppy and complicated and things are not always clear-cut. I'd feel differently about all of this if Fierceton had been a lying rich child of rich parents who had obviously never suffered a day in her life and had never been part of a lawsuit against the university. In that case, we'd have a bright-line, clear-cut case of fabrication from whole cloth. Case closed!
But this isn't that, and things are rarely that cut and dry. It's embellishment and exaggeration mixed in with truth, and that's happening both on Fierceton's end and on Penn's end. Both parties are representing their own interests. If one can have ulterior motives, so can the other. Penn's filing is stretching facts in the service of its argument, e.g., the thing about whether or not a 6-year-old could feel like they really knew every police officer in a town even if they were not a close personal friend of all 99 officers. Which isn't to mention their painting a picture in which the school has been perfect and hasn't made a single questionable choice throughout this ordeal. Penn has hired very expensive lawyers to do the very thing they are criticizing, but on their behalf.
Things are also far from clear-cut because of the blurry norms and definitions involved in college admissions processes. Do you know how many students lie about "founding a nonprofit," or embellish their role, or found one for the sake of admissions and drop it like a hot rock when they head to college? It sucks! It's a dumb, bad thing! But it's not like Penn is cracking down on it. So the rich kids who have not been wards of the state and are just as equally taking up a seat at the table get a pass, while Fierceton is held to a higher standard and is subject to public scrutiny for getting in the way of even less-privileged students.
Anyhow, a thing that almost made me laugh in the filing is the paragraph toward the beginning in which the University of Pennsylvania disputes the fact that it is the University of Pennsylvania:
posted by evidenceofabsence at 11:31 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
That's not how human beings work. We are sloppy and complicated and things are not always clear-cut. I'd feel differently about all of this if Fierceton had been a lying rich child of rich parents who had obviously never suffered a day in her life and had never been part of a lawsuit against the university. In that case, we'd have a bright-line, clear-cut case of fabrication from whole cloth. Case closed!
But this isn't that, and things are rarely that cut and dry. It's embellishment and exaggeration mixed in with truth, and that's happening both on Fierceton's end and on Penn's end. Both parties are representing their own interests. If one can have ulterior motives, so can the other. Penn's filing is stretching facts in the service of its argument, e.g., the thing about whether or not a 6-year-old could feel like they really knew every police officer in a town even if they were not a close personal friend of all 99 officers. Which isn't to mention their painting a picture in which the school has been perfect and hasn't made a single questionable choice throughout this ordeal. Penn has hired very expensive lawyers to do the very thing they are criticizing, but on their behalf.
Things are also far from clear-cut because of the blurry norms and definitions involved in college admissions processes. Do you know how many students lie about "founding a nonprofit," or embellish their role, or found one for the sake of admissions and drop it like a hot rock when they head to college? It sucks! It's a dumb, bad thing! But it's not like Penn is cracking down on it. So the rich kids who have not been wards of the state and are just as equally taking up a seat at the table get a pass, while Fierceton is held to a higher standard and is subject to public scrutiny for getting in the way of even less-privileged students.
Anyhow, a thing that almost made me laugh in the filing is the paragraph toward the beginning in which the University of Pennsylvania disputes the fact that it is the University of Pennsylvania:
Denied. Penn is a non-profit entity that operates the University of Pennsylvania (the “University”). The University, which is not a distinct legal entity, has a building located at 3451 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. The University of Pennsylvania is improperly named as a party to this lawsuitI know it's important to establish which precise legal entity is party to a lawsuit, but damn if that doesn't read like some trifling bullshit.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 11:31 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
herself as being the first in her family to attend college,
She never said that she was the first in her family to attend college.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:39 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
She never said that she was the first in her family to attend college.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:39 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
OK, I don't know if it is smart of me to enter this discussion. I'm in treatment for PTSD. Some of my symptoms are disassociation and complete losses of memory of periods of my life. I am not well and I will not respond to anyone who doubts my experience.
First of all. In general: please believe victims of abuse. Just do it. I will get back to this further down in this comment which will be long.
Then, you can be economically privileged and be a victim of abuse. This is not only hard to understand for society, but also for the abused person. My siblings and I have often discussed the fact that if we had not been "privileged", our parents would have been in jail and we would have been in foster care. We think about wether that would have been a better solution, and we don't know, given that the foster homes of our time were often businesses, where the kids were abused again.
I put "privileged" in scare quotes, because although we lived in a huge apartment, and our grandparents were famous and some of them also rich, and we went to a private school, we were the only kids I know who literally starved, and have the physical evidence to prove it. Our mother was an alcoholic, drug addict and mentally ill and spent all of our family's good income on the drinks, drugs and expensive clothes that made her look posh.
As an adult I have learnt that tons of people knew what was going on. Some of them helped us the best they could. My brother lived at the school principal's house for a while, my sister lived at her godmother's. I lived with my grandparents for long periods, and was often fed at my best friend's home.
But they all felt it would be wrong to report the situation to the authorities. And maybe they were right. I have no idea.
Anyway, for years, I found it hard to tell my story when asked. It was so complicated. When I turned 50, my high-school boyfriend came to the reception and one of the things he said was that he was surprised that I spoke with such warmth about my dad. My parents divorced when I was 9 months old, and it was always complicated. I can't explain the whole truth here, but when I was 17, my relationship with my dad was troubled, and when I was much older, maybe 35, he told me that I wasn't wrong, he was. Did I lie about him to my then boyfriend? No I didn't! I was a teen, I didn't understand what was happening, and I was sad.
And as it says in the article: no kid, and absolutely no teenager wants to share an abusive background. You want to fit in.
The life of an abused child is all about telling stories that make you seem normal. You don't say you stayed home from school because you had bruises all over your body, you say you were ill. You don't tell tell the school nurse you are too skinny because your family doesn't feed you, you just say you can't seem to put on weight. And obviously your mum lies too, all the time. Everything is lies. Oh and I mentioned the dissociation above. Sometimes I don't even to this day know what the truth was.
I moved out when I was 16. It wasn't as dramatic or life threatening as it was for Mackenzie, but still I actually don't really know what really happened. She at least has the fact that she was hospitalized. I know that I refused to talk with my mother at all for a year at least, and then again for 10 years after she failed at being civilized at my graduation. But how do you talk about this as a traumatized teenager? I know that even some of my best friends had no idea of what happened until I was diagnosed with PTSD. My brother moved out the year after, and my poor sister, who was much younger than us, was actually offered public help for troubled youth when she reached 16.
None of us really know the truth, and we have different versions. We know we suffered abuse, we know we starved. But all the details are hazy. And I think this is probably the same regardless of class or race. All of us have tried to work ourselves out of this, with different solutions, and for all of us, it has been very hard. My brother and I have very strongly taken a distance to our background, like Mackenzie, where my sister has tried to capitalize on our background. None of the strategies have worked particularly well. My brother finds my sister's version of things really hard to take. If we were public persons, that would be an issue.
In all of my life, I have been trying out narratives about my background. Someone might say I was lying. Even here on the blue I have told stories that aren't lies, but that emphasize some aspects over others. Yes, my grandmother was dirt poor working class, but my granddad, her husband, was once one of the richest people in this country (as an excuse, they lived extremely modestly and in the end my uncle wasted all the money away before I could get at them. I didn't ever know they were rich till my granddad died). It has made sense for me to focus on gran's background, because she was my guide in life, and her values were from that little damp cottage and they have helped me through all challenges in life. My other grandmother was born rich and struggled through life after she was widowed, and I have learnt from her too.
One thing I recognize from Mackenzie is the sense of being a first generation student. It felt true to me when I graduated from (the equivalent of) high school, because I was in the family that supported me at that time, even though my dad had graduated. I was celebrated as the first graduate, and that happened again when I got my university degree -- years before my dad acknowledged that he had done wrong. My family was pretending that my parents didn't exist, and that I was a unique genius. How could I as a teen and young adult chose a different narrative? I'm not saying that my dad didn't make an effort in all those years, he did, and he grew into learning about what I had experienced, but it took him another ten years to talk about it.
I started by writing that it is difficult for victims of abuse in privileged families to deal with the privilege. We are not idiots. And it seems Mackenzie is very aware of this. In the most recent phase of my therapy I have been in a group, and I have told the others that I feel ashamed that I am even there, perhaps taking up space for another person with less privilege. It turns out that no one with actual PTSD sees that as an issue.
And finally, again, believe victims of childhood abuse or rape. Why would anyone want to lie about that? Today, I am primarily a teacher, though I also do other things. And I have in my teaching life met a few kids who lied about childhood abuse. These kids were seriously mentally ill, and needed help regardless of what their parents had done. So that argument in my view is totally void.
Oh, and post finally, how much of this has to do with the US education system?
posted by mumimor at 11:47 AM on March 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
First of all. In general: please believe victims of abuse. Just do it. I will get back to this further down in this comment which will be long.
Then, you can be economically privileged and be a victim of abuse. This is not only hard to understand for society, but also for the abused person. My siblings and I have often discussed the fact that if we had not been "privileged", our parents would have been in jail and we would have been in foster care. We think about wether that would have been a better solution, and we don't know, given that the foster homes of our time were often businesses, where the kids were abused again.
I put "privileged" in scare quotes, because although we lived in a huge apartment, and our grandparents were famous and some of them also rich, and we went to a private school, we were the only kids I know who literally starved, and have the physical evidence to prove it. Our mother was an alcoholic, drug addict and mentally ill and spent all of our family's good income on the drinks, drugs and expensive clothes that made her look posh.
As an adult I have learnt that tons of people knew what was going on. Some of them helped us the best they could. My brother lived at the school principal's house for a while, my sister lived at her godmother's. I lived with my grandparents for long periods, and was often fed at my best friend's home.
But they all felt it would be wrong to report the situation to the authorities. And maybe they were right. I have no idea.
Anyway, for years, I found it hard to tell my story when asked. It was so complicated. When I turned 50, my high-school boyfriend came to the reception and one of the things he said was that he was surprised that I spoke with such warmth about my dad. My parents divorced when I was 9 months old, and it was always complicated. I can't explain the whole truth here, but when I was 17, my relationship with my dad was troubled, and when I was much older, maybe 35, he told me that I wasn't wrong, he was. Did I lie about him to my then boyfriend? No I didn't! I was a teen, I didn't understand what was happening, and I was sad.
And as it says in the article: no kid, and absolutely no teenager wants to share an abusive background. You want to fit in.
The life of an abused child is all about telling stories that make you seem normal. You don't say you stayed home from school because you had bruises all over your body, you say you were ill. You don't tell tell the school nurse you are too skinny because your family doesn't feed you, you just say you can't seem to put on weight. And obviously your mum lies too, all the time. Everything is lies. Oh and I mentioned the dissociation above. Sometimes I don't even to this day know what the truth was.
I moved out when I was 16. It wasn't as dramatic or life threatening as it was for Mackenzie, but still I actually don't really know what really happened. She at least has the fact that she was hospitalized. I know that I refused to talk with my mother at all for a year at least, and then again for 10 years after she failed at being civilized at my graduation. But how do you talk about this as a traumatized teenager? I know that even some of my best friends had no idea of what happened until I was diagnosed with PTSD. My brother moved out the year after, and my poor sister, who was much younger than us, was actually offered public help for troubled youth when she reached 16.
None of us really know the truth, and we have different versions. We know we suffered abuse, we know we starved. But all the details are hazy. And I think this is probably the same regardless of class or race. All of us have tried to work ourselves out of this, with different solutions, and for all of us, it has been very hard. My brother and I have very strongly taken a distance to our background, like Mackenzie, where my sister has tried to capitalize on our background. None of the strategies have worked particularly well. My brother finds my sister's version of things really hard to take. If we were public persons, that would be an issue.
In all of my life, I have been trying out narratives about my background. Someone might say I was lying. Even here on the blue I have told stories that aren't lies, but that emphasize some aspects over others. Yes, my grandmother was dirt poor working class, but my granddad, her husband, was once one of the richest people in this country (as an excuse, they lived extremely modestly and in the end my uncle wasted all the money away before I could get at them. I didn't ever know they were rich till my granddad died). It has made sense for me to focus on gran's background, because she was my guide in life, and her values were from that little damp cottage and they have helped me through all challenges in life. My other grandmother was born rich and struggled through life after she was widowed, and I have learnt from her too.
One thing I recognize from Mackenzie is the sense of being a first generation student. It felt true to me when I graduated from (the equivalent of) high school, because I was in the family that supported me at that time, even though my dad had graduated. I was celebrated as the first graduate, and that happened again when I got my university degree -- years before my dad acknowledged that he had done wrong. My family was pretending that my parents didn't exist, and that I was a unique genius. How could I as a teen and young adult chose a different narrative? I'm not saying that my dad didn't make an effort in all those years, he did, and he grew into learning about what I had experienced, but it took him another ten years to talk about it.
I started by writing that it is difficult for victims of abuse in privileged families to deal with the privilege. We are not idiots. And it seems Mackenzie is very aware of this. In the most recent phase of my therapy I have been in a group, and I have told the others that I feel ashamed that I am even there, perhaps taking up space for another person with less privilege. It turns out that no one with actual PTSD sees that as an issue.
And finally, again, believe victims of childhood abuse or rape. Why would anyone want to lie about that? Today, I am primarily a teacher, though I also do other things. And I have in my teaching life met a few kids who lied about childhood abuse. These kids were seriously mentally ill, and needed help regardless of what their parents had done. So that argument in my view is totally void.
