Talk:Gina Grant college admissions controversy

Industrial Worker

I am removing from the main article the mention of the "Industrial Worker" Op-Ed article that sided with Gina Grant, because it's not a notable publication, they have nothing to do with this case, and, frankly, Gina Grant doesn't have a leg to stand on. She got caught lying on her college application--that right away eliminates her from admission to an Ivy League school. The fact that she lied about being a murderer makes it worse. The fact that the publication of the Industrial Workers of the World wrote an article about it means nothing. I think the person who included that bit just liked the Henry Kissinger quote. It's gone.

consensus?

This page contained the quote, regarding the media coverage of this story:

"The consensus in campus publications and in most newspapers other than the Boston Globe was that the anonymous faxer had been mean-spirited, and that Harvard was self-righteous and Puritanical."

So let me get this straight: "most newspapers" thought that Harvard was being "Puritanical" by not admitting a convicted murderer who lied about it on her application? I'd like to see this "consensus" in the form of several notable publications (real newspapers, not the "Industrial Workers of America's" newsletter) saying so. I'm removing that line becuase it's not backed up. 199.2.242.169 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to do all the research now; but I'll list citations one by one and when we have a number of national publications, I'll revert your edit. You know, you could do this reseach yourself.

1. Frank Rich in the New York Times on April 16, 1995, "In exchange for [Gina Grant's] dignified silence," he intoned, "she got no rewards, only a smear campaign by Harvard" and the entire piece is critical of Harvard's actions.

2. Patricia Gaines in the Chicago Tribune on June 4, 1995, the article is titled "When Do We Start Forgiving," and the entire piece is critical of Harvard's actions.

3. Ethnic Newswatch in A. Magazine, September 30, 1995, "Harvard showed poor grace in its abrupt, after-the-fact revocation of her acceptance." etc.

Uucp 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I needed to rewrite most of this article. The original was awkward, out of order, VERY biased against Grant, contained unsubstantiated assertions, and left out a lot of relevant info. Inaccuracies about the murder included: Grant was sentenced to juvenile hall, not prison; she plead guilty, not tried by a jury; she received probation to age 18, not 19. Furthermore, Harvard NEVER clarified its reasons for rescinding her admission, nor did it release her application, so what her application stated (or didn't state) is pure speculation. Harvard only stated the possible reasons for rescinding a student’s admission.

Other important additions to this article: date and place of crime; date and place of her relocation; Grant's stellar high school record; and her orphan status (her father had also died). CagedRage 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you took the revision way too far. You included points from her criminal defense as if they were fact, when the court did not find them persuasive. You include numerous "apologetic" phrases excusing the crime (case in point, "juvenile murder conviction" rather than "she killed her mother," and thinly veiled editorializing that Harvard should have been nicer to her. You disparage the existing body of literature as 'scant newspaper articles', when in fact tens of thousands of words were published about this crime in reputable newspapers and magazines. Uucp 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We obviously have different views on the nature of the crime itself, which is of no consequence. I stand by my revisions. Everything I edited came directly from credible articles (one of which, by the way, I did cite in the source section--I added footnotes for clarification). The previous version was VERY biased in one direction and needed balance; it also contained factual inaccuracies. Furthermore, the court did find certain details of her defense persuasive, which is why she did 6 months in juvy instead of going to jail until age 21. I disagree with deleting the details re: her mother's physical abuse, since this was noted in many of the articles about the crime. But rather than henpick those details, I am letting it stand for now. CagedRage 02:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread the London Sunday Times piece. It does not "[attack] Harvard for being unforgiving in rescinding its offer," it just mentions that an article in The New York Times did so. The London Sunday Times piece is broadly anti-Grant, with the transcripts of her lying on tape to Jack Hook's mother, the suggestion that her own aunt and uncle "outed" her to Harvard, and the quotations from the South Carolina authorities who thought Grant was dangerous and should not have been let out of jail. I will adjust the London Sunday Times citation accordingly. Uucp 03:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to high school with Gina Grant, and we always saw that she had something glaring in here eyes, you could tell she was a little off, but I thought it was just part of her personality. After the news came out, it was obvious it was her past.

More Accuracy Problems?

As I recall, the Harvard application did not actually ask whether an applicant had been convicted of a crime. Instead, it asked whether the applicant had ever been disciplined by, or separated from (that is, formally suspended or expelled), by a previous school. Grant could honestly answer "No" to this question, because the school she had been attending at the time of the murder had had no opportunity to take any action against her. The accusation of lying involved her Harvard interview, when she was asked how her mother had died. She said, "an accident." Perhaps this needs to be doublechecked.68.72.99.4 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Falsely added name

This is a reminder to all editors that, given the highly charged nature of the accusations against Gina Grant, they must be highly careful with any allegations they make and any names they name. Unfortunately, this must be said because someone was highly careless. 69.204.4.207 edited the article to insert the supposed name of Gina Grant's boyfriend, the one who had allegedly helped her clean up after the killing. The problem is, 207 named the wrong person -- the individual named was her boyfriend of three years later[1] and not her boyfriend at the time of the killing. Anyone who is going to be so careless about editing Wikipedia as to name the wrong person as an alleged accessory to murder should not be editing Wikipedia. -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead lacks timeframes

My first question when reading the lead is: When? This answer is buried deep in the article. I would have thought it rather key to proving causality. When did the murder happen? When did the college admission happen? Knowing these fact up front better informs the reader why this event is controversial? Until the lead section can answer these facts I don't understand why it is rated as a C class article in other WikiProjects. This explains why I have rated Start class because the lead section is not accurately sumarising the article but only serving as a teaser to entice the reader to read on. That is not the purpose of the lead section. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)