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that several group members said at least 10 people were told by Harvard in April that their acceptances had been withdrawn.
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?
Sure, it's legal and all. But it sure has a chilling effect - no doubt that's the point. Watch what you say, watch what you think, watch what shows on your face - they're watching you. For your own good, you understand, like a big brother looking out for you.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Of course the definition of "mocking" needs to be known before judging.
I don't mock rape. I think rapists deserve the death penalty. And I will mock the SJW who say that 1/4 of the women in college are raped as I don't think that "hitting" on a girl qualifies as rape
So yeah, mocking may actually be in order -- DEPENDING (of course) on what they're mocking.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
No, it doesn't say those things. It says if you're an asshole you're not welcome here.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
Chilling effect? I'd disagree-- Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
You can say these things without being prosecuted by law, but don't be surprised when nobody likes you and nobody wants you around.
Posting on a forum is an action. People can still be as racist as they want in their thoughts, those can't be read (yet).
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
Schools have codes of conduct, many of which prohibit forms of what would be perceived as hateful behavior (whether that's righteous or not is not the point here). Would not surprise me that this crossed the line, hence the rescind.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
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.
Oh yeah? Define 'asshole'. I dare you.
You can say some things are intolerable without having to be able to define an exact line between asshole and not-asshole.
From the summary:
a private Facebook group mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities
Yeah, that falls pretty solidly within realm of 'asshole.' No tough call here.
Be warned, millenials! Nothing is private on the interwebs.
Who gets to define "asshole." ?
Harvard gets to decide. It's a private school.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Ah, the classic reductionist, "you have free speech no matter what we do to you in retaliation for it as long as you were able to say it in the first place" anti-free speech canard.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Harward University's definition of "asshole" evidently includes people mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities... and that's the only definition which matters when discussion Harward University's decision to revoke these admission.
You are still entitled to your own definition of "asshole", which might differ: just don't expect it to have any weight whatsoever on Harward University's.
One can object to the political situation in the middle east without invoking racial or ethnic slurs.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yeah, they're assholes, too. Generally speaking, advocating for the destruction of a populous is an asshole thing to do. If somebody got accepted to a private school in Palestine, and then they got busted, in a private FB group, calling for Palestine's destruction, I don't see how that wouldn't also be subject to a reasonable, "no assholes here" rule.
Antifa? Alrighty. So let me get this straight - Harvard can have almost completely arbitrary entry criteria, so long as it doesn't violate a government-protected class. Harvard can select kids preferentially based on community service, extra-circulars, grades, essay answers, interviews, etc. All in an effort to get whatever they deem to be a "Harvard" caliber candidate. Yet, somehow, Facebook posts are a line you aren't willing to cross?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
but what will it be tomorrow?
That is scary!
They might start only admitting kids who have done community service, out of some quaint notion that "good" people (by Harvard's arbitrary definition) might volunteer to help others.
They might start only admitting kids who answer an arbitrary essay question in some way that Harvard deems acceptable.
They might start only admitting kids who were on team sports because Harvard has decided that they arbitrarily value this "ability" to work together as some kind of character worthy of Harvard.
It's a truly slippery slope we are on when these colleges get to decide what kind of a person attends.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Getting fired for telling your boss to go fuck himself/herself also probably has a chilling effect. Anyone in the office who thought maybe they could get away with doing the same thing without getting fired will have a serious disincentive to express their 1st amendment free speech rights in this way.
I'm a libertarian, and this is the sort of chilling effects that I am comfortable with.
The private school maintains it's freedom to accept and reject whomever it wants, and the students are free to apply to any other schools they wish and those other schools are free to accept or reject them.