Oh, and post finally, how much of this has to do with the US education system?
posted by mumimor at 11:47 AM on March 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
I don't think there's much if any discussion/debate here about whether she suffered abuse.
posted by factory123 at 11:20 AM on March 31
Despite your claimed dedication to honesty, your statement is again belied by the facts in evidence:
Items about which the student appears to have been dishonest (mostly in writing -- see excerpts from her own essays/applications in the OSC report) -- leaving aside for the moment unsubstantiated claims about the nature and severity of injuries allegedly sustained at the hands of her mother
posted by tamarisk at 10:00 PM on March 30
The student's statements do not coincide consistently with the medical records. So there are also doctors and prosecutors and so on who do not corroborate her claims.
posted by tamarisk at 7:54 PM on March 30
Since the questions have been raised, multiple institutions have conducted fact-finding efforts and concluded there are problems with her prior statements. For example, she wrote about her hospitalization, implying that she was placed on a feeding tube because her injuries about the face and body were so severe she required one. Records reportedly show that she was, in fact, placed on the feeding tube for "behavioral" reasons, not for physiological ones relating to her bodily injuries. This and other discrepancies are at the heart of the dispute over the veracity of her claims.
...
Abuse allegations ought to be taken deadly seriously. ... But responsible adults in this case who deal with similarly troubling situations daily and who have every reason to pursue them in good faith seem to have been given pause, to have serious doubts, and they acted accordingly. Subsequently, other responsible adults have done their own independent fact-finding and have also had doubts.
...
If the mother was wrongly exonerated, that's a heartbreaking failure. But nobody's come forward with convincing evidence that this is the case.
posted by tamarisk at 7:05 PM on March 30
The piece only nods to the discrepancies between her account and medical records. It would be helpful to have more information, but I imagine the people who raised those questions very likely have their reasons.
The piece does not present in substance those alleged discrepancies cited by officials at Penn and elsewhere. So it's hard to make a fair assessment.
It's a very simple position to take that all accusers are by default telling the truth. But it doesn't take into account the necessity to verify claims that could end up ruining lives all around or, in this case, unfairly deny opportunities and resources to the deserving.
Folks are casting aside the lack of attention to detail in the piece's take on discrepancies between medical records and the student's account. Clearly some folks I have to assume are as decent as you and I are have concluded there were problems there, and I haven't seen what they've seen.
posted by tamarisk at 11:43 AM on March 30
posted by eviemath at 11:55 AM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by factory123 at 11:20 AM on March 31
Despite your claimed dedication to honesty, your statement is again belied by the facts in evidence:
Items about which the student appears to have been dishonest (mostly in writing -- see excerpts from her own essays/applications in the OSC report) -- leaving aside for the moment unsubstantiated claims about the nature and severity of injuries allegedly sustained at the hands of her mother
posted by tamarisk at 10:00 PM on March 30
The student's statements do not coincide consistently with the medical records. So there are also doctors and prosecutors and so on who do not corroborate her claims.
posted by tamarisk at 7:54 PM on March 30
Since the questions have been raised, multiple institutions have conducted fact-finding efforts and concluded there are problems with her prior statements. For example, she wrote about her hospitalization, implying that she was placed on a feeding tube because her injuries about the face and body were so severe she required one. Records reportedly show that she was, in fact, placed on the feeding tube for "behavioral" reasons, not for physiological ones relating to her bodily injuries. This and other discrepancies are at the heart of the dispute over the veracity of her claims.
...
Abuse allegations ought to be taken deadly seriously. ... But responsible adults in this case who deal with similarly troubling situations daily and who have every reason to pursue them in good faith seem to have been given pause, to have serious doubts, and they acted accordingly. Subsequently, other responsible adults have done their own independent fact-finding and have also had doubts.
...
If the mother was wrongly exonerated, that's a heartbreaking failure. But nobody's come forward with convincing evidence that this is the case.
posted by tamarisk at 7:05 PM on March 30
The piece only nods to the discrepancies between her account and medical records. It would be helpful to have more information, but I imagine the people who raised those questions very likely have their reasons.
The piece does not present in substance those alleged discrepancies cited by officials at Penn and elsewhere. So it's hard to make a fair assessment.
It's a very simple position to take that all accusers are by default telling the truth. But it doesn't take into account the necessity to verify claims that could end up ruining lives all around or, in this case, unfairly deny opportunities and resources to the deserving.
Folks are casting aside the lack of attention to detail in the piece's take on discrepancies between medical records and the student's account. Clearly some folks I have to assume are as decent as you and I are have concluded there were problems there, and I haven't seen what they've seen.
posted by tamarisk at 11:43 AM on March 30
posted by eviemath at 11:55 AM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
She never said that she was the first in her family to attend college.
She represented herself as first-generation. It seems like an obvious lie when her mom clearly went to college, but on closer inspection, it's a good example of how things quickly get blurry, and how Penn is partly responsible for the lack of clarity. From a paywalled Chronicle of Higher Education article:
"But at Penn, it’s not that straightforward. The term is defined in multiple ways on the university’s website, encompassing a much broader array of students. The university’s first-generation, low-income student organization has included as first-generation those who are the first in their families to 'pursue higher education at an elite institution.' What 'elite' means is up for debate, but Fierceton’s parents were not Ivy League graduates. The current website for Penn First Plus, the university’s 'hub for efforts to make the campus more inclusive,' says that students qualify as first-generation if they 'have a strained or limited relationship with the person(s) in your family who hold(s) a bachelors degree.'"
Fierceton does not meet the colliquial definition of a first-generation student. She might meet Penn's own definition of a student whose parents didn't attend an "elite" institution, and she definitely meets Penn's other definition of a student who has a strained relationship with the person who does have a degree.
The university muddied the waters and then held a student to task for being unclear.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:03 PM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
She represented herself as first-generation. It seems like an obvious lie when her mom clearly went to college, but on closer inspection, it's a good example of how things quickly get blurry, and how Penn is partly responsible for the lack of clarity. From a paywalled Chronicle of Higher Education article:
"But at Penn, it’s not that straightforward. The term is defined in multiple ways on the university’s website, encompassing a much broader array of students. The university’s first-generation, low-income student organization has included as first-generation those who are the first in their families to 'pursue higher education at an elite institution.' What 'elite' means is up for debate, but Fierceton’s parents were not Ivy League graduates. The current website for Penn First Plus, the university’s 'hub for efforts to make the campus more inclusive,' says that students qualify as first-generation if they 'have a strained or limited relationship with the person(s) in your family who hold(s) a bachelors degree.'"
Fierceton does not meet the colliquial definition of a first-generation student. She might meet Penn's own definition of a student whose parents didn't attend an "elite" institution, and she definitely meets Penn's other definition of a student who has a strained relationship with the person who does have a degree.
The university muddied the waters and then held a student to task for being unclear.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:03 PM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
Incredible how, instead of exclaiming "what the fuck!" loudly over this clear case of retaliation against a whistle-blower who brought attention to an issue that led to her hospitalization and the death of another student
we are litigating whether or not the chick lied on a college application. Because that's fucking relevant. You look hard enough, with enough eyes, you can paint anyone as a liar. Did we learn nothing from Dawn Dorland?
And who could be more motivated to look that hard than an institution that has just suffered the tremendous personal embarrassment of having someone tell people that they accidentally killed a student? And let me clear, the problem for them is not that they killed a student, but the embarrassment of having to do something about the dead student, of having to acknowledge the dead student, of not being able to sweep it under the rug as a terrible tragedy that doesn't, of course, obligate them in any way.
But of course, I suppose that's the real crime. Not the death of one student and hospitalization of another as a direct result of the institution's negligence, but that it was pointed out, PUBLICALLY, where the commoners might - shock, gasp, horror - judge their obvious betters. Good people, our kind of people, deal with this sort of thing privately, behind closed doors.
Rich person rules: the only real crime is being indiscreet.
Fucking goddamn hell.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:18 PM on March 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
we are litigating whether or not the chick lied on a college application. Because that's fucking relevant. You look hard enough, with enough eyes, you can paint anyone as a liar. Did we learn nothing from Dawn Dorland?
And who could be more motivated to look that hard than an institution that has just suffered the tremendous personal embarrassment of having someone tell people that they accidentally killed a student? And let me clear, the problem for them is not that they killed a student, but the embarrassment of having to do something about the dead student, of having to acknowledge the dead student, of not being able to sweep it under the rug as a terrible tragedy that doesn't, of course, obligate them in any way.
But of course, I suppose that's the real crime. Not the death of one student and hospitalization of another as a direct result of the institution's negligence, but that it was pointed out, PUBLICALLY, where the commoners might - shock, gasp, horror - judge their obvious betters. Good people, our kind of people, deal with this sort of thing privately, behind closed doors.
Rich person rules: the only real crime is being indiscreet.
Fucking goddamn hell.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:18 PM on March 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
I don't think there's much if any discussion/debate here about whether she suffered abuse.
Well that was not at all clear, that there's no such discussion. All I see from you and the other user who's dominated this thread is the insistence that she must be a liar, based on some very selective reading of her entire story - and complete dismissal of the many supporting facts cited in the NY piece - and siding entirely with the academic institutions in question. (That also implies complete dismissal of the journalistic work done by the NY which you know unlike the two academic institutions in question is not involved in a legal dispute over this and trying to save face but ok ok let's put all that aside for a minute)
So let me understand, you're making a distinction here - you do believe that she suffered serious abuse, but do not believe she was deserving of... help in dealing with the very consequences of that abuse?
And all that based on what you call "other representations" or "lies" about other details of her life, which were not even in fact lies and not quite representations made in the terms you describe them... she never claimed she was poor all her life from birth or that she spent all her life in foster care and she was specifically instructed to answer a question in a form in a certain way, why is all in the article - again I wonder if we did read the same article?
posted by bitteschoen at 12:21 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Well that was not at all clear, that there's no such discussion. All I see from you and the other user who's dominated this thread is the insistence that she must be a liar, based on some very selective reading of her entire story - and complete dismissal of the many supporting facts cited in the NY piece - and siding entirely with the academic institutions in question. (That also implies complete dismissal of the journalistic work done by the NY which you know unlike the two academic institutions in question is not involved in a legal dispute over this and trying to save face but ok ok let's put all that aside for a minute)
So let me understand, you're making a distinction here - you do believe that she suffered serious abuse, but do not believe she was deserving of... help in dealing with the very consequences of that abuse?
And all that based on what you call "other representations" or "lies" about other details of her life, which were not even in fact lies and not quite representations made in the terms you describe them... she never claimed she was poor all her life from birth or that she spent all her life in foster care and she was specifically instructed to answer a question in a form in a certain way, why is all in the article - again I wonder if we did read the same article?
posted by bitteschoen at 12:21 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
(Oh and indeed there had been comments explicitly calling into question the child abuse itself, I didn't dream those... That was another user, but it's still in this very thread)
posted by bitteschoen at 12:31 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by bitteschoen at 12:31 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
You keep just skating right over the retaliation aspect.
Do you understand how retaliation works?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Do you understand how retaliation works?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Factory123 did you read her complaint? She was in the hospital for 5 days, 3 of those in intensive care because the University failed to provide adequate access for first responders and communications capabilities to report an emergency. You think she’s the one who needs to apologize, not the University?
posted by interogative mood at 2:37 PM on March 31, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 2:37 PM on March 31, 2022 [8 favorites]
So you don't actually understand how retaliation work.
Okay, let me explain it.
When you are trying to retaliate against someone, you throw absolutely everything at them that you can find. This includes things that normally you would not rate as remotely important. Like how when your boss wants to get rid of you, so suddenly they're riding your ass on every little thing and timing your bathroom breaks?
As has been pointed out, many times, massaging the facts of your life to present an entertaining and comprehensive narrative for a college admissions board is not just something every student does, it is an actual acknowledge strategy that you can take courses to learn how to do. "How To Apply For Scholarships And Grants" is basically a minor industry at this point, one of the many that would not exist without higher education (like test prep).
Nothing she did is outside the accepted norms. If you applied the same scrutiny to every single application that was applied to Fierceton's, you would find basically the same amount of falsity. Source: was a student myself, went to all those seminars, was told by multiple adults including my academic professor that I was giving "too much detail" and didn't need to "get into the nuances, just tell it like the Hollywood adaptation of your life." Multiple people in this thread have made statements along these lines. So unless you've got a rebuttal to all that, you're SOL for saying she's a bad naughty evil girl; there's no reason to rake her over the coals for something everyone does, and if your argument is that no one should be doing it at all, why is SHE your fucking example, and not some chucklefuck citing their LSD mission trip as "volunteering overseas to work with low-income communities"?
That being said, it also doesn't MATTER. It doesn't! Because the only reason she's getting hit with this is because she blew the whistle on UPenn. Literally the only reason. And that's what you're actually arguing against, though you keep trying to elide it. You simply don't think this is a case of retaliation.
Here some facts in support of it being retaliation:
1. MF has a seizure. Due to inadequate safety measures from the school, EMTs are unable to reach and transport her in a safe and timely fashion. As a a result, she suffers hospitalization for multiple days.
2. She later learns that this has been a problem before, and one student has died as a result of this same issue, and that the administration has been slow or unwilling to address it.
3. She blows the whistle. UPenn is hit with a wrongful death suit, which she testifies in, causing them financial and reputational harm.
4. And then, mysteriously, for some totally inexplicable and coincidental reason, UPenn asks Rhodes to pretty please double check if Fierceton really deserves one of their ever-so-prestigious scholarships. Rhodes responds to UPenn's request, and shock! Horror! It turns out she's a dishonest liar and probably no one should listen to her, ever, especially not about UPenn being responsible for her hospitalization and the death of another student. After all, once a liar, always a liar. She said the straw was metal, but the record CLEARLY shows it was plastic.
If a lawyer at trial tries that kinda shit, I'm pretty sure the judge is legally allowed to hunt them for sport.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:53 PM on March 31, 2022 [24 favorites]
Okay, let me explain it.
