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that several group members said at least 10 people were told by Harvard in April that their acceptances had been withdrawn.

Comments

Seems reasonable.

[Guspaz]

Harvard is a private school, not a public school. Their call to reject students based on this sort of thing.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[lgw]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[605dave]

No, it doesn't say those things. It says if you're an asshole you're not welcome here.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[cellocgw]

No, it doesn't say those things. It says if you're an asshole you're not welcome here.

To repeat what should have been bloody obvious to you: Who gets to define "asshole." ? Suppose a college withdraws acceptances for some kids who post that they put their faith in $DEITY over government, for example?

Re:Seems reasonable.

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[Frosty Piss]

Who gets to define "asshole." ?

Harvard gets to decide. It's a private school.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[computational super]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[bsolar]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[dunkindave]

It is a private institution [...] SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have.

Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. There are still anti-discrimination laws private institutions must follow, so for example a whites only or blacks only college is illegal under federal law. Also, Harvard receives federal funding which, despite being a private college, makes them subject to a slew of other laws controlling what criteria they can use to admit students.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[TWX]

If you can provide a specific example then we will evaluate it and reply to you.

Just so we're on the same page here, bear in mind that the history of the region within the last couple-hundred years is rather complicated, so you might not like the result.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[MightyYar]

One can object to the political situation in the middle east without invoking racial or ethnic slurs.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[epyT-R]

I wonder if you'd have that opinion if the school was not accepting them for liking the same sex or having dark skin. After all, they're still free to like the same sex and have dark skin.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[eril]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[MightyYar]

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?

Re:Seems reasonable.

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[TsuruchiBrian]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[prunus.avium]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

Um, yes, that's exactly what it means. That is, in fact, the definition.

No. It means that you are free from governmental consequences. Private entities are still free to tell you to fuck off.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[x0ra]

No you can't. Go one way, you are antisemitic, and go the other way and you are racist / islamophobic.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[hey!]

I think the red flag here isn't bigotry, it's hazing. Prove you're extreme enough to join our in-group, then pressure others to do the same.

Toxic conformity produces all the ills bigotry does and then some, but with none of the sincerity. It's doing what you're told simply because you were told.

Bigotry, where it isn't tied to some kind of psychopathy, is mainly a matter of ignorance. You can educate people out of it. But the hazing mentality is refractory and self-perpetuating. The recent Penn hazing case shows that academically smart kids who are prone to act like irresponsible conformist idiots can't be fixed by anti-hazing policies and educational programs. They just have to grow out of it. Some people never do.

People who are susceptible to this kind of social pressure might even need a controlled form of supervised hazing, like boot camp.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Most people get rejected form harvard...

Re:Seems reasonable.

[TWX]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[xevioso]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[GLMDesigns]

That's true. But the point is - if Harvard can do what it wants because it's a private entity then why shouldn't the bar owner? Who should decide? The business (who chooses to cater to smokers) or the government?

Now, if you're arguing that it's the government's role, then the fact that Harvard is a private business is irrelevant.

If you're a libertarian, who believes in freedom and limiting government power then you would say that each of these businesses (Harvard, the bar and the bakery) can make their own choice.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[computational super]

Not that I agree with anything that these kids (allegedly) said or even that I disagree with what Harvard did... I find it very interesting, to say the least, that every time somebody is punished for expressing a thought, leftists appear seemingly out of the woodwork to remind us, before anybody even has a chance to contradict them, that the concept of freedom of speech "only applies to the government" (it doesn't, although the laws that enshrine it do) and that it doesn't matter anyway because you DID say it, so whatever happens afterward, you still had freedom of speech in the moment. This thread is at 212 comments now, and I count exactly 0 people suggesting that Harvard did the wrong thing, or that the free speech of these applicants was somehow abridged, but that hasn't stopped Antifa from coming in here and moralizing at us that Harvard did the right thing, and that even if it was the wrong thing, they were within their rights to do it because they weren't the United States government. To me it's mostly just funny, because if they succeed in getting the world that they want, the first group of people it will be used against is them - they laid the groundwork, for example, for Donald Trump's election by creating an imperial presidency and an activist supreme court.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[cayenne8]

Yup...so much for colleges being a safe place for free thought, and the ability to vocalize and exchange ideas...even *controversial* ones.....

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?

Re:Seems reasonable.

[ljw1004]

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.

Read TFA. (Also the source article it links to). Harvard created an official group for the Class of 2021. TFA says: "students were required to post provocative memes in the bigger group before being allowed into the smaller one". So of course this was visible to Harvard, which is how the Harvard Admissions Office reached out to the posters of offensive memes asking for an explanation. I have to assume that at least one of the people they contacted, went on to tell them about the private group and showed them messages.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable.

[Farmer Tim]

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?

As it should

[rholtzjr]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Good news for 10 people on the waitlist.

Man

[mewsenews]

Those kids who are blaming Cards Against Humanity are going places! Not Harvard.. but places..

Re:Ridiculous

[lactose99]

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.

People forget Colleges are not Vo Techs.

[fish_in_the_c]

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.

Re:People forget Colleges are not Vo Techs.

[Cro Magnon]

Really? I learned "morality" as a child, and I didn't learn it in school. If I wasn't moral by college age, I wasn't going to be.

Private group?

[sanf780]

So, how did Harvard get into a Facebook private group? I do not use Facebook, but in my humble opinion, a private group means that unauthorized entities cannot access that group.I understand robots that scan words like "bomb" and maybe the NSA, but not real people with no affiliation to the group or the service or national security.

Be warned, millenials! Nothing is private on the interwebs.

Re:Private group?

[Jason Levine]

Be warned, millenials! Nothing is private on the interwebs.

This is pretty much Rule #1 of Internet use: No matter what you post, no matter how private the message or restricted the forum, assume that it WILL get out. If you wouldn't say this to your spouse, parents, siblings, relatives, boss, co-workers, etc, then you should seriously reconsider saying it online.

Re:Private group?

[Albanach]

So, how did Harvard get into a Facebook private group? I do not use Facebook, but in my humble opinion, a private group means that unauthorized entities cannot access that group.I understand robots that scan words like "bomb" and maybe the NSA, but not real people with no affiliation to the group or the service or national security.

From the article:

Students had created the Facebook group as a spinoff from a 100-member group created for the Class of 2021. The Crimson says students were required to post provocative memes in the bigger group before being allowed into the smaller one, which was at one point called "Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens."

There was no need for access to the private group if the entry requirement was to post something like the memes described in the official Class of '21 facebook group set up by Harvard employees.

It is a troubling trend

[spoot]

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.

Re: Seriously?

[c6gunner]

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.