As an attorney, I'm well aware that there is usually more than one side to every controversy. On Monday, I told the story of Billy Wolfe, the bullied Arkansas boy who has been described as a "human punching bag." In the interest of fairness, let me offer some comments from Fayetteville High School students, explaining their side of the dispute. These comments were sent to the author of a post on a community-owned blog ("Blue NC"), a blog that obviously attracts a lot more attention than does my own Northwest Corner!
And in wood shop class, Billy called another student's deceased mother a "German whore." I'd say a punch to the face was justified."
--Student No. 1
"The boy in his woodshop class is one of my good friends and in my German class. His mother died recently and he moved to the United States. Billy was talking about her in a disrespectful way. The boy LOVES his mother, and I've talked to him about her death. He was telling me everything Billy was talking about his mother and honestly I think the hit was justified. Wolfe wouldn't want someone talking about his mother in a disrespectful way so what gives him the right to do it."
--Student No. 2
"The kid that hit him at the bus stop is also one of my friends and classmates. He told me that Billy was provoking him and that he was trying to say all of these bad things about him."
--Student No. 3
"I'm disgusted with this article. It is played up too much, and incredibly one-sided. I attend Fayetteville High School, and because of this one kid who has been in fights, my school is being put into bad light across the nation. Sure our school has many fights, but could it possilby [sic] be normal for teenagers- especially boys- to get their aggresions [sic] out on each other?"
--Student No. 4
"We have a kid at our school who has Cerebral Palsy and Billy Wolfe MURDERED this boys cat by KICKING it to death.
But this kid didn't do anything to him."
--Student No. 5
Well. Ok. One student also said Billy would have been a lot better off if he'd called himself "Bill" instead of "Billy." Well, dude! No wonder they knocked him unconscious, turned the inside of his mouth into hamburger, beat him up regularly, published a Facebook page full of false and defamatory statements about him, and made him fearful of stepping foot out of the house -- even to attend school. Fair's fair. Kids'll be kids. You talk smack, you pay the price.
Sounds like a cool school.
8 comments:
Well, these are perfectly legitimate concerns. From what I read from you about the article, it seemed like it cast Billy in a perfectly innocent light. These comments are just highlighting the fact that he's not so innocent. Does it justify what has happened to him? No. But it certainly does give one a more fair perspective about the entire situation.
I agree with both your points, which is partly the reason I printed the student reaction:
1. IF TRUE, these complaints by the students put Billy's character in a different light.
2. Even if true, they don't come close to justifying even one act of violence against him. (I have to admit, the part about the cat unnerved me!)
But are these claims true? If so, how could the columnist for the New York Times have failed to investigate the story more fully and reported it in a less biased fashion? For a while, this story was the second most emailed story of the hour from the Times. Again, if Billy had actually been provoking the attacks, the NYT story was badly misleading.
The "Blue NC" commentator rebuts each rationalization for the conduct of the other kids and of the school district. I think these points are especially important:
4) Billy picks on people in wheelchairs and kicked a cat to death.
Again, no evidence. A poster over at Drudge claims to be one such victim, but says he only thinks Billy killed his cat, he didn't see it. (It is also instructive to read a lot of the conservatives posting their views on the matter. Five minutes reading and you understand why bullies exist. My favorite:
"Here's an idea, start calling yourself "Bill" as opposed to "Billy", that ought to cut down on some of the beatings."
Apparently, your name is a license for other people to beat you.)
A lot of what I am hearing sounds like "stories" that have taken on a life of their own, with new embellishments each time they make the rounds.
(5) Fights are a normal thing. Why the big deal?
Yes, fights happen in schools. That fact can never be changed. But when the same person is on the receiving end by the same people, then SWIFT and SEVERE action must be taken and the police brought in. The failure of the school officials to do this is the most damning failure, except for the one official who claimed Billy got what he deserved. That person should be fired, and their teaching certificate REVOKED.
"how could the columnist for the New York Times have failed to investigate the story more fully and reported it in a less biased fashion"
Yes, the New York Times is a shining beacon of fairness in human-interest stories. *rolls eyes*
Hmmm. And on what evidence -- aside from this one possible instance -- do you base that cynical rolling of your eyes???
The particular case that came to mind was Justin Berry. The kid was just as much of a predator as the people who got him into all that shit, and he got immunity because the NYT portrayed him as this innocent little boy.
I'd never heard of him, but there's a Wikipedia article on the matter. Based on what I read in the article, the NYT article accurately portrayed the activities that Berry was involved in (on-line porn), and didn't try to whitewash his character.
On the other hand, there seems to be some controversy about changes that have been made to the Wikipedia article, including deletions by Berry himself. So I'll just stamp your claim that the NYT handling of the matter was biased as "Possibly true, but unproven."
When he was in Mexico, he was getting underage boys and girls involved in the business. That's just as illegal as anything anyone ever did to him. But he got immunity for all the things he did.
He got immunity in exchange for help in prosecuting his customers and other known predators. That's pretty standard practice, if the prosecutor thinks he is going to get more out of the bargain than he's giving up with this one individual. And it would be hard to get a jury to convict a boy in his late teens -- who looks very young and respectable, in the Wikipedia photo -- of that kind of offense when he had been a victim himself to begin with. Difficulty in convicting is always one cosideration by the prosecutor in deciding whether to grant immunity.
A prosecutor or U.S. Attorney would never grant immunity on the basis of a newspaper story, even one in the NYT. They are pretty tough, calculating type fellows (or women), at least while they're doing their jobs.
But good critical thinking -- things aren't always as they seem on their face.
Post a Comment