When you are trying to retaliate against someone, you throw absolutely everything at them that you can find. This includes things that normally you would not rate as remotely important. Like how when your boss wants to get rid of you, so suddenly they're riding your ass on every little thing and timing your bathroom breaks?
As has been pointed out, many times, massaging the facts of your life to present an entertaining and comprehensive narrative for a college admissions board is not just something every student does, it is an actual acknowledge strategy that you can take courses to learn how to do. "How To Apply For Scholarships And Grants" is basically a minor industry at this point, one of the many that would not exist without higher education (like test prep).
Nothing she did is outside the accepted norms. If you applied the same scrutiny to every single application that was applied to Fierceton's, you would find basically the same amount of falsity. Source: was a student myself, went to all those seminars, was told by multiple adults including my academic professor that I was giving "too much detail" and didn't need to "get into the nuances, just tell it like the Hollywood adaptation of your life." Multiple people in this thread have made statements along these lines. So unless you've got a rebuttal to all that, you're SOL for saying she's a bad naughty evil girl; there's no reason to rake her over the coals for something everyone does, and if your argument is that no one should be doing it at all, why is SHE your fucking example, and not some chucklefuck citing their LSD mission trip as "volunteering overseas to work with low-income communities"?
That being said, it also doesn't MATTER. It doesn't! Because the only reason she's getting hit with this is because she blew the whistle on UPenn. Literally the only reason. And that's what you're actually arguing against, though you keep trying to elide it. You simply don't think this is a case of retaliation.
Here some facts in support of it being retaliation:
1. MF has a seizure. Due to inadequate safety measures from the school, EMTs are unable to reach and transport her in a safe and timely fashion. As a a result, she suffers hospitalization for multiple days.
2. She later learns that this has been a problem before, and one student has died as a result of this same issue, and that the administration has been slow or unwilling to address it.
3. She blows the whistle. UPenn is hit with a wrongful death suit, which she testifies in, causing them financial and reputational harm.
4. And then, mysteriously, for some totally inexplicable and coincidental reason, UPenn asks Rhodes to pretty please double check if Fierceton really deserves one of their ever-so-prestigious scholarships. Rhodes responds to UPenn's request, and shock! Horror! It turns out she's a dishonest liar and probably no one should listen to her, ever, especially not about UPenn being responsible for her hospitalization and the death of another student. After all, once a liar, always a liar. She said the straw was metal, but the record CLEARLY shows it was plastic.
If a lawyer at trial tries that kinda shit, I'm pretty sure the judge is legally allowed to hunt them for sport.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:53 PM on March 31, 2022 [24 favorites]
This doesn't seem pertinent at all, given the prevailing opinion here that everybody should just lie without restraint in pursuit of admission and financial support. I suppose we'll just mete out scarce resources on the quality of the fantasies related.
Hey now, that's just my opinion, not that of even most of the others in this thread, I think.
Don't paint everyone with a broad brush when it's mostly me that's on the other end of this ideological spectrum from you.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Hey now, that's just my opinion, not that of even most of the others in this thread, I think.
Don't paint everyone with a broad brush when it's mostly me that's on the other end of this ideological spectrum from you.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
This doesn't seem pertinent at all, given the prevailing opinion here that everybody should just lie without restraint in pursuit of admission and financial support. I suppose we'll just mete out scarce resources on the quality of the fantasies related.
Or we could not require people to give up their personal histories in order to access financial aid for having the Most Trauma. Did you read the older Timothy Burke piece? It's really good.
"I am very much in Feeney’s corner on this point. He observes that one admissions professional, confronted by the fact that some applicants exaggerate and amplify aspects of their ‘vulnerable selves’ in order to gain the attention and approval of selective colleges and universities, simply imagines that he should have even more intimate access to the distinctive individuality of each applicant so that he can avoid being deceived."
posted by warriorqueen at 2:59 PM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Or we could not require people to give up their personal histories in order to access financial aid for having the Most Trauma. Did you read the older Timothy Burke piece? It's really good.
"I am very much in Feeney’s corner on this point. He observes that one admissions professional, confronted by the fact that some applicants exaggerate and amplify aspects of their ‘vulnerable selves’ in order to gain the attention and approval of selective colleges and universities, simply imagines that he should have even more intimate access to the distinctive individuality of each applicant so that he can avoid being deceived."
posted by warriorqueen at 2:59 PM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
A Rhodes scholarship is a bfd,
If it’s such a big fucking deal, then I would expect them to act like it — I would expect them to have done their investigation beforehand.
corb has a great note on this point:
The way that you get context about exactly how impoverished someone's life is, and what they meant by 'growing up' in a condition, is through an admissions interview. If you don't do one, you are not possibly going to get the nuance, because most of our lives are not as uncomplicated as upper class elites think they are.
posted by Monochrome at 3:00 PM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
If it’s such a big fucking deal, then I would expect them to act like it — I would expect them to have done their investigation beforehand.
corb has a great note on this point:
The way that you get context about exactly how impoverished someone's life is, and what they meant by 'growing up' in a condition, is through an admissions interview. If you don't do one, you are not possibly going to get the nuance, because most of our lives are not as uncomplicated as upper class elites think they are.
posted by Monochrome at 3:00 PM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
given the prevailing opinion here that everybody should just lie without restraint in pursuit of admission and financial support
Wow. Just wow. The lack of self-awareness is actually kind of impressive, tamarisk. I’m truly sorry for your students.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:09 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Wow. Just wow. The lack of self-awareness is actually kind of impressive, tamarisk. I’m truly sorry for your students.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:09 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
So I don't think either institution is acting unreasonably.
I think it's time for you to stop and really, really think about what kind of behavior you're defending when you say this. I know that people don't typically re-evaluate their views during the middle of an argument, so I'm not hoping for that, but I do hope you have enough decency that this statement is an oversight.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:24 PM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
I think it's time for you to stop and really, really think about what kind of behavior you're defending when you say this. I know that people don't typically re-evaluate their views during the middle of an argument, so I'm not hoping for that, but I do hope you have enough decency that this statement is an oversight.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:24 PM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Those allegations of fraud are going to surface, so both institutions have no choice but to investigate
You might find this page interesting.
"At my Rhodes interview I was asked to elaborate about my plan to study "Unclear Physics." I meant to write "nuclear physics" but my handwriting tripped me up."
"I presented myself with long hair, a corduroy jacket and jeans (McGill uniform for 1974), at the exclusive Mount Royal Club before a committee which included Peter Blaikie, Francis Fox, Michel Vennat and Yves Pratt. I was fortunate not to have to compete with 50 percent of the population; women were ineligible then. I believe I endeared myself to the committee by chain-smoking throughout the interview and, after leaving the room, returning in the middle of their post-interview deliberation to retrieve half a pack of cigarettes that I had forgotten."
" consider my Rhodes scholarship as a "propitious accident." After McGill, I visited a professor at MIT who sold me on the place and insisted I rush to pick up the application forms. By accident I also picked up an application for a Rhodes. I filled it out and was invited to an interview in Chicago, my home district. It started with a ridiculous cocktail hour with very pointed questions: Why I had chosen to attend McGill? Since the real reason was a bit lamemy older sister's best friend had a brother who had gone there and liked itI played up McGill's good reputation and low tuition. That seemed to satisfy them I was not a draft dodger or un-American.
One physicist, who noted I had not taken a single science course at McGill, asked me to relate a Shakespearean play and the law of thermo-dynamics. I bluffed by saying something about entropy and The Tempest. When I was selectedI felt elation. Later, I also felt guilt: after all, this was money tainted by the legacy of Rhodes' exploiting of southern Africa. During our passage on the QEII to England, a small group of us organized a petition requesting an inquiry into the holdings of the Rhodes Trust in South Africa. Others were less impressed."
posted by warriorqueen at 3:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
You might find this page interesting.
"At my Rhodes interview I was asked to elaborate about my plan to study "Unclear Physics." I meant to write "nuclear physics" but my handwriting tripped me up."
"I presented myself with long hair, a corduroy jacket and jeans (McGill uniform for 1974), at the exclusive Mount Royal Club before a committee which included Peter Blaikie, Francis Fox, Michel Vennat and Yves Pratt. I was fortunate not to have to compete with 50 percent of the population; women were ineligible then. I believe I endeared myself to the committee by chain-smoking throughout the interview and, after leaving the room, returning in the middle of their post-interview deliberation to retrieve half a pack of cigarettes that I had forgotten."
" consider my Rhodes scholarship as a "propitious accident." After McGill, I visited a professor at MIT who sold me on the place and insisted I rush to pick up the application forms. By accident I also picked up an application for a Rhodes. I filled it out and was invited to an interview in Chicago, my home district. It started with a ridiculous cocktail hour with very pointed questions: Why I had chosen to attend McGill? Since the real reason was a bit lamemy older sister's best friend had a brother who had gone there and liked itI played up McGill's good reputation and low tuition. That seemed to satisfy them I was not a draft dodger or un-American.
One physicist, who noted I had not taken a single science course at McGill, asked me to relate a Shakespearean play and the law of thermo-dynamics. I bluffed by saying something about entropy and The Tempest. When I was selectedI felt elation. Later, I also felt guilt: after all, this was money tainted by the legacy of Rhodes' exploiting of southern Africa. During our passage on the QEII to England, a small group of us organized a petition requesting an inquiry into the holdings of the Rhodes Trust in South Africa. Others were less impressed."
posted by warriorqueen at 3:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
I know some Rhodes scholars who worked harder than that though. Early 90s admissions.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:26 PM on March 31, 2022
posted by warriorqueen at 3:26 PM on March 31, 2022
Let's talk retaliation. Once she received the Rhodes scholarship, there was a big publicity push about her, and that push included the claims that she grew up poor and in foster care. At that point, folks who knew her started talking about how the story they're seeing doesn't match the facts, and they start talking.
This is a good point, perhaps in a different way than you think. One of the things I am struggling with is visibility. If I am in any way visible in society, the people who once abused me (not only my mother, it happened again and again as it often does for abused children) would seek to take me down and claim I am lying and worthless. At this point in my life, near 60, it no longer happens. But I still have the mortal fear, because it continued for decades. And my earning a living depends on some degree of visibility.
And I didn't even ever talk about abuse, they just wouldn't let me exist.
posted by mumimor at 3:27 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
This is a good point, perhaps in a different way than you think. One of the things I am struggling with is visibility. If I am in any way visible in society, the people who once abused me (not only my mother, it happened again and again as it often does for abused children) would seek to take me down and claim I am lying and worthless. At this point in my life, near 60, it no longer happens. But I still have the mortal fear, because it continued for decades. And my earning a living depends on some degree of visibility.
And I didn't even ever talk about abuse, they just wouldn't let me exist.
posted by mumimor at 3:27 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
By "folks who knew her," you are referring, I believe to this passage.
You then go on to say this.
Please assist me in understanding how you are not claiming that Fierceton was lying about her abuse.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 3:28 PM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
The father of one of Mackenzie’s high-school peers reached out to a Penn official, to explain that the news coverage about Mackenzie was inaccurate. (A former classmate had also sent an anonymous e-mail to Penn’s news office.) The father’s message was shared with Penn’s general counsel, Wendy White, who asked to be put in touch with Mackenzie’s mother. Morrison and White spoke on the phone. Three days after the Inquirer story was published, Morrison wrote White an e-mail, thanking her for the conversation and explaining that Mackenzie “has been loved and cherished every moment of her life.” She said that “when Mackenzie imploded”—at the time of her hospitalization—“she had just failed the first AP Chem test and was overwhelmed with work load in other classes.” (Mackenzie said she didn’t fail any chemistry tests; her transcript shows that she earned a B-plus in the class.) Morrison continued, “She was falling apart under the academic stresses at school and was exhausted, and I believe looking for an out.”You are referring, in fact, to someone who claimed to be the father of a student who went to school with Mackenzie. This individual put UPenn's lawyers on the phone with Mackenzie's mother, her abuser. Who told them that Mackenzie had been lying about the abuse.
You then go on to say this.
At that point, when she's still a testament to the greatness of Penn (in the university's eyes), the die is cast. Those allegations of fraud are going to surface, so both institutions have no choice but to investigate, and any investigation is going to reveal the same facts as were uncovered here, with the same result.The "allegations of fraud" to which you refer are, in other words, the abusive mother's statement that Fierceton is mentally ill and making it all up. The allegations that you believe have been proven true.
Please assist me in understanding how you are not claiming that Fierceton was lying about her abuse.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 3:28 PM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
Oh mumimor, I hear you man.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:29 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:29 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Is the Rhodes committee report even publicly available?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:32 PM on March 31, 2022
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:32 PM on March 31, 2022
What exactly did she lie about again?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:36 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:36 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
Like this whole time, everyone is saying she’s full of shit, yet I haven’t seen any evidence that she lied. At all!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I think young people who don't lie to get ahead of other people in line for scarce resources are going to be fine with my position.