Your actions have consequences. The constitution promises that your speech will not have legal consequences in most circumstances (except special cases like perjury, etc). It is not limitless. These kids are either adults or soon to be adults. This is an important lesson to learn. Another important lesson is that one setback (e.g. not getting into a particular school) is not the end of the world, and it is an experience you can learn from and improve yourself. A third very important lesson, is to assume that everything on the internet is forever. Everyone says embarrassing stuff on the internet and in real life. Embarrassing things are easily forgiven if not forgotten. Try not to say to many things that you would be actually ashamed (not just embarrassed) of if made public.
The part that not enough people are discussing is why a private Facebook group became public knowledge enough for Harvard to make this decision.
This should be a discussion of privacy and how to not trust anyone, but instead it's all bickering and arguing about who's a bigger asshole.
That's how the participants in the fight like to frame it, because then it forces you to pick a side. The key is to not fall into that trap and call out whoever is behaving badly.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Most people get rejected form harvard...
No, you may be labeled antisemtic, or labeled racist or islamophobic, but labels are usually applied by others. Those others in-turn have their own labels, etc.
Granted, you can be those too, but you do not have to be those things in order for someone that disagrees with you to label you as such.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's because that view is 100% correct. I don't understand why conservatives think there's a constitutional right to say whatever you want without consequences. it's almost as though they've never read the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never, under any circumstances, intended for there to never be any social consequences for your speech. Only that the State can't censor you for your content. Not everybody else.
If you're not able to talk about such things, then the belief in them doesn't go away..it just goes underground, and festers.....and then they never get exposed to other points of view.
The free exchange of ideas, allows for beliefs to be put forth and discussed, and in such discussion, the better ones stay and the others fade.
They fade NOT because they are shouted down, or not allowed to be expressed, but by thoughtful conversation and making valid points to address the weaknesses of the weaker argument.
I was just watching an interesting video yesterday on Amazon Prime Can We Take A Joke" , and it really puts an interesting light on what's happening on today's campuses.
Its interesting how in the past, saw with Lenny Bruce...that is was the far Right that had him arrested and shut down.
It was the more liberal colleges that pushed the greatest back then, IMHO, for true free speech...even controversial speech.
And now today...PC and such, are closing down speech again, but this time, instead of the right pushing it...it is the left.
I would posit the best way to get bad speech out of the way, it to allow it to be spoken, and don't shout it down, but speak against it and debate it.
Surely the best side will win on merit?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The thing is...unless there is a societal foundation to support the governmental free speech laws, then you don't truly have it.
Rather than shout speech you don't agree with down, or try to keep it from being expressed, why not debate it, and the best way of thinking will surely win based on merit, no?
Just because someone isn't PC, doesn't mean they should be shouted down or blocked from access to schools...if that happens, then those feelings, thoughts and beliefs just grow underground and in the background, and become harder to address as times goes on.
Free speech and debate need to be supported on a public basis as well as by governmental law.
Tolerance works all ways, eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You have a very narrow view of history if you think that. What happens when the government is complicit in the oppression of a people? The KKK and blacks are a prime example. It wasn't the government oppressing black people but also the government didn't do anything to stop it or enforce law and order. Only when black people armed themselves did the KKK subside in any meaningful way.
What you're saying is that any group can oppress any other group so long as the government is complicit in that oppression. Hey, it isn't the government silencing you or restricting your right to vote. If it's against the law just call the police. Oh, they didn't answer? Well shucks! At least the government isn't oppressing us!
Yes, there are social consequences to your actions but just as other rights have been codified into private policy such as equality before the law so to should there be some protections for speech in such a speak easy world. To put it another way, Twitter (the preferred platform for POTUS for better or worse) should not be able to ban political ideology just like they cannot ban black people.
You socially engineer an invitation to join. For some reason that doesn't strike me as being particularly difficult in this instance.
A lot of people have leapt immediately to "free speech" arguments, what they don't get is that the people who outed themselves by joining this group also proved they're too dumb for university because they left the information where it could be found relatively easily on a system with no anonymity. Put it this way: 99.999% of Slashdotters are smarter than that, would you want that bottom 0.001% attending your college?
Blank until