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that several group members said at least 10 people were told by Harvard in April that their acceptances had been withdrawn.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?
Mr burns can get them into yale!
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.
Good news for 10 people on the waitlist.
Those kids who are blaming Cards Against Humanity are going places! Not Harvard.. but places..
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).
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.
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.
Not that Universities welcome free speech, but this story is not an example of that phenomenon. These were prospective students, not actual students. Wait for the story of Harvard expelling actual students for the same.
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.
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
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.
Other students ratted them out.
Unlikely, if they were invite-only they would have only invited people inline with their ideals. More likely is that Zuckerberg, being a liberal extremist, uses Facebook to get dirt on potentially influential people (as people who attend Harvard are likely to be) and ensure they don't succeed in life if he runs across anyone who has conflicting beliefs to his own.
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.
I wonder how you'd feel if 'little Gavin' was facing such consequences for being dark skinned and expressing anti-white sentiments, gay and criticizing christianity, or muslim and criticizing 'western culture'.
If Harvard is truly the bastion of liberal education it claims to be, then it should welcome him and offer the opportunity to have his views challenged. At the same time, he'll challenge the views of others while there. Good arguments pass the gauntlet, bad arguments die. That's how it's supposed to be.
no, it's about political affiliation, Angela Davis, who is more of a murderer than a hater, has been honored by Harvard on multiple occasions
You're comparing mocking sexual assault, racism and the holocaust to religious beliefs?
Uh, yeah? Have you ever read the Bible/Koran/Torah? They make 4chan look tame in comparison.
They *are* religious beliefs.
Signed,
islam.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have zero problem with this. In fact, I wish more schools did this. Maybe people wouldn't be such idiots online.
Don't forget Christianity and Judaism. There's one part in the Bible where the Jews attack and murder all the members of some other tribe because supposedly God told them to. And I'm pretty sure there's verses in there supporting sexual assault (including other attacks on other tribes where they subjugate the women after killing the men).
Also, the Holocaust was committed by Christians. Debate the secret beliefs of the top nazi leaders all you want, but all the people actually manning the camps and abducting people were Christian and had these activities justified to them based on religious arguments.
All three of those religions are barbaric and support brutality. Some just cover it up slightly more than others.
According to the results of her trial for the Marin County Courthouse affair, she is not a murderer.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You don't get it you evil goyim! You give Shlomo whatever the f he wants!
Holocaust is the new Jewish religion. Since the vast majority of them are atheist they still have a void to fill with the Talmudic 6 million figure (required before their Messiah can come). And if the racket pays shekels then what's not to like?? Win win for Shlomo! You give him whatever the hell he wants!
everyone isn't forced
Didn't RTA did you? They actually tried to keep their opinions private, they were outed and then punished.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
do you become a prime target
Or just rejected out of hand
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Yeah, that was my thought... an awful lot of opinions can be considered "undesirable". What's funny is that all of the people saying, "good, I hope they die" undoubtedly have at least a few opinions that somebody else would be equally willing to sentence them to death for. If holding opposing opinions than those in power is grounds for termination, you'd sure as hell better hope the people you like stay in power...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
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.
"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."
That is the most ridiculous statement on this story I have read so far. Back when I went to college, a public college, I understood that there were things I could do, that were not "illegal" but they would get me expelled. Failing all my classes for an extended period of time would be one. Not "illegal" but does not meet the required standards. My free speech rights also did not allow me to stand up in every class and start screaming obscenities at the teacher and everybody around me.
Almost all colleges have standards that you have to meet to stay. And these standards are not necessarily tied to local, state and federal laws.
*sigh*.
The inquisition was 400 years ago. Who's doing shit like that *now*?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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.
The Holocaust was only about 80 years ago. And Christians today still happily promote wars to improve corporate profits.
As I said before, some religions just cover it up slightly better than others. At their root, they all have the potential to turn into the barbarism you're complaining about.
(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.
As a libertarian,
Shhhhh!
Oh, I thought you said librarian. Never mind.
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
Fair enough, I didn't scope it well enough.
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.
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.
There's one part in the Bible where the Jews attack and murder all the members of some other tribe because supposedly God told them to... All three of those religions are barbaric and support brutality.
God had a reason to be so brutal at times: He didn't want the Israelites absorbing the perversions of the natives in modern-day Palestine - and thus destroying their eternal souls. These practices included idol worshipping of Baal(im), religious practices tied to prostitution where the priests were pimps/madames (Ashteroth), and even human sacrifices (look up Moloch sometime).
God had given those wicked natives the chance to change for generations, but they blew off any preaching that went among them. They were ripe for destruction, so God declared that it was better to kill them all than let them influence their own offspring and drag them down to hell with them... The Israelites ultimately didn't completely wipe out the natives, however, and within a generation or two the natives' corrupt practices were eventually absorbed into Israelite culture. As a result, their lack of "brutality" ultimately (after hundreds of years) led to Israel's downfall.
He did the same thing when he flushed the "Flood" toilet.
Sounds harsh? Yes. In the eternal scheme of things, not so much.
And I'm pretty sure there's verses in there supporting sexual assault (including other attacks on other tribes where they subjugate the women after killing the men).
Citation from anywhere in the Bible? Where did God (or his righteous priests/followers) order any man to commit sexual assault?
Also, the Holocaust was committed by Christians... based on religious arguments.
This is a joke, right? The Nazis may have been baptized as Christian at some point (had some holy water sprinkled on their tiny, Nazi baby foreheads), but they were not Christians anymore than Hitler was the Pope. They were average Joes that had been brainwashed by hate-filled propaganda after a decade or two of economic misery. Faith without works is dead. (James 2)
Your knowledge of religion and Nazi history sounds like it came out of the cliff notes of random tweets and Instagram posts. You may want to brush up on some hard facts a bit...
"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.'
So God couldn't just eliminate those people themselves?? It's funny how you nuts come up with this insane shit to try to make sense of stone-age stories. There's no "hard facts" when it comes to religion BTW.
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
Go to Nigeria sometime. Christians there have a death penalty for gay people,. use honor killings to murder rapees, and encourage execution of anyone who defiles the church. You better believe Christians still do that shit, and I am amazed at how myopic they are to their own sins.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
To be fair those books don't mock that shit; they endorse it quite seriously ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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"
Here are the memes. https://thetab.com/us/2017/06/...
Edgy, but not hateful.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The Inquisition was an official function of the all-encompassing Christian church of its time. The Holocaust was supported only by those local Christians who were required to do so by a government.
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.
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.
Did you read the article? Part of the criteria for joining the private group was to post the same kind of drivel in the public group. The public postings were reported and resulted in the admissions for some people being reviewed. As part of that review the affected people were sent letters asking to explain their public postings. Presumably one or more of them responded with information about the private group. It is possible that Harvard did not actually gain access to the private group postings, but instead is just giving the boot to the kids that were dumb enough to post in the public group.
Anyways, it is clear from the article that, the group members were not all that interested in expressing their vile opinions only in private.
I beg to differ, if you re-read the story, they had already been accepted so I see no difference.
They could be held accountable for using Facebook, it is a chilling lesson that you no longer have the right to be wrong in America.
I can't, but do you remember every possibly offensive thing you typed on social media, into your computer or smart phone or even on this blog?
No it was not Harvard but Aaron Swartz did get kicked out at MIT for all of that and committed suicide while under indictment (maybe he was helped?).
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.