With the position that “given the prevailing opinion here that everybody should just lie without restraint in pursuit of admission and financial support”, despite ample evidence that this isn’t the case? The good, honest kids totally have your back, truth be damned?? I’m sorry, friend, but you’re not making a lick of sense anymore.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
With the position that “given the prevailing opinion here that everybody should just lie without restraint in pursuit of admission and financial support”, despite ample evidence that this isn’t the case? The good, honest kids totally have your back, truth be damned?? I’m sorry, friend, but you’re not making a lick of sense anymore.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
I hate that I even got into this discussion, but this whole thing including the thread here is a perfect example of how childhood abuse leads into further abuse because you grow up with little or no support system and no sense at all of how to defend and protect yourself.
posted by mumimor at 3:42 PM on March 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 3:42 PM on March 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
I know mumimor. I know. I'm going to be having a sad evening.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by sharp pointy objects at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
The fact that factory123 and tamarisk can’t even themselves meet the standards for “honesty” and self-consistency that they are holding Fierceton to within one single Metafilter thread says volumes.
posted by eviemath at 3:53 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:53 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
the only way some of the running commentaries make any sense in this thread is if you accept that some people are here for a kind of sport
I do my share of squatting, chirping, etc. in MeFi
on trauma, and my recent exposure via the guy down the road as of yesterday, and looking at the circumstances with Fierceton, I just want to say sorry to trauma survivors. some of the loudest and more persistent voices aren't necessarily the ones to heed. I work in post secondary and I have a more-than-passing exposure to the way terrible egos can be amplified in institutional policy. I have yet to see policy exist as some kind of Platonic ideal of "fair arbitration" there is always an element of decisions, human beings (hopefully) doing their best with the information available. How anyone can look at this situation, and say: Yes, these are the best decisions people could make
fuck
posted by elkevelvet at 3:57 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I do my share of squatting, chirping, etc. in MeFi
on trauma, and my recent exposure via the guy down the road as of yesterday, and looking at the circumstances with Fierceton, I just want to say sorry to trauma survivors. some of the loudest and more persistent voices aren't necessarily the ones to heed. I work in post secondary and I have a more-than-passing exposure to the way terrible egos can be amplified in institutional policy. I have yet to see policy exist as some kind of Platonic ideal of "fair arbitration" there is always an element of decisions, human beings (hopefully) doing their best with the information available. How anyone can look at this situation, and say: Yes, these are the best decisions people could make
fuck
posted by elkevelvet at 3:57 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I just read the Rhodes report and 1) nothing is new in it because Penn’s defenders here have effectively parroted what it says and 2) there are no concrete examples of MF lying. At all. Their case seems to be that there’s no mention of dried blood in her medical report? She refers to a foster sibling as a sister? Penn police don’t think she was abused? It’s very thin.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:01 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:01 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Again, she lied about "founding" a non-profit for homeless women in an application essay.
Where's the evidence that she said she founded a non-profit and the evidence that she didn't actually found a non-profit?
She lied about being financially responsible for the "basic needs" of her sister in pursuit of financial support
Where's the evidence that she wasn't?
She lied about being in foster care "throughout [her] life" in an application essay.
Is this it? 'throughout'? when she was in there for a year? that's what the whole case hinges on?
She lied about having identified as FGLI.
She was FGLI!!!!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Where's the evidence that she said she founded a non-profit and the evidence that she didn't actually found a non-profit?
She lied about being financially responsible for the "basic needs" of her sister in pursuit of financial support
Where's the evidence that she wasn't?
She lied about being in foster care "throughout [her] life" in an application essay.
Is this it? 'throughout'? when she was in there for a year? that's what the whole case hinges on?
She lied about having identified as FGLI.
She was FGLI!!!!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
On and on. She lied. In writing and often. To gain advantage.
If there’s concrete evidence that she lied in order to gain advantage, I assume you can point us toward it, tamarisk? I see nothing that supports your assertion.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:06 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
If there’s concrete evidence that she lied in order to gain advantage, I assume you can point us toward it, tamarisk? I see nothing that supports your assertion.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:06 PM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
Holy hell thats it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:11 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:11 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
the prevailing opinion here that everybody should just lie without restraint
This is hyperbolic and it's hard to see how it was written in anything other than bad faith.
What I have seen most people say is that a) context matters, b) we shouldn't litigate whether someone was abused as a child, and c) the university is neither an angel nor an unbiased, reliable narrator, and their version of events should be subject to scrutiny, not just Fierceton's.
young people who don't lie to get ahead of other people in line for scarce resources
Then the vast majority of college applicants aren't going to pass muster, because that is not how the world works, and because it is all but impossible to squeeze the full and fair context of every element of someone's life into 1-5 pages.
She lied about having identified as FGLI.
She literally meets the university's definition. As long as we're on the subject of lying, though, is there any reason you haven't considered the ways which Penn is eliding facts or making omissions in order to give itself an advantage? If you care deeply about actors being fully fair and honest instead of twisting things for their personal gain, surely that also matters?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 4:12 PM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
This is hyperbolic and it's hard to see how it was written in anything other than bad faith.
What I have seen most people say is that a) context matters, b) we shouldn't litigate whether someone was abused as a child, and c) the university is neither an angel nor an unbiased, reliable narrator, and their version of events should be subject to scrutiny, not just Fierceton's.
young people who don't lie to get ahead of other people in line for scarce resources
Then the vast majority of college applicants aren't going to pass muster, because that is not how the world works, and because it is all but impossible to squeeze the full and fair context of every element of someone's life into 1-5 pages.
She lied about having identified as FGLI.
She literally meets the university's definition. As long as we're on the subject of lying, though, is there any reason you haven't considered the ways which Penn is eliding facts or making omissions in order to give itself an advantage? If you care deeply about actors being fully fair and honest instead of twisting things for their personal gain, surely that also matters?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 4:12 PM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
And hey, is factory123 gonna answer my question?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:14 PM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:14 PM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
The lie about responsibility for her sister alone, submitted in application for financial support, is egregious.
We do not know if it is a lie. We have what her stepmother said.
You may not care about honesty,
I hope you feel good about yourself spending a day dragging an abused child over the coals.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:19 PM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
We do not know if it is a lie. We have what her stepmother said.
You may not care about honesty,
I hope you feel good about yourself spending a day dragging an abused child over the coals.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:19 PM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Except that you haven’t shown these were lies. What
You’ve shown is that some people have come forward and disputed her statements and in those same documents it is pointed out that she provided documentation with regard to her work at a woman’s homeless shelter and the financial support she offered her sister. So she’s provided hard evidence and you’ve decided to ignore it and call her a liar anyway. You prefer the narrative told by her abusers vs the hard evidence.
You want to castigate the mendacious youth of America find some other target for your wrath.
posted by interogative mood at 4:21 PM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
You’ve shown is that some people have come forward and disputed her statements and in those same documents it is pointed out that she provided documentation with regard to her work at a woman’s homeless shelter and the financial support she offered her sister. So she’s provided hard evidence and you’ve decided to ignore it and call her a liar anyway. You prefer the narrative told by her abusers vs the hard evidence.
You want to castigate the mendacious youth of America find some other target for your wrath.
posted by interogative mood at 4:21 PM on March 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Nope, it's been flatly stated
How many people have "flatly stated" that? You said it was "the prevailing opinion." Do you really think that the majority of people here think that "everybody should just lie without restraint," or have you, yourself, just made an exaggeration?
It feels like you're more interested in establishing a clear, absolute, bright line of right and wrong than in the acknowledging the full truth and complexity of the situation, or even the full range of opinions in this conversation.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 4:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
How many people have "flatly stated" that? You said it was "the prevailing opinion." Do you really think that the majority of people here think that "everybody should just lie without restraint," or have you, yourself, just made an exaggeration?
It feels like you're more interested in establishing a clear, absolute, bright line of right and wrong than in the acknowledging the full truth and complexity of the situation, or even the full range of opinions in this conversation.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 4:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Mod note: A couple deleted. Tamarisk, you have provided more than 10% of the comments in this thread, but have repeatedly refused to engage with other's questions except by reiterating the same points over and over. If you have substantive information you wish to link to, that's fine. Otherwise, consider your assertions made and don't keep reiterating the assertions over and over again in response to requests for factual support. Threads that become "everybody against that one guy" are not good threads.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:27 PM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:27 PM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
What's happening here is that there's an angle to view this narrative from wherein it becomes about a privileged liar getting her righteous comeuppance at last.
That angle relies on a very select interpretation of the facts, but it is something someone could find very personally satisfying.
That is what is happening here. That hot take is so tasty, and the truth is so bitter.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:29 PM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
That angle relies on a very select interpretation of the facts, but it is something someone could find very personally satisfying.
That is what is happening here. That hot take is so tasty, and the truth is so bitter.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:29 PM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
There was a very good excerpt posted in this thread that gets to the heart of why the attempt to dismiss Penn's retaliation fall flat:
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:56 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
When I think back to my experience of complaint, I hear silence.This is how academia works. To be part of it, to be "professional", is to hide its sins and harms. Fierceton broke that code (in service of justice, let's not forget), and as such made herself an enemy of the academic community.
Silence can be a wall. I think of our efforts over three years to try and get the university to acknowledge the problem of sexual harassment. We could not even get an acknowledgement in public that these enquiries had taken place. It was like they never happened, which was, I have no doubt, the effect they were looking for.
The very first mention of them in public was in fact a post on my blog, written just after I resigned, which is probably telling you something about why I resigned. The university treated my resignation posts as a leak, making a mess, causing damage.
But it was not just the university that treated my disclosure as damaging. A feminist colleague described my action as “unprofessional,” because it caused “a fall-out which damages us all now and in the future.”
We are learning what it means to be professional. To be professional is to be willing to keep the institution’s secrets.
It is important to note then that silence is not just something enforced by management or marketing departments, silence can be performed as loyalty, turned into a duty by our own colleagues, including feminist colleagues, silence to protect important people, silence to protect resources, silence to protect reputation, individual, institutional, silence as promotion, how you maximize your chances of going further or getting more from the institution.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:56 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
When the STL folks start talking, Penn learns that MF didn't grow up poor and in foster care and that her mom went to college. MF's statements on those subjects form the core of the Rhodes complaint against her.
Here's the thing - without Penn's general counsel sending a letter to the Trust, does the investigation even happen? Not to mention that all the information about her past was sent to the Trust anonymously, which is a massive red flag.
You keep on dodging the fact of Penn's retaliation against Fierceton - you keep trying to claim that all these other groups are "independent" despite both the evidence and how these communities work in practice being explained to you because your argument depends on having them launder Penn's "investigation" where they enabled Fierceton's abuser to abuse her again. And the reason you need that laundered is because if you can't, then you can no longer duck the retaliation issue.
As I said before, this is all fruit of the poisoned tree - there is no aspect of this in which Penn's retaliation against Fierceton for breaking academic omerta doesn't touch.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:08 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Here's the thing - without Penn's general counsel sending a letter to the Trust, does the investigation even happen? Not to mention that all the information about her past was sent to the Trust anonymously, which is a massive red flag.
You keep on dodging the fact of Penn's retaliation against Fierceton - you keep trying to claim that all these other groups are "independent" despite both the evidence and how these communities work in practice being explained to you because your argument depends on having them launder Penn's "investigation" where they enabled Fierceton's abuser to abuse her again. And the reason you need that laundered is because if you can't, then you can no longer duck the retaliation issue.
As I said before, this is all fruit of the poisoned tree - there is no aspect of this in which Penn's retaliation against Fierceton for breaking academic omerta doesn't touch.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:08 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I am going to do a step by step takedown, because this needs to be definitively addressed.
Read the report. Her stepmother avowed she had no substantive role in supporting her sister financially. They did find a college account, but that's not even close to being responsible for her "basic needs" -- and MF avowed she'd not contributed to it other than money received as a gift from her father.
First: do you perhaps think that just possibly the stepmother may be somewhat biased about whether or not she was providing adequate funds to her daughter? Secondly - do you think it's possible that different people might have different interpretations of what it means to provide for basic needs? I read that entire, 130 page report that was posted above, and it in no way says that Fierceton said she hadn't contributed to it other than money received as a gift. It said that she couldn't recall specific instances of having done so. In addition, it's highly possible that Fierceton, having lived a traumatic life of abuse herself, wanted to help her sister to become independent of her mother. You will note that we never hear the sister's testimony. In addition, the very existence of the sister was not something that was found by the Rhodes investigatory committee, and is one of the pieces of evidence they used in considering her dishonest.
Her stepmother also said flatly that MF had no role in "founding" the non-profit the stepmother ran, nor did she ever play a key role even approaching "leadership".
First of all - having been a part of "founding" nonprofits myself, it is super fucking nebulous what the fuck that means. Filing the 501c3 paperwork? Having the idea? Having the funding? Putting the people who later come up with it in the room with each other? Working on it from the very beginning?
Secondly, having just gone through this - these forms specifically do not allow you to list volunteer experience without listing a title for yourself. If you didn't have a formal title? You are encouraged and expected to make something up that comes closest. To check the boxes. This is normative, not being a lying liar what lies.
Additionally - do you think that maybe the stepmother who was told that Fierceton didn't think she was taking care of her daughter well enough might not be an objective witness?
She intentionally misrepresented her experience in foster care by writing that she'd been in care "throughout" life.
"throughout life" does not mean every single day, and it does not mean one day. Everything between that is a relative and experiential definition. Additionally, while she hadn't been in foster care for years, she had had contact with child protective services for years. This is not just wrong, it is so petty that I wonder why you would even bother saying this.
And she lied about having identified as FGLI, meaning she claimed she'd not done so, which was false.
This is just not in evidence in a single one of those 130 pages.
posted by corb at 5:11 PM on March 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
Read the report. Her stepmother avowed she had no substantive role in supporting her sister financially. They did find a college account, but that's not even close to being responsible for her "basic needs" -- and MF avowed she'd not contributed to it other than money received as a gift from her father.
First: do you perhaps think that just possibly the stepmother may be somewhat biased about whether or not she was providing adequate funds to her daughter? Secondly - do you think it's possible that different people might have different interpretations of what it means to provide for basic needs? I read that entire, 130 page report that was posted above, and it in no way says that Fierceton said she hadn't contributed to it other than money received as a gift. It said that she couldn't recall specific instances of having done so. In addition, it's highly possible that Fierceton, having lived a traumatic life of abuse herself, wanted to help her sister to become independent of her mother. You will note that we never hear the sister's testimony. In addition, the very existence of the sister was not something that was found by the Rhodes investigatory committee, and is one of the pieces of evidence they used in considering her dishonest.
