Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
Another Black Eye for Penn
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
New Yorker article offers a coherent narrative:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fierceton-rhodes-scholarship-university-of-pennsylvania |
Anonymous
| Well that’s a pack of lies. I predict a libel action against the New Yorker and its staff writer on this much the way UVA rd overdid against Rolling Stone when it ran its false case about rape at a frat house. |
Anonymous
| This has been covered already |
Anonymous
Yeah…I don’t think so. The New Yorker is pretty much gold standard when it comes to fact checking and editing. Even today. And you can bet that this story in particular got tons of additional scrutiny given the background and context. Sorry to burst your bubble, but perhaps Mackenzie will end up being vindicated. It’s weird how random strangers could have such an axe to grind when it comes to this young woman. |
Anonymous
lol why do people confidently predict things they know nothing about? Rachel Aviv is a terrific reporter, not a freelancer for Rolling Stone, and no one is better than the New Yorker in libel proofing stories. Ask the Scientologists. The New Yorker's fact checking department is the best in the country. Sheesh. Why am I wasting time on this... over and out... |
Anonymous
New article has not been covered. |
Anonymous
I disagree. I know how careful universities have to be before they make any public allegation against a student. Both in-house counsel and outside counsel went over this with a fine tooth comb before taking any if the actions it did. The Article reads like the plaintiff’s brief. Just like the Rolling Stone believed the false rape story, I think The New Yorker got taken in and probably failed to fact check some critical parts. We will see. |
Anonymous
| One of you self-ordained libel lawyers care to point out a factual inaccuracy? The rest of us are happy to wait while you comb through the piece. |
Anonymous
+1 Also, the article doesn't entirely exonerate Fierceton, who clearly made an error in judgment in deciding not to elaborate on her claim that she is the first in her family to go to college on her Rhodes application. But Penn comes off looking far worse than she does. |
Anonymous
|
If it's about the UMC white girl turned first generation imposter - already know that story.
Penn will be fine. Predict record applications next year. |
Anonymous
The fact is that Penn rushed to judgment in this case. Every report reflects that. No fine tooth comb at the start. They panicked and PR considerations overrode better judgment when cooler heads should have prevailed. Outside counsel was dealt a bad hand. Their job is to serve their client’s interests and they have done that. But that doesn’t mean that mistakes weren’t made. The reporting in this article paints a very different picture than the slanted and biased portrayal of events submitted by Penn’s lawyers in their brief, which relies heavily on their claim that a cold, calculating child dreamed up this scheme to get herself into an Ivy college. The New Yorker narrative is far more credible. |
Anonymous
| As a first gen college kid (who only got loans btw) I never understood the claim that she lied about that. You are considered first gen if you do not have college educated parents helping you. That was clearly her situation. It is meant to cast a wide net. I found penn’s actions horrendous before the New Yorker article, and wasn’t at all surprised at what they uncovered. I hope she sues the heck out of penn. All these varsity blue kids and you go after the young woman getting her degree in social work who spent weeks in the hospital after her mother’s care? They need to clean house in their legal dept. |
Anonymous
Or damages sustained by Penn as a result of this article? |
Anonymous
If you think you already know the story, then you’ve closed your mind and have not read the linked article. There’s new information here. |
Anonymous
She already has filed suit against Penn after they bullied her into withdrawing from the Rhodes scholarship, withheld the master’s degree even after they had notified her in writing that she had met all the requirements, and fined her $4000 which was later rescinded because it was found to be in violation of their own policies. Does this sound like an institution that went over this case with a fine toothed comb? |