This is the first post in a series of blog entries aimed at providing insight on high school issues that are not typically highlighted in the media. All posts are reflective of my personal opinions unless otherwise stated.

After school resumed for the second semester, a friend of mine asked a teacher for a grade shift from a B+ to an A-. The class she appealed in was an accelerated math course, meaning that an A- would be weighed as if it were an A; essentially she would still retain her 4.0 GPA (GPA stands for grade point average, for those of you fortunate enough to have never been acquainted with this snarky little acronym).

The teacher complied and raised my friend’s grade on the final exam, thereby awarding her with an A- for the semester.

Granted, my friend was a pretty consistent A- student in the class up until the last two chapter tests and the final exam, which she systematically bombed. She was the ideal student, always staying after class to inquire after homework problems she had trouble completing.

Even so, was the teacher right in adjusting her grade?

The root of any debate is influenced in part by the context of the situation. For the ambitious and the enterprising, high school is a muddy cocktail of standardized testing, letter grades, and self-induced sleep deprivation. Semester grades are not only an indicator of student performance over nine weeks but are harbingers of college admissions decisions. The importance of grades and GPA has even transcended the delicate border separating academia and personal life: some interpret grades as a judgment of personal character.

Perhaps this alarming mentality is a byproduct of the academically healthy school system in Ann Arbor. The competition that festers between students viewed through the lens of some observers may seem like grease in the cogs of the great machine known as public education. However, the implicit emphasis on keeping a high GPA also has negative fallout.

The dilemma that arises when a teacher arbitrarily raises a single student’s grade is multifaceted. It spans the spectrum from college admissions to classroom ethics. Although grades are not the only thing admissions officials count on, they are undoubtedly one of the defining characteristics of an application. Often, students who care most about their grades (and the ones who apply to top-tier schools) are the ones who ask for the shift. The competition is stiff as students vie for an acceptance nod come senior year. Any slight advantage one student attains through unmerited means has pitfalls for more honest applicants.

Furthermore, if a highly subjective method can be effectively applied to shift a student’s grades, how accurate is GPA really in measuring the academic vitality of an applicant?

Even if we eliminate the college factor, raising a student’s grades based on personal discretion presents a moral dilemma. Is this a breach of the sacred power bequeathed to educators, or is it simply an extension of the wisdom spawned by a sense of righteousness hyper-developed through years of experience in the school system? Either way, the private reasoning of the teacher is called into question.

An interesting spinoff from this quandary lies in the cases of students who also held borderline grades as a result of a poor performance on the final exam. These students were inhibited by (as I hypothesize) personal and moral reasons and did not approach the teacher with a plea for a grade boost. By failing to address the similar plights of these students, the teacher essentially created an unequal advantage for more proactive students.

Before an argument erupts regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution and the “survival of the fittest,” let me assert that humans have spun a concept of judicial justice fundamentally associated with what is right, not who is stronger. The mental sphere that rules the judicial sector does not award vindication to those who commit crimes.

 Rather, it smiles upon the side that better embodies the statures of society. Under this frame of thought, if applied, the grade boost should not be limited to the student who asked.

Although the teacher can form conclusions about what the student might have received had they studied harder at the end of the semester, all theories are pure speculations. Unfortunately, we do not possess the clairvoyant gene that can predict the outcome of any situation. The chimerical ability of a student cannot be contained by empirical evidence observed by an outsider for a few short weeks.

The pith of the matter is, some teachers take it as their unsung burden to help boost kids who they judge to be deserving. Society often likes to wax over the fraud that occurs among its cream-of-the-crop players. By allowing selective grade inflation that endows some and handicaps others, students corrupted by the constant battle for an immaculate resume lose sight of the true purpose of education: they start to value the black-and-white transcript grade more than the depth of the material learned.

Further, these uncharted rebellions against the foundation of academic honesty undermine the validity of transcripts. Realists may assert that this fallacy in the honor system is inevitable. I agree. It is impossible to guarantee 100 percent efficiency in any system. However, I also believe that we have the duty as free-thinking citizens to speak out against injustice. The excuse of the unpreventable should not deter us from acting on our consciences and making ethical decisions in our personal conduct.

Character is a funny, elusive thing. Its definition is fluid and morphs generation after generation. From the chivalrous hero of “Don Quixote” to the Jack McCoy from “Law & Order,” society’s overarching depiction of the sublime in its citizens lies in the foundation of truth. The teacher’s choice to raise the student’s grade was immoral and wrong because it nullified the integrity of the grading system.

Character is not cemented by one action, but a simple gesture can attest to the standing of an individual. The way we choose to handle the consequences of that individual’s decision is a measure of our rectitude as a society.

Jing Chai is a student at Huron High School and can be contacted at promisedalacrity@gmail.com.