Her stepmother also said flatly that MF had no role in "founding" the non-profit the stepmother ran, nor did she ever play a key role even approaching "leadership".
First of all - having been a part of "founding" nonprofits myself, it is super fucking nebulous what the fuck that means. Filing the 501c3 paperwork? Having the idea? Having the funding? Putting the people who later come up with it in the room with each other? Working on it from the very beginning?
Secondly, having just gone through this - these forms specifically do not allow you to list volunteer experience without listing a title for yourself. If you didn't have a formal title? You are encouraged and expected to make something up that comes closest. To check the boxes. This is normative, not being a lying liar what lies.
Additionally - do you think that maybe the stepmother who was told that Fierceton didn't think she was taking care of her daughter well enough might not be an objective witness?
She intentionally misrepresented her experience in foster care by writing that she'd been in care "throughout" life.
"throughout life" does not mean every single day, and it does not mean one day. Everything between that is a relative and experiential definition. Additionally, while she hadn't been in foster care for years, she had had contact with child protective services for years. This is not just wrong, it is so petty that I wonder why you would even bother saying this.
And she lied about having identified as FGLI, meaning she claimed she'd not done so, which was false.
This is just not in evidence in a single one of those 130 pages.
posted by corb at 5:11 PM on March 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
Penn, at that point, is in possession of information which pertains to the honesty of the student and which is likely to become public whether or not Penn discloses. What's the alternative? They say nothing, then when the story blows up on social media (as it did when the nyp published it) and it's revealed that Penn had this information and didn't disclose it to Rhodes, it's a scandal for Penn. I don't know what the terms of the agreement are between Penn and Rhodes, but it seems possible that they may have a contract provision that's specifically on point for this situation.
You do know that part of Fierceton's lawsuit against Penn is that the school leaked details of her background with the insinuation that she was being dishonest to the media, right? This is why you need to stop ducking the retaliation point - Penn wasn't some innocent party here, and continuing to act like they were is just going to keep blowing up in your face.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:26 PM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
You do know that part of Fierceton's lawsuit against Penn is that the school leaked details of her background with the insinuation that she was being dishonest to the media, right? This is why you need to stop ducking the retaliation point - Penn wasn't some innocent party here, and continuing to act like they were is just going to keep blowing up in your face.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:26 PM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Exactly this corb. Furthermore the university’s report and the report of the Rhodes Trust exist to protect those organizations. That is the sole motivation. The Rhodes Trust concludes it did nothing wrong. If you read the report it is pretty limited in terms of making a finding of fact about MF. It is a lot of on the one and this and on the other hand this. It seems to exist mostly to protect the Rhodes Trust and ensure that they’ve documented what they did and why.
posted by interogative mood at 5:30 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 5:30 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
I honestly don't understand how anyone is still on the university's side in this situation. I understand a first impulse to believe that a spoiled rich kid is cheating the system because a lot of spoiled rich kids are cheating the system. They're like rancid cooking grease that drips down the ivy coloured walls of the overpriced buildings their parents paid for.
But none of the facts in this case fit that pattern at all. This isn't a rich kid writing a made up application essay with the help of hired tutors, this is a child who has suffered very well documented abuse from a toxic stalker parent being smeared by a university after they testified about the time the university failed to provide timely medical assistance for a seizure.
posted by zymil at 5:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
But none of the facts in this case fit that pattern at all. This isn't a rich kid writing a made up application essay with the help of hired tutors, this is a child who has suffered very well documented abuse from a toxic stalker parent being smeared by a university after they testified about the time the university failed to provide timely medical assistance for a seizure.
posted by zymil at 5:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
At this point I need to wonder why the two posters here try so hard to keep the limelight away from the university's wrongdoing. There are SO many angles here that could have been discussed - none of them good either for the university or for RT - yet here we are after dozens if not hundreds of comments trying to prove that a young woman is possibly not the worst liar who ever lived just because she recalls a tube was made of metal because of the taste of blood in her mouth when in actual fact it was not made of metal.
There's a lot of effort to keep focus on those aspects that are entirely irrelevant to the potential topic(s) arising. Cui bono?
posted by doggod at 5:34 PM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
There's a lot of effort to keep focus on those aspects that are entirely irrelevant to the potential topic(s) arising. Cui bono?
posted by doggod at 5:34 PM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
The father of one of Mackenzie’s high-school peers reached out to a Penn official, to explain that the news coverage about Mackenzie was inaccurate. (A former classmate had also sent an anonymous e-mail to Penn’s news office.) The father’s message was shared with Penn’s general counsel, Wendy White, who asked to be put in touch with Mackenzie’s mother.So one extremely righteous father of a former classmate took it upon himself to set the record straight. I'm willing to bet Carrie Morrison herself put him up to it, so that she could draw herself in for the kill without raising suspicion. If Carrie was being especially sloppy, she might even have used this fine fellow again:
When Mackenzie returned to school, she learned that her mother had hired William Margulis, who had sent four children to Whitfield and later served on the school’s board of trustees, as her defense attorney. Margulis’s son was in Mackenzie’s math class, and she worried that, if she did anything out of the ordinary in the boy’s presence, her behavior could be used against her. “It felt like such a calculated move to exert power over me,” she said. Margulis told me, “I spent a lot of time meeting with the prosecutor and convincing him that the daughter had no credibility and made all of this up.”posted by metaplectic at 5:57 PM on March 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
Ok we'll take it one at a time (all references are to the University's answer to the complaint and appendices, documentcloud's page numbers):
Without further details, her description seems fundamentally accurate and at least well within the bounds of how students describe their community service work: she even describes her role using words like "assistant" and "advisor." I can assure you that there is an absolutely extraordinary degree of puffery when it comes to high achieving students of wealth in describing community service activities, and considerable effort is involved by the rich adults around them to offer suitable community service "leadership" opportunities that are dropped like a hot potato once college applications are submitted. The standard you're applying to her in this case is impossibly high and wouldn't be met by thousands of Penn students, and again, no evidence has been provided that fundamentally disputes the things she actually wrote, which don't seem to include claiming to have founded the organization. At most, there's evidence she described her work in a positive light (which is, you know, what you do when you apply for stuff) and provided documentation to prove some of it happened, while her stepmom minimized it.
As for the exceptions, one was an application for financial aid to pay for a study abroad program. She didn't end up studying abroad, and said this was due to financial reasons. In an essay for that aid and for the summer abroad programs, she did write things like "after bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life" and "with my years of experience as a child of the system." This is best explained by her involvement in the child welfare system as a younger child (the appointment of a guardian ad litem, interactions with count-appointed doctors, and instances where social workers and possibly the police visited her home and school to check on her well being), which she presumably has a more limited memory of as a traumatized 8-year-old (130), and her placement in foster care as an older teen. OSC confirmed that her family was visited by child welfare officials when she was young and called to her school about concerns of abuse (119). MF also says she was removed from her home in early childhood (118); without records, this could well have involved an informal removal, and there's no evidence given to disprove that. Again, this issue involves an application for study abroad that she never attended.
The second exception was in her Questbridge application, where she wrote "I was once again made a ward of the state" and her grad school application where she uses the same language. (118) Again, this rests on semantic definitions about the meaning of "ward," though apparently many records from her childhood are unavailable so it's not entirely clear what formal legal actions were taken when she was younger.
It seems verifiably true, according to Penn, that she had significant involvement with the child welfare system over a period of time that lasted from at least ages 8-18 if not from an earlier age. I'll grant that her study abroad application, which she didn't ever attend, was specifically inaccurate and should have said "bouncing around the child welfare system." But there is significant substantiation by Penn of her involvement with child welfare services throughout much of her life, and you're relying on an abused 8 year old to remember perfect detail about the legal process that happened to her. Being interviewed by court-appointed doctors, having social workers visit you repeatedly while your parents are divorcing and there are a number of allegations of abuse seems, and some period of time where you weren't at home (even if that didn't involve the legal removal of parental custody) seems like it would reasonably feel like being a "ward" of the state to an 8 year old and being bounced through the system.
She also went out of her way to correct a reporter who got this issue wrong: "I was wondering if there was any possibility of changing the wording to ‘aged out of foster care’ instead of grew up in the title/first sentence? I was involved in the child welfare system my entire life but bounced btwn different family members and family friends for many years and then formally went back into foster care in high school. Just since some people do spend their entire lives in foster care, I didn’t want to misrepresent my story if that makes sense?" (122). This illustrates her characterization of the situation, and it seems like a perfectly reasonable characterization: she was involved in the child welfare system throughout much of her life, sometimes involving contact with social workers and informally living with family members and family friends while formally entering foster care in high school. She describes it as "back into foster care," and it's unclear whether she was formally in foster care when she was younger, but she was clearly being visited by social workers and spent some amount of time living elsewhere while there were allegations of abuse, whether or not that may have happened as formal foster care or informally.
So to put this in the light most favorable to Penn, you've got someone who has a documented history of involvement with child welfare services throughout much of her life, who generally took pains to accurately describe her involvement in foster care, and if you look through every time she ever wrote about it, you find an instance (involving a study abroad she never attended because she said she couldn't afford to) where she described it inaccurately and one instance where she fairly characterized her experiences but possibly not the exact legal nature of things that happened to her as a traumatized 8 year old.
She lied about having identified as FGLI.
This has been addressed extensively above, especially by evidenceofabsence. Penn outright admits MF was low-income (124), and she was an independent student who cut off ties with her family and subsequently changed her last name. At most, she answered in a favorable light ambiguous questions that try to categorize messy lives into straight little boxes, and generally, she relied on definitions and answers from the university that said she qualified.
For example, Rhodes determines she was misleading when she checked "yes" to "Do you come from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds?" (123-124). This is misleading if you interpret "come from" as "were you ever part of?" and not misleading if you know what an independent student is for financial aid purposes and (correctly) determine that you are not part of such a family at the time of applying. There are so many potential ambiguities with this merely yes/no question—what if your family was high income when you were little and low income when you were a teenager, or vice-versa?—that it seems just wrong to say that a low-income independent student would be lying to check yes here.
Now, you'll note in all of that above response, the only reference I used was Penn's own report, and I pretty much relied on the things they corroborated for themselves. In other words, none of the statements you've made about MF lying are particularly true even without relying on her statements and just based on the evidence gathered by her own legal adversary.
posted by zachlipton at 6:02 PM on March 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
Again, she lied about "founding" a non-profit for homeless women in an application essay.In her grad school application, she wrote "I began collaborating with a former mentor to establish a local nonprofit" and listed her position as "Strategic Planning and Community Outreach Assistant" (126). In her Marshall application, she wrote "While I did help establish a nonprofit in 2016" and "Despite our first two years including innumerable hours of sitting in my dorm room applying for grants, lobbying the Mayor, hiring staff, and creating strategic plans." In other documents, she variously described her role as "Lead Advisor," "Volunteer Deputy Director," and "Volunteer Lead Advisor" (127). I'm not seeing where anyone alleges she claimed to have "founded" the organization. She was clearly involved with helping the organization in some capacity around the time of its founding and provided documentation substantiating that she assisted with publicity, branding, fundraising, and coordinating a volunteer opportunity for students from her high school. Her stepmom, who MF says has a personal animus against her and is not credible (128), broadly minimizes her contributions and effectiveness of her work.
Without further details, her description seems fundamentally accurate and at least well within the bounds of how students describe their community service work: she even describes her role using words like "assistant" and "advisor." I can assure you that there is an absolutely extraordinary degree of puffery when it comes to high achieving students of wealth in describing community service activities, and considerable effort is involved by the rich adults around them to offer suitable community service "leadership" opportunities that are dropped like a hot potato once college applications are submitted. The standard you're applying to her in this case is impossibly high and wouldn't be met by thousands of Penn students, and again, no evidence has been provided that fundamentally disputes the things she actually wrote, which don't seem to include claiming to have founded the organization. At most, there's evidence she described her work in a positive light (which is, you know, what you do when you apply for stuff) and provided documentation to prove some of it happened, while her stepmom minimized it.
She lied about being financially responsible for the "basic needs" of her sister in pursuit of financial supportPenn confirmed that MF established a 529 account for her sister. She represented, and this is not disputed anywhere, that she has continued to contribute to the account on a "quasi-regular basis" and has intermittently helped her sister with clothing and phone costs. The report is vague on this point, and it may be the case that MF's use of the phrase "ensure her basic living expenses are met" was an exaggeration (it was a statement about her possible expenditures in the future, so whether it was a true statement about what MF genuinely believed she would need to contribute in the future is not really knowable), but her fundamental statement "I partially support my younger sister, who will be starting college soon" doesn't seem like a lie given these facts. If any financial aid determinations relied on details of the specific dollar amounts involved, Penn should have asked for the figures necessary to quantify the extent of the "partial support" she stated. (128)
She lied about being in foster care "throughout [her] life" in an application essay.To quote the OSC report: "with two exceptions (outlined below), OSC does not find Mackenzie’s own statements in application materials to state or strongly imply that she spent time in foster care other than September 2014-August 2015" (116). In other words, Penn found, with two exceptions I'll address in a moment, that MF didn't state or even strongly imply anything of the sort.
As for the exceptions, one was an application for financial aid to pay for a study abroad program. She didn't end up studying abroad, and said this was due to financial reasons. In an essay for that aid and for the summer abroad programs, she did write things like "after bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life" and "with my years of experience as a child of the system." This is best explained by her involvement in the child welfare system as a younger child (the appointment of a guardian ad litem, interactions with count-appointed doctors, and instances where social workers and possibly the police visited her home and school to check on her well being), which she presumably has a more limited memory of as a traumatized 8-year-old (130), and her placement in foster care as an older teen. OSC confirmed that her family was visited by child welfare officials when she was young and called to her school about concerns of abuse (119). MF also says she was removed from her home in early childhood (118); without records, this could well have involved an informal removal, and there's no evidence given to disprove that. Again, this issue involves an application for study abroad that she never attended.
