Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Pulls Student Offers Over Online Comments (go.com)
Reader joshtops shares a report: Harvard University's student newspaper says the school has revoked admission offers to at least 10 prospective freshmen over offensive online messages. The Harvard Crimson says the students posted images and comments in a private Facebook group mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities. The newspaper reported that several group members said at least 10 people were told by Harvard in April that their acceptances had been withdrawn.
Harvard is a private school, not a public school. Their call to reject students based on this sort of thing.
When can we expect Harvard to pull offers from those supportive of BLM "activists" literally calling for the deaths of policemen? Of those supportive of the anarchists at Berkeley and elsewhere destroying property and looting and burning small businesses?
How dare they think that they're allowed to express non groupthink opinions in private!
Destroying their life chances is the only reasonable response.
Mr burns can get them into yale!
If you're willing to pay to go to a school and you've already been given acceptance, then you should have that honored, regardless of your activity, if it's not illegal, thereafter.
This is something that everyone should be aware of when posting views and comments on the Internet. If you do not want it to be public forever, then do not post.
WTF is that, exactly? Sure as hell doesn't sound very private.
Good news for 10 people on the waitlist.
Those kids who are blaming Cards Against Humanity are going places! Not Harvard.. but places..
Recruitment pool for the Harvard Young Republicans freshman week!
Universities used to be considered a bastion of free speech.
I think it is safe to say that seems to not be the case anymore.
Boo hoo, little Gavin has to face the consequences of being an insufferable prick. Welcome to free speech. You can say whatever you want, just realize there are consequences, like an employer or university saying "fuck off, we don't want you here".
the "left-wing point of view" sexual assault is bad, the holocaust happened, and people of different races are people too.
LOL, you're a funny boy/girl
Colleges are not Vo Techs. It was NOT the original purpose of a college to prepare someone for the work force. They were designed an intended to teach people MORALITY first and science and information second. Western universities come to us originally as an effort of Medieval religious education intended for priest Monks and the ruling class. So anyone going to college should expect to be subject to moral formation. It might be an idea for parents to consider if they agree with the moral formation they are paying for. No one should kid themselves. Even state run schools have an agenda and program of moral formation. Often times a very anti-religious one.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
The awful truth is that with the intense polarization of this country these days, these sorts of discretionary decisions will be rampant. This case is only notable because the explicitly said what they were doing. In most cases, for people on either side of the rift, things just won't work out. Best to keep your head down.
Harvard has just provided a more valuable bit of education to those ten applicants than 4 years at Harvard provides those accepted.The savings for those ten is $252,000.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Be warned, millenials! Nothing is private on the interwebs.
I can tell by your inability to understand the summary that you would never be accepted to Harvard. Or even your local community college.
Being racist is a bit more than "an opposing view" you simpleton
You're comparing mocking sexual assault, racism and the holocaust to religious beliefs?
If you're too dumb to know that those are serious things then you're too dumb to attend Harvard.
Work Safe Porn
The university's mission is to educate, not punish people for having bigoted opinions. By revoking admission, they are losing the opportunity to change the minds smarter-than-average, but unwise young people. Those people are most likely to be future Trump-supporters.
Equality and diversity cannot be sustained through dogmatism. SJWs and naive liberals keep getting this wrong.
I agree with you that the 10 just received a valuable piece of education, and at the right age (17 yrs old instead of 50 or whatever).
Any place that throws people out because they espouse an opposing view is not a place which is engaged in education,
but a place which is engaged in disseminating propaganda and groupthink.
Huh. With all those Jews, Chinks, Pakis, blacks, and those terrorist bomb throwing Muslims there, I don't know if a decent person would attend Harvard. And god forbid if there were Irish there! Unfortunately, all one has to do is be none white and Harvard just let's you in - so, it's not a very good school. Isn't it interesting that all the biggest Harvard success stories were dropouts?
And I wish they'd stop teaching the Holocaust myth like it was truth. The Nazis gave the Jews a decent and moral living in their camps - got them away stealing with banking and other vocations they like because they like to steal - as much as black people do.
