Great article (IMO) by someone some of you might recognize. A couple of snips and link to full article below.
*"Kashuv is not alone in viewing Harvard’s decision as a judgment against the possibility of redemption. Ben Shapiro, David Brooks, and Reason’s Robby Soave have all made the same point in recent days. But these people have it backward. Kashuv has a shot at redemption because Harvard revoked his acceptance. Consequences and redemption are not in tension. In fact, they go hand in hand… . . . . .
But Harvard is not saying who is or isn’t capable of change. It is saying that Kashuv hasn’t earned his redemption yet. If there’s any hope that he can become a better man, it will be through a path where he pays the inherent cost of his actions."*
Whether you like it or not, his right to free speech has been infringed. Harvard has said “you can’t say that” which is an infringement by definition. The fact that it is a private school makes all the difference as they are not subject to constitutional restrictions. A public school would get sued.
It’s the easy case today, because of the specific language used. Nobody likes it. But what words will it be tomorrow? That’s the problem.
Harvard didn’t say what he could say. They said that language or maturity level is not something we want on their campus. When an acceptance rate is 5% the onus is on you to prove consistently you are head and shoulders above the rest of your peer group throughout your high school career. He failed to do so. He did not offer any evidence of action that his mindset truly changed when allowed to respond. This young man has done some other questionable things like posting a photo of himself with a semi automatic weapon in the months after the shooting. In light of these words, I can see why many would find that alarming in the aftermath of the Parkland tragedy.
If this kid has a case, almost everyone rejected from Harvard has a case. Kids are bounced from consideration for much less. And in some cases, problematic behavior may come through school records or a counselor letter. Kid would never know why they didn’t get in. Had this come through earlier, he wouldn’t have gained acceptance at all.
I’ll accept that Harvard can do what it wants to do, but the rescission of this particular acceptance tells you something about the place: “We are the Establishment, we don’t stick our necks out, and we don’t put our brand at risk over a mere 18-year-old who, otherwise qualified and talented as he may be, has become too hot to handle.”
Harvard has a right to its values, and many love it for those values. Perhaps it is asking too much to expect from it courage, independence of bien pensant thinking, or the strange concept that giving a superior education to a clearly talented but somewhat addled young person (and what kid is not addled at age 16?) could be a mission of an educational institution. Transformation is not what a Harvard education is about.
Well the best response to this ^^ I think comes from Hanna’s piece: “As far as Harvard’s interests here, black Harvardians have plenty to say about the overt racial hostility they’ve faced from the worst of their classmates. Harvard’s refusal to knowingly subject them to more of the same is just the kind of concrete anti-racist action Kashuv needs to think about when considering how his conduct impacts the people around him.” It’s not Harvard’s job here to fix this person. That’s on Kashuv, and his response thus far shows him not yet up to the task. Yet.
“It’s not Harvard’s job here to fix this person. That’s on Kashuv, and his response thus far shows him not yet up to the task.”
Does anyone else think Kashuv’s email to Harvard’s Office of Diversity was lame?
I do especially enjoy this part of Hanna’s opinion piece: “I do worry that Harvard’s peers may view Kashuv’s recent tweetstorm as an attempt to deflect blame, and thus as an update on Kashuv’s current level of insight. If, on the other hand, Kashuv’s goals have shifted away from the Ivy League and toward a career in the national outrage industry, he’s played his hand perfectly.”
The Slate article was a Mic-drop from my own point of view. I believe in 2nd chances and hope Kashuv can show the world that he has learned from his past actions. I don’t completely get the free speech arguments because no one has infringed upon his free speech. Kashuv is free to continue to speak his mind. But Harvard absolutely also had the right to rescind his admission.
I believe this thread has been a little harsh, maybe because many of us have made bad judgements as young people without the glare of recording devices and social media uploads being just fingertips away. The young man was absolutely wrong, his apology was empty, and his tweets showed a level of immaturity, but instead of only throwing “stones” at a 18 year old, I am hoping to see him grow from his mistakes and ultimately make amends.
I am pretty sure that if CC posters had our worst comments/actions from age 16 come out in the public eye, we would all be able to empathize more with the massive error in judgement that Kashuv made (not only at 16, but his response has made it worse). I believe there are kids in colleges across America who have made similar errors in judgement, but Kashuv is the one who got caught (downside of fame).
This is more than a simple wink and “too hot to handle.”
And it isn’t ordinary kid stuff, a silly error one day, a momentary laspe of judgment. In time, this kid can prove his turnaround. Or not. That’s on him. But H found the courage to say, Done.
Nope, the apology didn’t cut it. No one is saying he should be doomed forever. If he’s smart, he’ll try to understand his errors, make the right efforts to grow, not just feel wronged and announce it all over the place. He has decisions to make.
Forgive him after he’s made his amends.
And no, I didn’t go around using the N word or calling for the death of a religious group.