The second exception was in her Questbridge application, where she wrote "I was once again made a ward of the state" and her grad school application where she uses the same language. (118) Again, this rests on semantic definitions about the meaning of "ward," though apparently many records from her childhood are unavailable so it's not entirely clear what formal legal actions were taken when she was younger.
It seems verifiably true, according to Penn, that she had significant involvement with the child welfare system over a period of time that lasted from at least ages 8-18 if not from an earlier age. I'll grant that her study abroad application, which she didn't ever attend, was specifically inaccurate and should have said "bouncing around the child welfare system." But there is significant substantiation by Penn of her involvement with child welfare services throughout much of her life, and you're relying on an abused 8 year old to remember perfect detail about the legal process that happened to her. Being interviewed by court-appointed doctors, having social workers visit you repeatedly while your parents are divorcing and there are a number of allegations of abuse seems, and some period of time where you weren't at home (even if that didn't involve the legal removal of parental custody) seems like it would reasonably feel like being a "ward" of the state to an 8 year old and being bounced through the system.
She also went out of her way to correct a reporter who got this issue wrong: "I was wondering if there was any possibility of changing the wording to ‘aged out of foster care’ instead of grew up in the title/first sentence? I was involved in the child welfare system my entire life but bounced btwn different family members and family friends for many years and then formally went back into foster care in high school. Just since some people do spend their entire lives in foster care, I didn’t want to misrepresent my story if that makes sense?" (122). This illustrates her characterization of the situation, and it seems like a perfectly reasonable characterization: she was involved in the child welfare system throughout much of her life, sometimes involving contact with social workers and informally living with family members and family friends while formally entering foster care in high school. She describes it as "back into foster care," and it's unclear whether she was formally in foster care when she was younger, but she was clearly being visited by social workers and spent some amount of time living elsewhere while there were allegations of abuse, whether or not that may have happened as formal foster care or informally.
So to put this in the light most favorable to Penn, you've got someone who has a documented history of involvement with child welfare services throughout much of her life, who generally took pains to accurately describe her involvement in foster care, and if you look through every time she ever wrote about it, you find an instance (involving a study abroad she never attended because she said she couldn't afford to) where she described it inaccurately and one instance where she fairly characterized her experiences but possibly not the exact legal nature of things that happened to her as a traumatized 8 year old.
She lied about having identified as FGLI.
This has been addressed extensively above, especially by evidenceofabsence. Penn outright admits MF was low-income (124), and she was an independent student who cut off ties with her family and subsequently changed her last name. At most, she answered in a favorable light ambiguous questions that try to categorize messy lives into straight little boxes, and generally, she relied on definitions and answers from the university that said she qualified.
For example, Rhodes determines she was misleading when she checked "yes" to "Do you come from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds?" (123-124). This is misleading if you interpret "come from" as "were you ever part of?" and not misleading if you know what an independent student is for financial aid purposes and (correctly) determine that you are not part of such a family at the time of applying. There are so many potential ambiguities with this merely yes/no question—what if your family was high income when you were little and low income when you were a teenager, or vice-versa?—that it seems just wrong to say that a low-income independent student would be lying to check yes here.
Now, you'll note in all of that above response, the only reference I used was Penn's own report, and I pretty much relied on the things they corroborated for themselves. In other words, none of the statements you've made about MF lying are particularly true even without relying on her statements and just based on the evidence gathered by her own legal adversary.
posted by zachlipton at 6:02 PM on March 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
Mod note: Please consider whether what you're asking of others (in regards to them clarifying their statements) *needs* to be addressed here in this thread or not. If folks would like to continue addressing each other directly, please continue one-on-one through MeFi Mail.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:12 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:12 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
William S. Margulis is quite the attorney. On his firm's webpage, highlighted accomplishments include:
• Obtained complete acquittal in sex crimes jury trial in St. Louis County.posted by metaplectic at 6:20 PM on March 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
• Persuaded the State to dismiss serious felony charges against a local physician.
• Persuaded the State not to prosecute two local doctors for allegations of sexual abuse.
• Persuaded Missouri prosecutors not to prosecute a man accused of a sex crime against a child.
• Persuaded the State not to prosecute the president of university for sex crimes.
I very much believe in the right to counsel, but that very much feels like the sort of lawyer who sees their job as using their clout to help get the wealthy and powerful off from the consequences of their actions.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:43 PM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:43 PM on March 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
"Margulis’s son was in Mackenzie’s math class, and she worried that, if she did anything out of the ordinary in the boy’s presence, her behavior could be used against her. “It felt like such a calculated move to exert power over me,” she said. Margulis told me, “I spent a lot of time meeting with the prosecutor and convincing him that the daughter had no credibility and made all of this up.”"
This made me sick. I lived in a small-city legal community, and was on the school board there, and I cannot think of a single instance when an attorney with children currently in the district took a case against the district, involving the district, or involving two children in conflict in the district. Also, gosh gosh gosh would I be hesitant to take on the case of a friend accused of child abuse. If I were absolutely confident they were wrongly accused (perhaps by an ex as part of a custody dispute), I would be willing to help them find a lawyer, and sit in meetings holding their hand, and make sure they understood what was happening. But take the case myself? It's not ethically forbidden (in my state), but GOSH does that feel ethically really murky, full of conflicts, and the potential for malpractice complaints. Like THIS ALONE feels so ethically icky to me, as a lawyer, that it makes me hesitate to trust anything the mother or her lawyer said. It seems like such a clear intimidation tactic, deployed against a minor, which is so wildly inappropriate -- minors entangled in the legal system are entitled to an incredible amount of care and deference from all legal professionals. That the adversarial attorney's child was in her school and in her class, reporting to his father about her activities -- that seems like such an obvious miscarriage of justice, legal ethics, and Mackenzie's right to access the courts. (And it is clear from a bunch of testimony that gossip within the school flew fast and thick, and that both the mother and her lawyer encouraged and benefited that.) (Although, again, not specifically ethically forbidden.)
It was a private school, so rules are murky, but in my public district, we would have expected DCFS to take out a restraining order, which would have required the attorney's child to be moved to a different class (which is part of why an attorney would be reluctant to take that case). Public schools have much stronger due process rights for students; private schools' freedom of association rights tend to outweigh a bunch of other constitutional rights.
(I began this comment before seeing metaplectic's comment about the attorney and sex crimes, and now that I have UGGGGGGGH, and also content warning, the rest of my comment is about sex crimes, but I am SO NOT SURPRISED that's this lawyer's claim to fame.)
A very dear friend of mine has a daughter in junior high, in a private school. Six months ago, her daughter was sexually assaulted by an older student at the same school. The school's response was to shrug and claim it was a "he said, she said." She had to keep going to class with the boy who assaulted her for six solid months. The boy's parents, who are wealthy professionals, worked all their contacts in the school community to keep the boy in class, and to discredit the girl. She went to school every single day being mocked and belittled by her classmates as a "slut" and a liar, largely because of stories the boy's parents told to other parents in the community to protect their son. My friend's daughter is TWELVE. (The reasons her parents did not remove her are complicated and specific to the community, but keeping her in school was the best of a bunch of really shitty options.)
Earlier this week, because my friend's daughter has the heart of a lion and parents who are so strong I can barely conceive of it, the boy was convicted in criminal court of criminal sexual assault. Finally, after six months, he has been removed from the school. After six months, she can go to class without fear. After six months, his parents' gossipmongering to smear a 12-year-old has been proven to be lies.
I firmly believe that the only reason this happened is that my friend and her husband are also both professionals, who both work in areas related to child sexual abuse, so they knew how to navigate the system and how to demand justice for their daughter. They also have large, supportive extended families who were able to provide emotional, logistical, and financial support to the family. (Their daughter is also incredibly resilient and was able to continue to advocate for herself throughout the process. Had she refused to testify, it would have collapsed -- which is a hell of a thing to put on a 12-year-old's shoulders.) They also got lucky with the prosecutor assigned to their case. In their jurisdiction, 80% of child sexual abuse charges are never tried (or pleaded out) because of "lack of evidence," which often amounts to "nobody saw it happen except the perp and the victim." They got a prosecutor who was a bulldog, whose clearance rate on those cases is much higher than the average for that prosecutor's office.
Again, I 100% get that the lawyer taking the mother's case was not ethically forbidden and they're both legally in the clear. But it absolutely 100% is an incredible violation, obviously intended to intimidate the daughter, and obviously intended to make it difficult for her to a) get justice or b) continue to attend school. That is how this kind of thing works. And I get why we don't ban people from seeking friends as lawyers -- people have an important constitutional right to seek an attorney they're comfortable with -- but BOY do I think judges should be HELLA more suspicious of cases where parents are able to use their social connections to poison the well at a child's school. In both Mackenzie's case and my friend's daughter's case, there should have been a restraining order preventing the adults in the case from gossiping about children as a way to manipulate the children in the case to dropping their complaints. That is such a ridiculously obvious abuse of power and miscarriage of justice; it should not be allowed to stand, anywhere. Lawyers should be on notice that if their accused clients gossip to a school community about a child in that community -- or worse, if they themselves do -- there will be sanctions, fines, and possible other legal censure. Lawyers should be required to withdraw if they find out their clients are doing this; they should be subject to significant sanctions if they do it themselves.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:05 PM on March 31, 2022 [34 favorites]
This made me sick. I lived in a small-city legal community, and was on the school board there, and I cannot think of a single instance when an attorney with children currently in the district took a case against the district, involving the district, or involving two children in conflict in the district. Also, gosh gosh gosh would I be hesitant to take on the case of a friend accused of child abuse. If I were absolutely confident they were wrongly accused (perhaps by an ex as part of a custody dispute), I would be willing to help them find a lawyer, and sit in meetings holding their hand, and make sure they understood what was happening. But take the case myself? It's not ethically forbidden (in my state), but GOSH does that feel ethically really murky, full of conflicts, and the potential for malpractice complaints. Like THIS ALONE feels so ethically icky to me, as a lawyer, that it makes me hesitate to trust anything the mother or her lawyer said. It seems like such a clear intimidation tactic, deployed against a minor, which is so wildly inappropriate -- minors entangled in the legal system are entitled to an incredible amount of care and deference from all legal professionals. That the adversarial attorney's child was in her school and in her class, reporting to his father about her activities -- that seems like such an obvious miscarriage of justice, legal ethics, and Mackenzie's right to access the courts. (And it is clear from a bunch of testimony that gossip within the school flew fast and thick, and that both the mother and her lawyer encouraged and benefited that.) (Although, again, not specifically ethically forbidden.)
It was a private school, so rules are murky, but in my public district, we would have expected DCFS to take out a restraining order, which would have required the attorney's child to be moved to a different class (which is part of why an attorney would be reluctant to take that case). Public schools have much stronger due process rights for students; private schools' freedom of association rights tend to outweigh a bunch of other constitutional rights.
(I began this comment before seeing metaplectic's comment about the attorney and sex crimes, and now that I have UGGGGGGGH, and also content warning, the rest of my comment is about sex crimes, but I am SO NOT SURPRISED that's this lawyer's claim to fame.)
A very dear friend of mine has a daughter in junior high, in a private school. Six months ago, her daughter was sexually assaulted by an older student at the same school. The school's response was to shrug and claim it was a "he said, she said." She had to keep going to class with the boy who assaulted her for six solid months. The boy's parents, who are wealthy professionals, worked all their contacts in the school community to keep the boy in class, and to discredit the girl. She went to school every single day being mocked and belittled by her classmates as a "slut" and a liar, largely because of stories the boy's parents told to other parents in the community to protect their son. My friend's daughter is TWELVE. (The reasons her parents did not remove her are complicated and specific to the community, but keeping her in school was the best of a bunch of really shitty options.)
Earlier this week, because my friend's daughter has the heart of a lion and parents who are so strong I can barely conceive of it, the boy was convicted in criminal court of criminal sexual assault. Finally, after six months, he has been removed from the school. After six months, she can go to class without fear. After six months, his parents' gossipmongering to smear a 12-year-old has been proven to be lies.
I firmly believe that the only reason this happened is that my friend and her husband are also both professionals, who both work in areas related to child sexual abuse, so they knew how to navigate the system and how to demand justice for their daughter. They also have large, supportive extended families who were able to provide emotional, logistical, and financial support to the family. (Their daughter is also incredibly resilient and was able to continue to advocate for herself throughout the process. Had she refused to testify, it would have collapsed -- which is a hell of a thing to put on a 12-year-old's shoulders.) They also got lucky with the prosecutor assigned to their case. In their jurisdiction, 80% of child sexual abuse charges are never tried (or pleaded out) because of "lack of evidence," which often amounts to "nobody saw it happen except the perp and the victim." They got a prosecutor who was a bulldog, whose clearance rate on those cases is much higher than the average for that prosecutor's office.
