Good piece, Mitch. But here I have to take issue. Suppose that shortly or even immediately after sending the message Groves realizes it's a mistake. Why on earth would she, or anyone, draw more attention to it by apologizing? Let it die a quiet death, as it did until Galligan (or whomever sent it to him) revived it.

I won't call him a moral monster, & I do sympathize with the atmosphere he describes. But how did waiting to inflict maximum damage on Groves's life make anything better for him? They're both leaving the school, never to return.

I honestly believe it wasn't race, but schadenfreude that motivated Galligan's timing. Race is the pretext, sure. But not the reason. Taking down the head varsity cheerleader ... that's power.

I noticed his parents were absent from the NYTimes article, save for him schooling his dad. I wonder if they even knew about this. I like to think they'd advise him to hold fire, because not all of the negative consequences will fall on Groves. Galligan might also suffer. I can't think people will be eager to trust him henceforth.

Finally, why do we take Groves at her word when she says something bad, yet ignore her more recent support for BLM? Why does the former have so much more weight?

LA born & raised, now I live upstate. I hate snow. I write on healthcare, politics & history. Hobbies are woodworking & singing Xmas carols with nonsense lyrics

LA born & raised, now I live upstate. I hate snow. I write on healthcare, politics & history. Hobbies are woodworking & singing Xmas carols with nonsense lyrics