And then we have those cunts who bitch and moan about rape. Plah-ease! They like it!! No means yes! Nothing turns a woman on more than a smack across the face and ass!
So, about my "opposing view" ... it's my free speech. Would the above be considered a valid opposing view by you, or just the rantings of a very ignorant, angry person that has no place in a unversity setting?
People are saying offensive things on the internet? Scandalous.
Other students ratted them out.
Alt-reich Trumpists are getting their armbands in a twist, aren't they? "It's chilling speech if everyone isn't forced to listen to my bullshit!"
Are you kidding? You do realize Harvard's current endowment is on the order of $40B, right? As in well in excess of 10% of every charitable donation made by anyone in the US to anyone or anything in a given year? Even Zuckerberg, Gates, etc. aren't wealthy enough to hold any donation over Harvard's head. Maybe even combined.
"There is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality." --A. Lincoln
I would like to know. If your profile says Republican or Trump supporter and you regularly deplore how terrorism has spread more since 9/11, do you become a prime target for Harvard online inspectors (possibly composed of feminist females or LGBTq folks from student union)?
Lincoln was wrong...deal with it
There are so many people here saying that the ten applicants rejected by Harvard aren't being treated fairly.
You have to remember the untold tens of thousands of applications Harvard receives each year and that there just may be ten other applicants who were as qualified as the rejected ones except for things put online by them that tilted the decision out of their favor.
Yes, you do have a right to put everything the rejected ten put online as well, but there is no constitutional guarantee that people can't hold it against you. You don't choose your race, gender or nationality, but you do choose to be an asshole, and there are still consequences to being an asshole.
As a private institution, Harvard does indeed have the right to pull the plug on admissions on anyone. However, it is a (and excuse using what often is a logical fallacy ), a slippery slope. With all of the illogical attacks and rampant emotionalism happening on campus these days, I often say to my sig-other, that I would never attend college these days. In fact, as a alumni of one of the most liberal colleges, I don't support the alumni association with donations, instead I give my dough to thefire.org. If you haven't been keeping track, here are a few examples: Yale 2.0 at Evergreen State College, When the left eats its own, Harvard president defends free speech in commencement speech; Harvard still actively suppresses student rights, and the list just goes on and on. The trend away from using logic, peer-review, toward speech-crimes and railing against traditional western liberal free thought and debate is just intellectually mind numbing.
Hardly. The view at the ivy leagues is that sexual assault is just fine if it happens to men and racism is just fine as long as it targets whites.
LOL, you're a funny apologist.
This makes you wonder what is the best approach: In Europe they would get prosecuted for hate speech, get punished and can go on with their lives, helped by the right to be forgotten. In America they don't get punished but their future gets destroyed. For something they wrote when they were 16-18 years old.
Left-wing Holocaust denial is extremely fashionable in the same politically correct circles that would stone you to death for "nationalism" if you wave American flag at a political convention.
However, they have have zero problem waving trans-jordanian arab (incorrectly referred to as "palestinian") flags at the same convention.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Ask too many questions about the logistics of the holocaust? You're no longer welcome.
Ask too many questions about which human traits are heritable? Goodbye.
Wonder why certain groups are overrepresented in media and banking? Scram!
and you're someone who is not any ivy leaguer who is trying to tell everyone what they believe.
Yes, but that point of view also includes "always trust the victim, including in criminal proceedings"; unrelated criticism of Israel is part of holocaust denial; all races are identical in all ways, and if shown otherwise it is direct result of racist white establishment.
Just pointing this out would likely disqualify me from Harvard.
Look at aggregated statistics by ethnicity and say that again with a straight face.
Again we have someone who, I assume is not a left-winger, telling everyone what they all think.
I disagree with all 3 of your "left-wing" statements but am very liberal myself.
I don't think I understand social media anymore, I always thought the point of it was to connect with people and express your own views, a lot of it now seems to be telling the world what other people thing. Why can't we just speak for ourselves?
Yes they were kicked out of Harvard- but when this story broke they were sent unsolicited acceptance letters from UCLA!
I have zero problem with this. In fact, I wish more schools did this. Maybe people wouldn't be such idiots online.
You don't get it you evil goyim! You give Shlomo whatever the f he wants!