Again, I 100% get that the lawyer taking the mother's case was not ethically forbidden and they're both legally in the clear. But it absolutely 100% is an incredible violation, obviously intended to intimidate the daughter, and obviously intended to make it difficult for her to a) get justice or b) continue to attend school. That is how this kind of thing works. And I get why we don't ban people from seeking friends as lawyers -- people have an important constitutional right to seek an attorney they're comfortable with -- but BOY do I think judges should be HELLA more suspicious of cases where parents are able to use their social connections to poison the well at a child's school. In both Mackenzie's case and my friend's daughter's case, there should have been a restraining order preventing the adults in the case from gossiping about children as a way to manipulate the children in the case to dropping their complaints. That is such a ridiculously obvious abuse of power and miscarriage of justice; it should not be allowed to stand, anywhere. Lawyers should be on notice that if their accused clients gossip to a school community about a child in that community -- or worse, if they themselves do -- there will be sanctions, fines, and possible other legal censure. Lawyers should be required to withdraw if they find out their clients are doing this; they should be subject to significant sanctions if they do it themselves.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:05 PM on March 31, 2022 [34 favorites]
Ugh, I'm just amazed at the behaviour of pretty much every authority figure and institution in this kid's life.
Years ago, I taught at a university where a wealthy white male "star student" admitted to both plagiarism and sexual harassment of a fellow student. He did face some penalties for his behaviour, but what I remember most clearly is how the administration went to great lengths to investigate his work in other courses and when they found no evidence of further plagiarism, made a point of noting that publicly. I remember talking to my department head about it and hearing how important it was to make sure that "a couple of mistakes" did not discredit his legitimate accomplishments or damage his future.
Kids that age make mistakes, and it sounds like MF might very well have made a few. I'll bet that someone dug through the lives of the other Rhodes Scholars in year year with the same enthusiasm they have shown here, they would find things that would make them clutch their pearls. But they won't do that, because unlike MF, most of those people have family and institutions on their side.
I hope U Penn ends up paying through the nose for this.
posted by rpfields at 7:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Years ago, I taught at a university where a wealthy white male "star student" admitted to both plagiarism and sexual harassment of a fellow student. He did face some penalties for his behaviour, but what I remember most clearly is how the administration went to great lengths to investigate his work in other courses and when they found no evidence of further plagiarism, made a point of noting that publicly. I remember talking to my department head about it and hearing how important it was to make sure that "a couple of mistakes" did not discredit his legitimate accomplishments or damage his future.
Kids that age make mistakes, and it sounds like MF might very well have made a few. I'll bet that someone dug through the lives of the other Rhodes Scholars in year year with the same enthusiasm they have shown here, they would find things that would make them clutch their pearls. But they won't do that, because unlike MF, most of those people have family and institutions on their side.
I hope U Penn ends up paying through the nose for this.
posted by rpfields at 7:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
You know, the more that comes out, the better a person Mackenzie seems to me - it's clear that she actually really tried to be very specific about her experiences and to clarify whenever anything could be misleading. I bet that's what got her into trouble with the check-boxes, too - she tried to understand what the checkboxes were actually supposed to mean and of course because they mean "something vague and nebulous that we can use to prove whatever we want", that tripped her up. She sounds like a really good person, actually.
Also it was very brave of her to support the wrongful death lawsuit. Not everyone would have thought that through and done it. A lot of people would have figured they'd better not rock the boat, especially when it wasn't a family member or a close friend who died.
This reminds me so much of the Bad Art Friend story - someone who is actually a markedly better than average human gets into bad trouble essentially because she is a good person and society is built on the assumption that everyone is ruthlessly self interested.
posted by Frowner at 7:49 PM on March 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
Also it was very brave of her to support the wrongful death lawsuit. Not everyone would have thought that through and done it. A lot of people would have figured they'd better not rock the boat, especially when it wasn't a family member or a close friend who died.
This reminds me so much of the Bad Art Friend story - someone who is actually a markedly better than average human gets into bad trouble essentially because she is a good person and society is built on the assumption that everyone is ruthlessly self interested.
posted by Frowner at 7:49 PM on March 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
This thread is a very nice microcosm for Penn's situation in the larger society: Penn's (few!) defenders think they are scoring all kinds of points, but in reality each successive thing they say makes Penn look worse to a point that what initially appeared to be mere callousness on Penn's part is now revealed to be active and malignant persecution — and the reputations of the defenders themselves have now been damaged beyond repair.
posted by jamjam at 8:32 PM on March 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 8:32 PM on March 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
In the first metafilter thread on Fierceton, which was based on a Chronicle of Higher Education story, I compared her to Dolaziel and argued that the revocation of the Rhodes Scholarship was appropriate. I was relying on the facts presented in that article, but also reasoning analogically from secondhand knowledge of people whose young lives could honestly be described as "abusive" or "traumatic" but which nevertheless had access to upper-class socialization and cultural capital.
This story changed my mind, and I now think that the actions of Penn and the Rhodes Trust were wrong. The key thing for me is that after her mother lost custody she had no family. Not "an uncle that she needed to avoid who escaped accountability" or "parents who underwent a painful divorce" or "a parent who was an alcoholic" but literally no family. I think a lot of people can scarcely even imagine what that's like.
Like many folks I've also taken this as an opportunity to think about the salesmanship in my own youthful application essays. I am glad, for instance, that the selection committee for the Y Fellowship in 2000-something didn't have the wise and compassionate Penn legal team checking whether the "punk band" in which I was a "lead vocalist" on my CV had a manager and a recording contract or was just four guys who played together at two campus coffeehouses, one of whom (me) had never picked up an instrument in his life.
posted by sy at 11:41 PM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
This story changed my mind, and I now think that the actions of Penn and the Rhodes Trust were wrong. The key thing for me is that after her mother lost custody she had no family. Not "an uncle that she needed to avoid who escaped accountability" or "parents who underwent a painful divorce" or "a parent who was an alcoholic" but literally no family. I think a lot of people can scarcely even imagine what that's like.
Like many folks I've also taken this as an opportunity to think about the salesmanship in my own youthful application essays. I am glad, for instance, that the selection committee for the Y Fellowship in 2000-something didn't have the wise and compassionate Penn legal team checking whether the "punk band" in which I was a "lead vocalist" on my CV had a manager and a recording contract or was just four guys who played together at two campus coffeehouses, one of whom (me) had never picked up an instrument in his life.
posted by sy at 11:41 PM on March 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
Weell, between the two of you, you have provided almost 20% of contributionsto this thread, so yay for doing your bit for populating MeFi threads? Not so shabby for someone who was hounded out ...
On a more serious note, your contribution to the 'well-being' of some of the people reading here is greatly in excess of the actual words you wrote on the page - your insistence on the 'evil' done by a young woman while aggressively ignoring all attempt by other posters to enter true dialogue with you just to go on and on and on about the same irrelevant stuff has taught those of us with abuse in our backgrounds that our lives are made materially worse by a. hanging around in threads like this and b. that people who will seek to finish the demolition work started by abusive childhoods long ago are simply everywhere.
I can't help thinking that while power imbalances such as those between institutions and individuals, or adults and children, or abusers and their victims, are what make personal and social lives so shitty, we need to look at HOW these power imbalances come to be. And it's not just money or political clout or what-have-you - as with everything, it is the willingness of a good chunk of those not directly affected in each individual instance to leap on the waggon of the most aggressive, the most likely to actually SUCCEED in the work of destroying a life.
There's something profoundly wrong with us as a species.
posted by doggod at 6:01 AM on April 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
On a more serious note, your contribution to the 'well-being' of some of the people reading here is greatly in excess of the actual words you wrote on the page - your insistence on the 'evil' done by a young woman while aggressively ignoring all attempt by other posters to enter true dialogue with you just to go on and on and on about the same irrelevant stuff has taught those of us with abuse in our backgrounds that our lives are made materially worse by a. hanging around in threads like this and b. that people who will seek to finish the demolition work started by abusive childhoods long ago are simply everywhere.
I can't help thinking that while power imbalances such as those between institutions and individuals, or adults and children, or abusers and their victims, are what make personal and social lives so shitty, we need to look at HOW these power imbalances come to be. And it's not just money or political clout or what-have-you - as with everything, it is the willingness of a good chunk of those not directly affected in each individual instance to leap on the waggon of the most aggressive, the most likely to actually SUCCEED in the work of destroying a life.
There's something profoundly wrong with us as a species.
posted by doggod at 6:01 AM on April 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
A good thing that has come from this thread though - I concur with this comment by Frowner: having looked into things more due to the direction this thread took, I am super-duper impressed by Mackenzie. Her fortitude, her ability to recognize and name what she went through while at the same time painstakingly NOT laying claim to what she feels is in excess of what she has actually suffered, are truly impressive.
She appears to have been a good student, but I am more impressed by her integrity and resilience.
So I suppose I should thank you, factory123 and tamarisk - without you I would never have seen this. Thanks to you, this young woman has become a bit of a role model.
posted by doggod at 6:07 AM on April 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
She appears to have been a good student, but I am more impressed by her integrity and resilience.
So I suppose I should thank you, factory123 and tamarisk - without you I would never have seen this. Thanks to you, this young woman has become a bit of a role model.
posted by doggod at 6:07 AM on April 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'm sorry you felt bullied - maybe you felt pushed into a corner because so many people disagreed with you and you would have gotten over the fixation on the 'lies' if left to your own devices. But do you understand that from the other POV you were siding with the people in power against an innocent who had tried to bring them to justice?
So while here in MeFi it was you guys 'speaking truth to power' in the wider world situation it was the other way around?
Wrt this: It doesn't comfort the afflicted or bring about cosmic justice., I disagree. As someone who is/ was demographically not that far from Mackenzie (was once an abused child then young woman, treated with neglect and contempt by various insitutions, browbeaten each time any attempts at correcting institutional wrongs are made, etc. but also haven't always measured my words as though they need to hold up in a court of law, memory is shot frequently when thinking about some details of past situations, while the general ATMOSPHERE of the situation is recollected well - I know, because I have evidence, etc), I'm really happy that people pushed back against you (though I regret that you it's made you feel bullied - I'd wish noone felt attacked), because seeing someone else invalidated to the extent that Mackenzie was in some comments here is incredibly painful to a degree I can't even describe.
And this is not purely about a difference of opinion - it was clear after a few exchanges that you and tamarisk where holding a different POV than most of the rest of us (with a couple of exceptions) - but the whole thread became about whether or not M saying she felt metal in her mouth instead of plastic made her a liar, whether or not her description of involvement in a non-profit was a lie or mere exaggeration or neither, ec. - all sorts of things that are truly trivial.
In fact, that WAS in a way what the core of the problem is - two insitutions creating a smoke-screen of irrelevancies in order to destroy a person who had already had it rough - one to cover up their own mis-deeds, the other one in collusion - because power supports power.
So instead of having all the other converstions that could have been had, we were locked in a back-and-forth about 'she lied!' - 'no she didn't!'; 'she did too!' - 'even if she did, it doesn't matter!', etc. We could have discussed Rhodes' involvement (not a shining moment for them), the collusion of those in power, the horrible, racist roots of Rhodes' power over young people's lives, equal access to education (rather than current would-be meritocracy), and many more that were briefly touched uopn here but were drowned out by the return of the frankly boring and utterly irrelevant lies conversation.
I hope that ultimately you don't feel embattled enough any more to silence your empathy.
posted by doggod at 6:42 AM on April 1, 2022 [15 favorites]
So while here in MeFi it was you guys 'speaking truth to power' in the wider world situation it was the other way around?
Wrt this: It doesn't comfort the afflicted or bring about cosmic justice., I disagree. As someone who is/ was demographically not that far from Mackenzie (was once an abused child then young woman, treated with neglect and contempt by various insitutions, browbeaten each time any attempts at correcting institutional wrongs are made, etc. but also haven't always measured my words as though they need to hold up in a court of law, memory is shot frequently when thinking about some details of past situations, while the general ATMOSPHERE of the situation is recollected well - I know, because I have evidence, etc), I'm really happy that people pushed back against you (though I regret that you it's made you feel bullied - I'd wish noone felt attacked), because seeing someone else invalidated to the extent that Mackenzie was in some comments here is incredibly painful to a degree I can't even describe.
And this is not purely about a difference of opinion - it was clear after a few exchanges that you and tamarisk where holding a different POV than most of the rest of us (with a couple of exceptions) - but the whole thread became about whether or not M saying she felt metal in her mouth instead of plastic made her a liar, whether or not her description of involvement in a non-profit was a lie or mere exaggeration or neither, ec. - all sorts of things that are truly trivial.
In fact, that WAS in a way what the core of the problem is - two insitutions creating a smoke-screen of irrelevancies in order to destroy a person who had already had it rough - one to cover up their own mis-deeds, the other one in collusion - because power supports power.
So instead of having all the other converstions that could have been had, we were locked in a back-and-forth about 'she lied!' - 'no she didn't!'; 'she did too!' - 'even if she did, it doesn't matter!', etc. We could have discussed Rhodes' involvement (not a shining moment for them), the collusion of those in power, the horrible, racist roots of Rhodes' power over young people's lives, equal access to education (rather than current would-be meritocracy), and many more that were briefly touched uopn here but were drowned out by the return of the frankly boring and utterly irrelevant lies conversation.
I hope that ultimately you don't feel embattled enough any more to silence your empathy.
posted by doggod at 6:42 AM on April 1, 2022 [15 favorites]
there have been comments deleted by other users. i know this because one of them was mine. i think that what i said was justified, but it was mostly directed at you and about how you have chosen to argue for your points in this thread. it looks to me like the mods wanted to cut that line of argument off and picked a point in the thread to do so, which resulted in multiple peoples' comments being removed. your assumption that you were specifically targeted is unwarranted.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:42 AM on April 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:42 AM on April 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
I will say that my perception of a failure to engage is in part because you relied heavily on the 130 page document from Penn, but then when people began engaging with the document and even citing the document, you failed to engage with those individuals further - ie, failed to engage with the actual evidence. It really does feel like there's something going on here - either UPenn alumni, or some sort of political angle wherein you're opposed to what you perceived as the academic version of "welfare queens", which as has been said above, is a highly problematic racialized moral panic. You've said that you care about poor and traumatized people, but everyone who's been in the thread who's actually been poor and traumatized has supported Fierceton. When you keep pushing on this, you are harming the very people you claim to be trying to help - this is why people question your motives.
posted by corb at 6:46 AM on April 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:46 AM on April 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
I think this conversation is becoming better suited to a MetaTalk. I support the idea that calling each other's motivations into question is something that maybe should be put out of bounds, but I would want to think about it more.