“also think public schools that use holistic admissions might bounce a student like this if they have a long line up of qualified students. Public high schools have processes to expel students as well for less than criminal behavior. This language is perceived as threatening to other members of a student body.
Was Kashuv arrested for saying what he did? No? Then his free speech is intact. No one has a RIGHT to go to any particular college.”
I find this incredibly frightening. To not understand the most fundamental rights under the US Constitution is a disgrace and the fault of schools that don’t want to fully educate their students on this. Harvard is not bound by the Constitution, that’s true. But A PUBLIC COLLEGE CAN NOT EXPELL YOU FOR SPEECH LIKE THIS. Public colleges are bound by the First Amendment. The only unprotected speech involves defamation; threats of violence (this was not because it was not said to threaten any person but rather intended for private discussion among like minded individuals); or incitement to violence ( this is a very narrow area. “We should kill all the ——-“ is not legally incitement. Incitement is something where your speech spurs another to act without thought. Something like “omg, he’s about to shoot you right now, shoot him first”)
And the First Amendment doesn’t just protect you from going to jail. This is an incredibly widespread misconception. It protects you from ANY CONSEQUENCE by a government ( which most definitely includes public colleges). Please people. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. Are you going to say the vile things that this kid said. No. But one day something you’ve said may be considered vile by someone else. Just look st a previous poster saying that what David Hogg said is just as bad as this kids statements That is nonsense but none of us are free if we lose our First Amendment rights. Please please really learn them.
Maya, in a court of law, certain conditions need to be met, sure. But what you call narrow, I call complex. Some forms of free speech are protected, others not.
I presume you know more about the First Amendment and the various court explorations of how it is interpreted.
What I call narrow, the courts call narrow. See Hedges v. Obama, 890 F.Supp.2d 424, 462 (S.D.N.Y.,2012) (very narrow exceptions of protected speech—i.e., speech which incites violence, or is obscene, defamatory, or integrally related to criminal behavior.) See also Higgins v. Kentucky Sports Radio, LLC, 2019 WL 1290870 (E.D.Ky.), 10 (E.D.Ky., 2019) ( exceptions to freesoeech rights are ( well-defined and very narrow” speech cannot be restricted merely because it is offensive or painful.”);Brautigam v. Pastoor, 2018 WL 3950137 (S.D.Ohio), 5 (S.D.Ohio, 2018) ( incitement is a narrow exception to First Amendment)
Moreover the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969), made it clear that the First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action AND is not likely to incite or produce such action. See also Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 94 S.Ct. 326, 38 L.Ed.2d 303 (endorsing or encouraged the violent actions of others, is fully protected)
Yes, I’d want my daughter to meet him, to get to know him. Friends? Up to her. Be a roommate? The roommate she was assigned was VERY conservative in all ways but they got along fine. They aren’t life long friends but shared a good year in the dorm.
ALL the time on CC I see students looking for diversity in their schools. Here is a person who would add diversity to almost any school and yet no one wants to have anything to do with him. Would I want Daughter to marry him? How do I know, I haven’t met him. Her current boyfriend has views I don’t agree with (nor does she) especially about guns. And he has a very nasty habit of smoking. I’m much more concerned about the smoking than about the guns, even though they are both legal for him to buy and use. There might even be some smokers who sneaked into Harvard by failing to disclose that on the app, even if it was illegal at the time of their applications for minors to smoke. Some might have criminal records for DWI or alcohol use and you don’t know! Your child might be assigned these people as roommates! I know one kid living in a college dorm (not Harvard) who stabbed his younger brother (yes, arrested for a felony only 6 months before moving into that dorm). Bet his roommates don’t know.
One thing about Kyle is that his views (new though they might be) are on record. It’s a World According to Garp situation. Buy the house the airplane has already crashed into, as it is unlikely another one will hit the same house. It’s unlikely Kyle will ever say another slur or post it on FB or Youtube. People will be watching. So yes, take the roommate who is on record as having made the mistake and owned up to it. I’d be fine with my child sharing a room or class with Kyle and I’d welcome the diversity of ideas he’d bring to the college even if I didn’t agree with him.
As far as answering the question re: “would you want him as a roommate?” it’s a better question for those members of the religions and races he disparaged and insulted not the rest of us.
@twoinanddone I don’t think anyone is speaking about his political views when they say (I say) that they don’t want him as a roommate to their kid. I can put up with his political views. It’s the repeated use of the N word. It’s the statement “kill all the Jews”. Those are the statements that are not flying with me. So no, I’m not putting my Jewish son in a room with him. And no I do not care that he’s Jewish and thought it was a funny joke. That’s the issue. Not his stance on gun rights.
@maya54 you’ve said this 100 times. It’s not a public school. Your comment is a hypothetical and it’s not relevant to the thread. CC is not a debate community. His rights weren’t violated. End of story.
A couple of snips and link to full article below.