I think you misunderstood the post when you said "telling everyone what they all think". Instead, you should read this as "some also stretch the original meaning to include these additional concepts. This is typically called definition creep, where you start with a reasonable idea with defined boundaries and proceed to stretch edge cases past the absurd point. For example, could consent be retracted and does such retraction retroactively changes nature of the events? That is, could one fall asleep after a night of consensual sex and wake up a rapist? These questions are worthwhile to explore, however opponents of conservative viewpoints often engage in bad faith arguments and labeling.
Social media was never about connecting with people. From the very beginning it was about signaling social status. It is all about "look at me, I am mighty and righteous" for all kinds of 'mighty and righteous' definitions - from feminism to ISIS and everything in-between. As such, tribal conflict is a naturally occurring phenomenon of social media.
If they are rich enough, mommy and daddy will buy their way back in. Odds are good this was a way to get rid of some scholarship kids and Harvard gets to look like a hero for not tolerating unethical behavior. There's always more to the story.
Harvard accepts grants of public money. As a consequence should they not also be required to respect the 1st Amendment in spite of the fact that they are a private institution? If they want the autonomy they shouldn't take the money.
Another flaw here is the equating of offensive speech with the actual commission of a violent act.
Screw Harvard.
I'd be interested to know who -wasn't- rejected in spite of questionable social media comments.
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
There's enough pricks at Harvard. That's ten less to deal with. It's not like you could ask someone if they are a 'hate filled shit eater' in the application.
Something tells me you've never been close to an ivy league school in your life, sport
Now when can we see them pull admissions for those supporting terrorism and anarchy? Or are those now Harvard-accepted values if done by the right people?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
(I don't really work for Harvard)
Communications 50: Internet assholery and it consequences in digital society (0 CR, 12:00-12:00 Mo,Tu,We,Th,Fr)
PreReqs: Private facebook account, personal political beliefs. Desire and ability to pay for higher education, or secure soul crushing loans.
Description:
This course is offered free to to all prospective students as part of your admission process. Students will carry on political and ideological discussions in various social platforms labeled "Private". Assholery is encouraged, and you will be judged on well you are able to present an unpopular argument or point of view without offending others. The lowest performing students from each class will forfeit all fees and dues already paid to the Harvard admissions office, as well as their personal acceptance letter. You will receive a pass/fail grade that does very much effect your GPA, social standing, and personal popularity among your peers. Students cannot test past this course
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
From the source:
The university tells accepted students that their offers can be withdrawn if their behavior "brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,"
So they kicked themselves outta Harvard
I wonder if the smaller facebook group was a honeypot to attract those who were willing to post awful things to show their inner degradation?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
As spokesman for Harvard has stated that Harvard will continue to be an establishment that supports free thought and expression, but only left wing thought and expression. Any right wing onions will not be tolerated.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you can provide a specific example then we will evaluate it and reply to you.
Actually, that's the problem with this story. There is no actual content in the linked article or the Harvard Crimson which indicates in detail what the memes or attempts at humor actually were or said--just very abstract generalities. It is thus impossible for us to fairly evaluate whether or not we agree with Harvard's decision. It is their decision to make, of course, but at least half of the reason people care about these stories is because they have strong feelings about whether a decision was right or wrong.
It sounds like this was completely unacceptable behavior on the part of the high school students. But we can't know for sure if it was severe enough to demand rescinding an offer, and these are kids. I know people who made incredibly insensitive jokes all the time when they were younger who grew up to be really generous people who spend their lives in public service. I also know people who used to make fun of gay people until they got to college and met gay people. If they had been kept out, they might never have learned better.
Harvard had better hope that they verified it was actually these applicants who made the statements.
I love the logic from the right... being a degenerate = opposing view
Over 400 comments, so it's what passes for a "popular" topic on today's Slashdot. Especially disappointed by the feeble attempts at humor, but maybe those funny mods were just examples of the latest craze among trolls, using "funny" mods to attack in a less obvious way. "Hey, just because YOU didn't appreciate the humor."
The obvious angle for insight did not seem to be touched at all. Of course I started by searching for comments modded as "insightful", and then I went through a bunch of keyword searches. Came up with nothing along the lines of my Subject: question.