However, I do also think "assumption of motivation" does fit in with the way this story is very polarizing.
We all, as human beings, come to stories like these with biases and assumptions as well as what I think of as hot topics. MF, for example, was devoting herself to the study of the foster care system and standing up for others who found themselves in the same life-threatening situation she was in (and resulted in a student death if I have that detail right) which for me actually seems to contribute to expressing a language of trauma. So many people I know who have experienced those moments do get fascinated by sticking up for others in the same situation; it's a powerful way to process things and still get to stand on sort of intellectual ground.
But, that's assumption on my part.
What I find weird about this story is that neither Penn nor the Rhodes committee seems to have been able to approach this situation on that basis - ask her what she meant, see if there was a resolution like delaying her Rhodes to the next year so that she could rewrite the application. That's where I also start to believe it was retaliatory, because it seems so weird to attack a successful student.
I actually believe that when people entrench into a very rules-bound viewpoint that also is a language either of trauma or what Burke identified as "survivorship bias."
(As someone who has struggled with survivorship guilt, I see that as a response to trauma/sick systems as well and although I have a tendency to get pointed and pedantic at times, I have been trying to increase my capacity to have harder conversations respectfully and save my actual attacks for the sadly real neo Nazis in my actual neighbourhood (siiigh.) No one here meets that bar.)
I believe that the elite academic system has these vestiges of colonial and other systems (although I have to say, being in school again, I am amazed at the difference in the classroom from the 90s) and that what I can do best is seek to understand everyone so that we can change it. I mean I personally am never going to change Penn or Rhodes, but if we all get good at having these conversations, someone, somewhere will eventually.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:03 AM on April 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
However, I do also think "assumption of motivation" does fit in with the way this story is very polarizing.
We all, as human beings, come to stories like these with biases and assumptions as well as what I think of as hot topics. MF, for example, was devoting herself to the study of the foster care system and standing up for others who found themselves in the same life-threatening situation she was in (and resulted in a student death if I have that detail right) which for me actually seems to contribute to expressing a language of trauma. So many people I know who have experienced those moments do get fascinated by sticking up for others in the same situation; it's a powerful way to process things and still get to stand on sort of intellectual ground.
But, that's assumption on my part.
What I find weird about this story is that neither Penn nor the Rhodes committee seems to have been able to approach this situation on that basis - ask her what she meant, see if there was a resolution like delaying her Rhodes to the next year so that she could rewrite the application. That's where I also start to believe it was retaliatory, because it seems so weird to attack a successful student.
I actually believe that when people entrench into a very rules-bound viewpoint that also is a language either of trauma or what Burke identified as "survivorship bias."
(As someone who has struggled with survivorship guilt, I see that as a response to trauma/sick systems as well and although I have a tendency to get pointed and pedantic at times, I have been trying to increase my capacity to have harder conversations respectfully and save my actual attacks for the sadly real neo Nazis in my actual neighbourhood (siiigh.) No one here meets that bar.)
I believe that the elite academic system has these vestiges of colonial and other systems (although I have to say, being in school again, I am amazed at the difference in the classroom from the 90s) and that what I can do best is seek to understand everyone so that we can change it. I mean I personally am never going to change Penn or Rhodes, but if we all get good at having these conversations, someone, somewhere will eventually.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:03 AM on April 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
A lot of Penn alumni are actually aghast at the administrations behavior. Nearly the entire student body is supportive of Mackenzie. I know a lot of people involved in this case, from a variety of angles, and the ones who are supportive of Penn are ones who have a financial stake in it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:05 AM on April 1, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:05 AM on April 1, 2022 [20 favorites]
The mods are stretched very thin right now, see MetaTalk. I don't think you can read into any particular non-deletion in this thread beyond the point that the mods don't have time to police every comment.
But I think this discussion has run its course and the last ~25 comments are mainly meta-commentary on the tone of the discussion or the motivations for particular comments, which probably means that everyone should drop it and move back to the substance or the thread should be closed.
posted by Mid at 7:26 AM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
But I think this discussion has run its course and the last ~25 comments are mainly meta-commentary on the tone of the discussion or the motivations for particular comments, which probably means that everyone should drop it and move back to the substance or the thread should be closed.
posted by Mid at 7:26 AM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Hey, good morning from the back end of a multi-hour gap between paid mod shifts. I am gonna need everybody to just absolutely hit the brakes now. factory123, that particularly and explicitly means you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:28 AM on April 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:28 AM on April 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
What I find weird about this story is that neither Penn nor the Rhodes committee seems to have been able to approach this situation on that basis - ask her what she meant, see if there was a resolution like delaying her Rhodes to the next year so that she could rewrite the application. That's where I also start to believe it was retaliatory, because it seems so weird to attack a successful student.
Oh, it was so much worse. When Fierceton planned to respond to the Trust's findings, Penn threatened to refer her to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution over her FAFSA.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:47 PM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Oh, it was so much worse. When Fierceton planned to respond to the Trust's findings, Penn threatened to refer her to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution over her FAFSA.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:47 PM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
I've been sitting here for the last hour or so reading this and trying to decide whether to post. My heart goes out to this young woman for the abuse she suffered at the hands of her parents and the abuse she's suffering at the hands of the great glorious institutions (/s) of Penn and Rhodes.
I am the survivor of abuse from multiple 1st and 2nd degree relatives. The two therapists I've worked mostly closely with in trying to understand all the shit both were quite surprised I made it out alive and mostly mentally intact.
Abuse fucks with your memory. I won't share details of the story, but I had a somewhat similar thing that happened to MacKenzie with the metal/plastic thing, except in my case, it was the implement of abuse.
I also grew up in a comfortably middle class family in a nice suburb. As an elementary school student, I didn't know the term "mandated reporter" but I knew that teachers had to tell someone if they thought you were being hurt. My mother was a fucking middle school guidance counselor. On numerous occasions she would tell me about having to call 696-KIDS. And she told me the horrible things that happened when CPS took kids from their parents. And I totally believed her. And on more occasions that I can probably remember, she put the phone in my hands and told me to call if I thought things were so bad.
I lied to every single teacher that ever asked me if everything was all right at home. I was fucking terrified of what would happen to me if they would take me away. Would it have been worse than what was happening to me at home? I don't know. It's something that crosses my mind every once in a while .
I applaud MacKenzie's strength and fortitude for standing up for what is right. I applaud the people who are supporting her. I'm sure she will be an amazing social worker and will have a lasting impact on her clients.
posted by kathrynm at 6:03 PM on April 1, 2022 [24 favorites]
I am the survivor of abuse from multiple 1st and 2nd degree relatives. The two therapists I've worked mostly closely with in trying to understand all the shit both were quite surprised I made it out alive and mostly mentally intact.
Abuse fucks with your memory. I won't share details of the story, but I had a somewhat similar thing that happened to MacKenzie with the metal/plastic thing, except in my case, it was the implement of abuse.
I also grew up in a comfortably middle class family in a nice suburb. As an elementary school student, I didn't know the term "mandated reporter" but I knew that teachers had to tell someone if they thought you were being hurt. My mother was a fucking middle school guidance counselor. On numerous occasions she would tell me about having to call 696-KIDS. And she told me the horrible things that happened when CPS took kids from their parents. And I totally believed her. And on more occasions that I can probably remember, she put the phone in my hands and told me to call if I thought things were so bad.
I lied to every single teacher that ever asked me if everything was all right at home. I was fucking terrified of what would happen to me if they would take me away. Would it have been worse than what was happening to me at home? I don't know. It's something that crosses my mind every once in a while .
I applaud MacKenzie's strength and fortitude for standing up for what is right. I applaud the people who are supporting her. I'm sure she will be an amazing social worker and will have a lasting impact on her clients.
posted by kathrynm at 6:03 PM on April 1, 2022 [24 favorites]
For about half this thread, it was really very upsetting to read. As someone with a messy and painful past, I felt personally at risk (because that’s what PTSD does - makes you feel at risk even when you aren’t). And then this magical thing happened when I realized that actually here’s person after person saying “yeah, people who have messy lives do their best to talk about them and it doesn’t make them liars when that’s hard and doesn’t fit in people’s neat little boxes.” This was a shitty thread, but it was also an *amazing* thread. It was one where a whole lot of people said “people get to be messy and human” and put in some SERIOUS work supporting that position. There are two loud people who really think they have never had to navigate through a messy situation, which boggles the mind. But there’s a whole lot more people who stood in their conviction that we shouldn’t judge a teenager for doing her best to distill the worst most vulnerable parts of her life into enough trauma porn to get a leg up _in order to be able to help other people_ and side with an obviously retaliatory institution. And of course Rhodes is going to side with institutional power, anyone who finds this in any way surprising is frankly so out of touch that it boggles the mind.
So thank you to everyone who thought it was worthwhile to say that they believed a victim of abuse. Thank you for your words and kindness and compassion. Thank you for thinking someone doesn’t need to be perfect to be worthy. Although, damn, she does make it easy by being a hell of a person who is doing her damndest to be perfect. Which, incidentally, is a pretty good indication of a trauma response for anyone keeping track. She was never allowed to be less than perfect, and it looks like some people are intent on that being the standard for everyone and especially people who are already running their hardest to be the very best to prove their worthy of anything.
posted by Bottlecap at 11:05 PM on April 1, 2022 [36 favorites]
So thank you to everyone who thought it was worthwhile to say that they believed a victim of abuse. Thank you for your words and kindness and compassion. Thank you for thinking someone doesn’t need to be perfect to be worthy. Although, damn, she does make it easy by being a hell of a person who is doing her damndest to be perfect. Which, incidentally, is a pretty good indication of a trauma response for anyone keeping track. She was never allowed to be less than perfect, and it looks like some people are intent on that being the standard for everyone and especially people who are already running their hardest to be the very best to prove their worthy of anything.
posted by Bottlecap at 11:05 PM on April 1, 2022 [36 favorites]
Update to this story: Penn released Mackenzie’s degree.
posted by ardita at 9:10 PM on April 12, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by ardita at 9:10 PM on April 12, 2022 [12 favorites]
I bet one of the things they are afraid of is this, from the open letter:
“ Release the names of the members of the two SP2 faculty panels which convened in August 2021 and March 2022 to review Mackenzie’s case, for full transparency.”
posted by corb at 9:57 PM on April 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
“ Release the names of the members of the two SP2 faculty panels which convened in August 2021 and March 2022 to review Mackenzie’s case, for full transparency.”
posted by corb at 9:57 PM on April 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I imagine that Penn's actual trial counsel sat the leadership down and pointed out that much like winter in Westeros, discovery is coming - and once the court starts issuing those orders, they don't give a fuck about academic norms and will expect Penn to start revealing things (like names) that Penn really doesn't want to come out.
And this shows how bullshit the demand for an apology truly was in the first place.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:57 PM on April 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
And this shows how bullshit the demand for an apology truly was in the first place.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:57 PM on April 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
Also, point 5 on the open letter is excellent, as it's the students saying "we know this is retaliation, and we will not let you pretend otherwise."
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:00 PM on April 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:00 PM on April 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
Cool. And there's a walkout. ..hopefully Rhodes is next. Good luck, little one. You've come way too far to stop there.
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:52 PM on April 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:52 PM on April 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
I hope Rhodes warms back toward her. She deserves to keep the honor. Especially now.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:25 PM on April 18, 2022
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:25 PM on April 18, 2022
« Older A Bookstore Revival Channels Nostalgia for Big Box... | some of them happy endings and some decidedly not Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
When I think about our earlier discussion of this issue, based on earlier information, it feels like the critical thing is correctly understanding where the power lies. In any situation, who has the power to enforce their will and reap the benefits? That's the entity to be skeptical of and that's where investigations should start.
I'm reminded of Bad Art Friend and the recent post about Lauren Hough. In each case, when you actually take the time to consider who has relative power in the situation, the story turns around - it's the clique of established authors who have the power, not the part-time teacher kidney donor; it's trans women who are vulnerable, not the relatively well-known cis woman writer.
The internet tends to default to heuristics - we can tell who the villain is because of their identity. Heuristics are very useful when you need to make snap decisions and have no real information, because they are very often correct. Very often, eg, the rich white child of privilege is the villain. But in none of these cases did anyone need to make a snap decision - it's not like it was an emergency that we understand the story of the kidney donation or that we immediately decide whether Mackenzie Fierceton was correct to call herself a first gen college student.
It's interesting that very often when the first time we encounter these stories on metafilter, they are written from a fake-left point of view. It's fake-left to assume that because a child is from a rich white family, she is a grade-grubbing entitled liar when in fact child abuse is incredibly common and kids very rarely actually pursue sustained, structured, internally consistent false complaints. But the natural (misogynist, fake left) read is that of course here is a blond girl who comes from money, she must by lying (and somehow people assume that her rich white blond mom is therefore truthful). Adults have power over kids, most of the time even well-off white kids. We should be thinking, "who has power here, a kid separated from her family or a powerful, wealthy academic institution"?
I guess I'd define "fake left" as "seizes upon an identity and divorces it from actual power structures in order to seem trendy and right-on" - something totally endemic in our sketchy media environment. Like Disney backing the GOP and the don't-say-gay bill while doing everything they can to pull in queer dollars - trendily left on the surface to make a buck but always serving the interests of power where it counts.
posted by Frowner at 9:58 AM on March 30, 2022 [90 favorites]