Catching the Valedictorian with Answers on Her Arm

In high school, math was not my friend. Things came to a head in trigonometry. A big test was coming. I knew I couldn't pass. Unless. Maybe. Just this time... I'd write a few answers on my arm. I could be stealth about it. No one would see. But my reputation was at stake. I was in student government. I was on the debate team. I had a high profile in the school. If I got in trouble, I risked my good name. Yet my GPA -- why should I trash all the good work I'd done by failing this one stupid class?

I felt that crossroads like it was hot asphalt under my feet. I knew cheating was wrong (and dangerous). But I remember sitting there at that desk thinking: these are the hard decisions that must get made. I felt so mature facing down the hard math of life, making the pragmatic decision that might be morally wrong but would ultimately save my um, legacy. So I cheated. I passed the test. I experienced short-term gain. But I still didn't understand the material. I failed the final -- and the class. And while I thought no one saw me cheat, now that I've been a teacher myself I know that when I'm standing in front of a class, or even off to the side, I see *everything* in the room. Even if my teacher didn't say anything, he probably saw me. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a reason I didn't get into National Honor Society (NHS). I'd heard that a few teachers had "character" reservations with me -- charges that will do more to undermine one's "legacy" than any failed test.

I think of innocence lost as the first time you truly know something is morally wrong, but you do it anyway. I think of wisdom won as the understanding that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, sometimes unintended.

No one would accuse Sen. Clinton or her staff of being innocents. No one would accuse them of not knowing the material. On the contrary, they've been hailed as a mighty machine, and she, as the knower of all political things worth knowing. Always prepared, they say. Always getting that A+++. However, the Clinton team has also been accused of being over-controlling -- of stage-managing situations to an extent that you wonder if they're referencing the George Bush playbook as often as they do the Bill Clinton one. Staffers seem driven to make risky choices that may be expedient at the time, but carry the risk of biting them in the ass if anyone finds out. No one wants to be the one who loses it for her.

Case-in-point, the question-plant story. In the history of campaign dirty tricks, this doesn't even warrant a mere mention. But, now that they're caught, does this not further the widespread belief that Sen. Clinton will do anything to win? That once again, tactics trump principle?

Fear of failure, or, fear of the consequences of failure, can lead otherwise smart, good-hearted people to "ensure" that their results are perfect. Always perfect. When you have a candidate perceived to be a "perfect little girl" (a characterization Arianna Huffington nailed so brilliantly back in December), the slur of "cheater" can stick -- for it's delicious to see the perfect girl get caught faking it, no? -- and undermine all the hard work done everywhere else.

Compared to the leaders of our current kleptocracy, the notion that Sen. Clinton could be called a cheater, and the charge stick, seems ridiculous. But the story is out there. I'm sure lots of folks are getting a snicker out of the image of the Valedictorian caught with the answers on her arm. The problem is, no matter how hard you work, if your opponents catch you fudging, cheating, or full-on fabricating in any way, they can use that to smear all of your otherwise good works.

Comments

[Aunt Shecky]

There are two kinds of mistakes, the ones that are deliberate and the ones that are inadvertent. Deliberately doing something wrong, such as cheating on a test
stems from Fear of Failure; the latter arises through an unconscious Fear of Success. Pity the poor person who simultaneously has BOTH kinds of fear-- she never gets anything done!

[NCSteve]

One invariable constant of politics, and life in general: those people who are willing to do anything to win are constitutionally incapable of perceiving that that very willingness to do anything will often keep them from winning.

[JustAnotherJoe]

Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton ? Two families potentially occupying the Oval Office for over 25 years? In a democracy? If that's what we end up with, there's something bigger going on here than a "valedictorin getting caught with answers on her arm". It's more along the lines of the teachers hand picking the valedictorian and then giving her the answers to put on her arm.

[clr2]

Why does this surprise you? Clinton has always been and will always be a liar and a cheater. You libs love to spew about Bush - well take a closer look at Hilary and her record of cheat,avoid, lie. I know, I know, when another lib does it it's not the same as when a republican does it. You guys are too funny.

[Picasso]

Read Carol Dweck's Mindset:The New Psychology of
Success, 2006. She described the fixed mindset people as those who have demonstrated they are smart or above the masses in some way.

To save their image, they are risk aversive and are not
likely to take a chance on anything that might reveal their persona may be human and fallible.

In contrast a growth mindset person is one who takes a shot at the puzzle or challenge. And uses the results to continue to expand and gain competency where it is clearly less than adequate.

The Bush Administration is filled with fixed mindset types. We had better look carefully at the Democratic candidates at every level of government[Presidential candidates and members of Congress] if we don't want more of the same kind of governing we have had.

The fixed mindsetters are not into accountability and taking responsibility for their thoughts and actions.