In brief, if the Harvard people are just trying to cover their own ass (the university's collective ass?) by avoiding being linked with stupid posts on Facebook (or Slashdot), then it's a depressing kind of cowardice in what is supposed to be one of the leading institutions of America. ("Hey, but it's just a symptom of how America is LOSING", as the Trumpists would say.)
If the Harvard people are sincerely interested in protecting society from harm, then it's a completely different thing. Maybe they remember such moral disasters as that AG who defended torture for Dubya and that little Ted Cruz coward who were empowered to do much of their damage by their Harvard imprimaturs. I for one would not blame Harvard for seeking to avoid creating the next (and possibly worse, ITIP) Ted Cruz.
Lots of largely incoherent mumbling about free speech in this Slashdot discussion, but I doubt most (or perhaps any?) of them actually know what freedom is.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You are missing the bigger picture here. In the U.S. everyone has the right to free speech. If you want to rant about something in a manner that offends the majority, you have every right.
However, we also have the right to assembly. The opposite is also true. If I want to disassociate myself from you, because your language offends me, I have every right.
I may not discriminate against you on the basis of religion, gender, marital status, etc.... however, there is no protection against discrimination for someone whom I decide is being a jerk. That means that I can use pictures and facial recognition at white supremacist rallies, and refuse to do business with anyone who participates.
CNN can choose not to do business with Kathy Griffin. Fox can decide not to do business with Bill O'Reilly. I can decide not to do business with _________. You may not like it, but It would be my right.
Just more proof that US universities are baby sitting for young adults
If you are dumb enough to post dumb shit on a FB "private" group, because you think "private" on FB (or any other social media site) = real world private, You are too dumb for Haaaaaavard. Sorry.
In other news, book smart != wise
Fair enough. I may very well be biased, but i see the right describing absurd points of view that they claim the left holds on a scale I never see on the left.
I've never understood why on earth anyone would listen to someone on one side of the political spectrum who is trying to tell you what their political opponents believe. Trump saying "Hillary wants to...", and Hillary saying "Trump wants to.." it's essentially petty name calling.
But if you want my answers to your "interesting to explore" questions, consent can be rescinded at any point, but not retroactively.
One last thing, let me fix this for you: "however opponents of conservative viewpoints often engage in bad faith arguments and labeling," -> however opponents of any political viewpoint often engage in bad faith arguments and labeling. there much better.
I can tell by your inability to understand the summary that you would never be accepted to Harvard. Or even your local community college.
Actually I have a business degree AND an engineering degree.
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
"students were required to post provocative memes in the bigger group before being allowed into the smaller one"
That sounds like entrapment.
Also like an assignment to post memes which would produce a reaction in the viewer ("provocative") but with which the students themselves didn't necessary agree.
The most provocative memes entering freshmen (with little social experience in the adult society) might be familiar with would be those that were offensive - perhaps even to themselves.
For one part of the school to demand they produce something like this, then another to use it to eject them as unsuitable for enrollment in the school, certainly looks like a sucker punch.
Perhaps Harvard wants only students who would rather fail an assignment than even mention a politically incorrect idea. If that's the case, then this action WOULD be legitimate.
But it should also be informative to anyone who would, from now on, consider hiring their graduates.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My first piece of advice to up and coming techies when I've done Q&A is...'Don't ever forget that everything you post online is forever and your prospective employer WILL find it.'
If you have not read the fine article, I encourage you to do so. Especially if you are a college-bound teenager.
Many more students "deserve" to be admitted to Harvard College than can possibly attend. Therefore, the Admissions Committee has the luxury of being very selective based not only on grades, high school activities, and standardized tests (measures of preparedness for the rigors of college) but also character, maturity, and clarity of purpose. Also, there are diversity goals that prevent the entire incoming class from being, for example, a homogeneous gaggle of (insert your stereotype here). In the long run, they want graduates who reflect well on the institution and maybe do something that changes the world.
Alumni interviews, personal statements, and teacher recommendations have traditionally been used to judge the intangibles. Now they have social media. I'm an old fart, but even when I was a teenager we were told not to commit to writing anything you would not want posted on a bulletin board.
