NCF admits holistically and they select a class of ~250 students. They can’t say they aren’t admitting for protected speech (although in Florida they probably could), but they can just do it. Many private employers do it all the time and don’t hire people who are part of a protected class. Can’t say it, just do it.
I believe that Harvard originally admitted kyle because of his ‘unique’ experience out of Stoneman, that he was a conservative when most other student activists are on the other side. He’d been through that experience but was still a conservative, pro-gun advocate and Harvard liked that. His grades and scores are not spectacular but they found him unique, just as they did with the other Stoneman students admitted. Then when they didn’t want him they found a reason to exclude him.
I believe that 16 year olds say stupid things, and some of them say those stupid things online where the words live forever. Harvard didn’t have to give him a chance but it did, and then took that chance back. He relied on the acceptance, turned down other opportunities. Unlike the others who had their acceptances revoked in the FB incident, Kyle made his remarked BEFORE (years before) his acceptance and the others AFTER being warned that anything they did after acceptance could be cause for revoking acceptance. Those ‘after’ statements were also their current 18 year of views not 16 year old views made before he experienced the school shooting.
I think Harvard has the right to admit or deny anyone they wanted to, but they admitted him, he accepted, and Kyle didn’t do anything after that admission to have it revoked. Kyle’s statements were stupid but not illegal. He didn’t cheat on a test or submit bad information on his application.
@twoinanddone Perhaps if you were in either of the minorities that Kyle hurt with his horrible words you’d feel differently. You don’t seem to understand how awful those words are. Just because they aren’t illegal doesn’t mean they are defensible and in my eyes each and every time you come on here to say how irrelevant they are to his admission, you defend them. Bottom line is that they were written during high school (in an APUSH study guide which makes me wonder how frequently he must have said them in life if he was comfortable enough to say them there) and your college acceptance is based on what you do in high school.If we are setting the bar at cheating or breaking the law as being the only things that get your acceptance rescinded then we are in trouble.
I guess I don’t see the big deal. This kid was spewing hate when he was old enough to know better. I don’t know if he’s a racist or not. I do know that for as well spoken as he is, he should have been a bit smarter. So why shouldn’t Harvard rescind? IMO this kid should stop talking about it and start making alternative plans. I have no doubt he will land in his feet. Hopefully, lessons learned.
In the spring of 2016, Harvard faced a similar issue involving racially offensive comments in a GroupMe Chat group that was linked to the incoming class Facebook page. At the time, Harvard opted not to discipline the admittees because they “were not matriculated students” at the time of the offense. So it appears that Harvard’s policy isn’t - or wasn’t - so set in stone but has evolved over the past three years. Here are the Crimson articles for all three incidents (including the 2017 incident with the 10 revokes).