Voters beware.

Picasso.

[GreatFutureForAll]

Thanks for the information, Stacy. I was not aware of this. So, thanks for being a newsperson as well as a blogger.

What is discouraging about the Clinton campaign is this penchant for wanting to be just like the Bush administration in terms of it's tactics.

Here we are with our country hemorrhaging from an ever increasing Iraq war bill (which has not discouraged Bush from asking Americans to pay billions more than have already been allocated to Iraq); even as our country sweats it's way past an economic landmine as home sales plummet; even as our country gives greater tax breaks to the super rich when compared to the middle class, all the Clinton campaign can think about is "win this election at all costs."

I know. It's politics. And the right wing in this country has done it and will do it again.

I just don't think this is a candidacy that is going to move this country forward, out of the quicksand we are in today.

How a president manages his or her campaign is a direct reflection on how they will govern.

So, in terms of Clinton, she's announcing to the world that she will avoid answering questions by giving two diametrically opposed answers (saying she's both for and against something), plant people in the press corps to ask questions that are politically expedient (ala Bush White House media plant and Washington escort "Jeff Gannon"), and bomb the "terrorist regime" of Iran if it gets too involved in Middle Eastern affairs.

If insurance companies have a say in our new healthcare program (as Clinton will allow), why transition to a new President (if Clinton were to win) when all we'll get is the same government?

So that we can now have someone with the word "Democrat" attached to their name as opposed to "Republican?"

[JCP]

Wow. You have dropped considerably in my estimation, having revealed your cheating. I was a member of the NHS, and I was under-prepared sometimes, and took my B's. But I NEVER cheated. I simply would never have done that. My parents, a state DEP worker and a college professor, taught me better than that. Honor is something that seems to be falling by the wayside in this country.

[Querent]

"In the history of campaign dirty tricks, this doesn't even warrant a mere mention." I agree, but since you seem compelled to mention it anyway, I don't believe that asking a person not connected to the campaign to ask the candidate a certain question is any kind of ethical lapse. I don't even think it's a "trick". At any point, Senator Clinton could simply say, "Furthermore, on the subject of . . ." And make her statement. I doubt Senator Clinton knew about this, and even if she did, it's trivial.

Issues, remember, issues. Leave all that "character" crap for the Repigs, who are oh, so good at judging such things. (Not!)

[ljsfolly]

Hil to win at all costs? I think there should be a bit of suspician regarding all candidates for no one is pure. You only have to look back at the last two presidential elections to know to what someone will do to win. If not win at least to know who to pay to change the outcome. To believe the vote we cast will be counted goes right along with the rest of this story.

[OtayPanky]

Stacy Parker Aab: Compared to the leaders of our current kleptocracy, the notion that Sen. Clinton could be called a cheater, and the charge stick, seems ridiculous.

===

Right.

And compared...say...to Torquemada, Bushco's itty-bitty waterboarding and rendition makes him seem like St. Francis of Assissi.

===

Stacy Parker Aab: But the story is out there.

===

Right.

We can add it to the pile...like the story of her incredible commodity trading.

===

Stacy Parker Aab: I'm sure lots of folks are getting a snicker out of the image of the Valedictorian caught with the answers on her arm.

===

Maybe some are laughing. But a lot of us are shaking our heads in despair - wondering how Billary could bamboozle John and Jane Q. Public into thinking she's really the best person for POTUS.

===

Stacy Parker Aab: The problem is, no matter how hard you work, if your opponents catch you fudging, cheating, or full-on fabricating in any way, they can use that to smear all of your otherwise good works.

===

Right.

It happened to Nixon.

It happened to Billary 1.0.

And my hope is that it'll happen to Billary 2.0 in time for the democrats to put on the damn brakes, and choose ANYONE else who's got a reasonable chance of winning in '08.

[longislandlol]

She always likes to be in control of situations;that's how she's succeeded all her life-by being prepared- so it's really not a crime to have some question/answers fielded that she feels in control of-

[rwe]

Look, you have to get use to the fact that America is no longer putting up with the "Pres Bush and Republicans are all encompassing evil and thus when any one on the left is found to be corrupt they are not becasue the left will default to Pres Bush

[aznurse]

I just received an email with Senator Obama picture of him standing in front of a flag with his hands down, while in the background was Clinton, Dodd and I think Richards,had their hand over their heart. the title was that Obama refused to say the pledge. I replied that it was during the star spangle banner not the pledge.
With all the horrors going on, this and the question plant is what people are focusing on.
A professinal interviewer asks things like Chris Mathews did during the debate. Maybe a question of importance is worth planting.

[1will]

I worry more about the illegal campaign donations that Hillary seems to constantly get more than the 'Cheating' that went on last week.
Are there any Chinese that have not donated to the Clinton campaign yet?