I think it's fair. You may not, but it doesn't matter. Potential employers don't play fair. Potential life-partners don't play fair. People judge your character by what they see and hear from you; nothing is off the record when it comes to your reputation.
One more thing: a comment about the cohort that got caught. I'm sure they are smart kids.who were pretty full of themselves for reaching a long-held goal. They may have been top of their classes at their schools, The Harvard freshman class is completely full of people who were used to being the big fish in a small pond. So they mouthed-off. That belies maturity and preparedness for the harsh reality of freshman year. Admissions did them a favor.
Supposedly you havtah be smaht to get intah Hahvahd.
They weren't smart enough to use different accounts or just plain aliases, instead of using their real names.
Pretty dumb.
Go somewhere else, kid.
--
BMO - Veritas
if you get butthurt over them you should probably be put down
You're clearly satirical, and write fairly well. With a little luck and hard work, you could write for the onion... Or in the day, national lampoon that's not funny that's sick, or maybe this Harvard alum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken) who ought to speak out.
So yeah, I'm one of those slur names, and oh gosh, I feel like, soon uncomfortable with the words you used.
Those kids got two important life lessons for much less than US tuition for even a semester:
"What you do online matters because it is still what you personally decide to do, and reflects your personality, morality, and sanity."
"Recruiters and large organizations don't coddle psychopaths. Don't be stupid."
Blasphemy laws in the USA?
A person created or commented on a cartoon about the history of a faith?
Upset a Communist party or commented on a Communist official or the official history of the Communist party?
Comments on the politics of accepting and supporting illegal immigration?
An anti war protester gets reported by a gov/mil/contractor?
Read the wrong book about faith, politics, law and comment or write a review online
Talk too much about a union or workers rights?
Animal activist monitoring?
Comment on environmental issues in the past?
Food quality issues?
Issues surrounding mining, water quality?
Every powerful lobby group will soon create lists of comments and speech they have issues with.
Join, create or comment on a political party? No more freedom of association?
The ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances online or comment on policy, history, politics in public is chilling.
Have an interest in cryptography and comment on computers, big US brands and their junk products? Note a brands deep links and long past with the security services?
SJW, lobby groups, brands, mil, gov, contractors, political group, other nations, foundations, donors, charity groups, public/private partnerships will have their special "lists" to submit.
Thats why the USA has freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
While I received the usual notification of the moderation, there was nothing about the mindless so-called reply. If that is a new feature of Slashdot rather than some old bug, then maybe it's a tiny bit of improvement? Glad to save my time. (Not the first time I've noticed this, but perhaps I only noticed this recently.)
Still needs the self-discrediting feature. Assuming they implemented some filter against wastes of the OP's time, then and if that filter is evaluated at the time of the mindless and annoying reply, then I think they should give that person (even though he's a probable troll) a warning that the post will probably never be seen by the ostensible addressee. If the person in question still insists on replying, then the reply should receive a preface to the effect: "This reply is apparently not a sincere attempt at dialog, since the author was notified that it would not be seen by the prior author of the post it seems to reply to." [Of course the "author" references should actually be resolved. In this example, "prior author" would be my handle.]
As I've noted before, I think the "troll" mod is meaningless. Too much a matter of opinion, but the relevant category of people whose posts I would never see (if Slashdot was that intelligent) would be authors who are negative on "sincerity" and negative on "politeness". I might be willing to offset that if they were high on some dimension like "thought-provoking". Hmm... That makes me speculate about another derived dimension of "consistency". Maybe assessing consistency would be easier based on conflicting moderations, and then I could choose to use that derived dimension to ignore them?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is thought and mind control, oppression, and even Fascism...
Ah, Thinkpol hard at work I see. Miniluv will be around to talk to them real soon.
Big Brother isn't just Government.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Perhaps the proposed problem lies within the lack of solutions. One could easily run a team of law students. However, interconnections are prominent choir of U.S. law. This is what I suspect is transpiring here.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
Their hard-left ideology and push for political correctness is all the evidence needed for faulting Harvard.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.