Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

PP here. I don't think I have sufficient facts to say with any certainty--do you? It's certainly possible both parties bear some responsibility for the outcome.

No one is asking for certainly. I'm simply trying to ascertain, based on your best guess, how the blame should be apportioned. You seem to think it's 50/50 or close to it, correct?

I have no idea, and I don’t think it’s important to apportion blame by percentages. I imagine both sides contributed to this mess. I am disappointed that many people on this thread are jumping to the conclusion the family of color are opportunists and scammers, and that Sidwell is squeaky clean. In my observation it seems that people of color may need to resort to taking what would be seen by white people as extreme action in instances where they believe there were not treated fairly. I do not know this family, and I do not presume to speak for them. To white people in our culture their actions may look shady, but perhaps seek to understand what it might be like to experience an undercurrent of bias in society and then experience this situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

PP here. I don't think I have sufficient facts to say with any certainty--do you? It's certainly possible both parties bear some responsibility for the outcome.

No one is asking for certainly. I'm simply trying to ascertain, based on your best guess, how the blame should be apportioned. You seem to think it's 50/50 or close to it, correct?

I have no idea, and I don’t think it’s important to apportion blame by percentages. I imagine both sides contributed to this mess. I am disappointed that many people on this thread are jumping to the conclusion the family of color are opportunists and scammers, and that Sidwell is squeaky clean. In my observation it seems that people of color may need to resort to taking what would be seen by white people as extreme action in instances where they believe there were not treated fairly. I do not know this family, and I do not presume to speak for them. To white people in our culture their actions may look shady, but perhaps seek to understand what it might be like to experience an undercurrent of bias in society and then experience this situation.

You are racist, see racism everywhere, and won't stop until Sidwell apologizes to that family for all the racism and injustice in the world -- even if it's obvious they are a pair of scammers.

Have a blessed life, I'm pretty sure having nothing to do with Sidwell.

You must live a very sad life.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s important to apportion blame by percentages. I imagine both sides contributed to this mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What we do know is that the family comes off as just plain scammers who blame others for their fairly petty disappointments. I mean, having to settle for Penn instead of Yale. Seems like compelling federal civil rights case to me!

I suspect you're relying too heavily on stupid stereotypes (Nigerian prince scam, etc.) instead of any knowledge of the facts in this case. We're all in the dark about the case, except for the few facts that are public. It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

You can read what the family’s lawyer filed with the Supreme Court. Because of the way Supreme Court arguments go, that document represents their best evidence; oral arguments (of cert is granted) aren’t the meat of the matter at this level. Their best evidence is ridiculous. Honestly, they should be embarrassed to have filed it.

No doubt, as a majority white institution, Sidwell may have a history of biased or racist actions. If there are families saying they had negative experiences there, then I believe there are risks for children of color. This case isn’t going anywhere, though. Even the attorney knows it. The whole thing looks like a publicity stunt. Even the original post on this thread seems likely to be from a sympathizer to the family.

The lawyer doesns't have the most impressive credentials. He's not even a member of the SCOTUS bar (yes I know what's involved, I'm a member). This clearly would be his maiden appearance if cert. is granted, which I sincerely doubt. This may be his way to improve his standing professionally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What we do know is that the family comes off as just plain scammers who blame others for their fairly petty disappointments. I mean, having to settle for Penn instead of Yale. Seems like compelling federal civil rights case to me!

I suspect you're relying too heavily on stupid stereotypes (Nigerian prince scam, etc.) instead of any knowledge of the facts in this case. We're all in the dark about the case, except for the few facts that are public. It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

You can read what the family’s lawyer filed with the Supreme Court. Because of the way Supreme Court arguments go, that document represents their best evidence; oral arguments (of cert is granted) aren’t the meat of the matter at this level. Their best evidence is ridiculous. Honestly, they should be embarrassed to have filed it.

No doubt, as a majority white institution, Sidwell may have a history of biased or racist actions. If there are families saying they had negative experiences there, then I believe there are risks for children of color. This case isn’t going anywhere, though. Even the attorney knows it. The whole thing looks like a publicity stunt. Even the original post on this thread seems likely to be from a sympathizer to the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

PP here. I don't think I have sufficient facts to say with any certainty--do you? It's certainly possible both parties bear some responsibility for the outcome.

No one is asking for certainly. I'm simply trying to ascertain, based on your best guess, how the blame should be apportioned. You seem to think it's 50/50 or close to it, correct?

I have no idea, and I don’t think it’s important to apportion blame by percentages. I imagine both sides contributed to this mess. I am disappointed that many people on this thread are jumping to the conclusion the family of color are opportunists and scammers, and that Sidwell is squeaky clean. In my observation it seems that people of color may need to resort to taking what would be seen by white people as extreme action in instances where they believe there were not treated fairly. I do not know this family, and I do not presume to speak for them. To white people in our culture their actions may look shady, but perhaps seek to understand what it might be like to experience an undercurrent of bias in society and then experience this situation.

You are racist, see racism everywhere, and won't stop until Sidwell apologizes to that family for all the racism and injustice in the world -- even if it's obvious they are a pair of scammers.

Have a blessed life, I'm pretty sure having nothing to do with Sidwell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

PP here. I don't think I have sufficient facts to say with any certainty--do you? It's certainly possible both parties bear some responsibility for the outcome.

No one is asking for certainly. I'm simply trying to ascertain, based on your best guess, how the blame should be apportioned. You seem to think it's 50/50 or close to it, correct?

I have no idea, and I don’t think it’s important to apportion blame by percentages. I imagine both sides contributed to this mess. I am disappointed that many people on this thread are jumping to the conclusion the family of color are opportunists and scammers, and that Sidwell is squeaky clean. In my observation it seems that people of color may need to resort to taking what would be seen by white people as extreme action in instances where they believe there were not treated fairly. I do not know this family, and I do not presume to speak for them. To white people in our culture their actions may look shady, but perhaps seek to understand what it might be like to experience an undercurrent of bias in society and then experience this situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

PP here. I don't think I have sufficient facts to say with any certainty--do you? It's certainly possible both parties bear some responsibility for the outcome.

No one is asking for certainly. I'm simply trying to ascertain, based on your best guess, how the blame should be apportioned. You seem to think it's 50/50 or close to it, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

What we do know is that the family comes off as just plain scammers who blame others for their fairly petty disappointments. I mean, having to settle for Penn instead of Yale. Seems like compelling federal civil rights case to me!

I suspect you're relying too heavily on stupid stereotypes (Nigerian prince scam, etc.) instead of any knowledge of the facts in this case. We're all in the dark about the case, except for the few facts that are public. It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

PP here. I don't think I have sufficient facts to say with any certainty--do you? It's certainly possible both parties bear some responsibility for the outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

What we do know is that the family comes off as just plain scammers who blame others for their fairly petty disappointments. I mean, having to settle for Penn instead of Yale. Seems like compelling federal civil rights case to me!

I suspect you're relying too heavily on stupid stereotypes (Nigerian prince scam, etc.) instead of any knowledge of the facts in this case. We're all in the dark about the case, except for the few facts that are public. It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.

Given what's publicly known, which one is the likelier possibility in your opinion and why?

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly possible the family's suit is flimsy, but it's also possible the Sidwell was a bad actor.