In our dealings with various CA Universities they have not tried to argue that an “ admitted student” is not a student. The one time they mentioned the issue to a mediation judge he laughed and asked them if they were really going to argue that. All of our cases have settled before suits were even filed. With respect to public’s of course it wouldn’t matter. They are a government body and can’t do what Harvard did. Period.
I should add that my political views are diametrically different than this kid’s. But I care about free speech. Especially speech that was not directed at an individual. I don’t care how loathsome it is. Who knows what speech of mine someone else might consider loathsome.
Wonder how he was accepted by Harvard in the first place and what “personal” qualities contributed to his acceptance. Not only was he racist, but also opportunist, it seems.
Presumably, he did not ask his AP US history teacher for a recommendation (some of the reports indicate that what he wrote his bigotry on was a shared Google Doc that was an AP US history study guide).
I don’t see big deal about this. Yes, what you do in high school affects entry to college. He said some racist horrible things as a teenager. In highschool. Part of his high school performance. What colleges examine and evaluate. If he had done or said as a preteen, I’d disagree. But your high school life is what colleges examine for college entry
Especially since apparently he did it in APUSH, and in other academic and non academic settings, and during senior year, too. Basically, he was “that” kid - and everybody knew it, it wasn’t just one instance of provocative behavior. And now he doesn’t seem to “get it”, either.
I agree with cptofthehouse: your profile in HS is what colleges examine to admit you as a freshman, or not.
Not sure what the “educational” path could be but I don’t think just visiting museums would do it. Also, I’m not sure Harvard can give such a conditional admission - they do have “conditional reinstatement” for current students who have failed out, and it typically involves working at a job not provided by anyone in the family and keeping the job for x amount of time without being dismissed.
I thought college was supposed to be a time to change ways of thinking, to grow and examine why you have certain ideas and perhaps develop better ways of thinking about other groups. I think it is pretty clear that a 16 year old makes statements like this because that’s all he knows.
I had Archie Bunker for a father. I knew ALL the racial slurs but had no idea some WERE racial slurs so of course I repeated them until I learned.
Harvard is saying that we are never going to accept racists, even 15-16 year old ones who are just repeating things they’ve heard, and they can’t be redeemed to live among the elite. We might accept someone who has served time for murder, but not a 16 year old who was writing a term paper with immature ideas. Harvard is not going to make an attempt to educate those it deems unworthy.
Oh come on, we’re supposed to believe he is smart enough to go to Harvard but he reached the age of 16 without learning that n***** is a racial slur? Give me a break.
And it’s not as if this fragile innocent lived in a rural area with a lot of racists who said racist things, and nobody else, so he had no idea that regular people are appalled by that kind of talk. He knew.
Even his own defense of himself proves he knew - he’s claiming he did it for shock value.
It’s not Harvard’s job to guide him and help him see the light and the wrongness of his ways. You don’t get the “prize” of being on their campus for being racist.
I do not know law enough to discuss whether there is a case here for Harvard or any college to rescind admissions offers for behavior not specifically addressed in the application. This is what Harvard did. There appears to be an issue for the CA public schools in such situations.
A lawsuit may happen regarding this. Can colleges rescind admissions upon discovering additional info about a student? Is every student at risk of losing admissions if racist jokes, nasty behavior etc is discovered. That the behavior was terrible is not the issue. This young man admits it and apologizes.
The next few days might shed light on these questions
His use of the N word is despicable, disgusting and racist. His “kill the Jews” comment however amounts to a terroristic threat. It incorporates all of the elements necessary. A call to violent action against a specific race, religion, etc…
Terroristic Threat statutes- "The courts have held that “a threat need not take any particular form or be expressed in any particular words, and may be made by innuendo or suggestion, and that the words uttered will not be considered in a vacuum but rather in light of all the circumstances.”[4] A number of courts have upheld convictions under a state criminal terroristic threat statute on the basis of a single or solitary threat,[5] a conditional threat,[6] or a threat that some third person will take action.[7] In several states, courts have held that a “threatener’s present inability to carry out his or her threats does not in itself remove the threats from the purview of terroristic threat or terroristic threatening statutes.”
Schools can rescind in light of criminal activity and or a direct threat of physical violence to members of their community. Such behavior is not protected by free speech statutes.
If his essays were eloquent enough to get accepted to Harvard he had the capacity 18 months earlier to contemplate and understand the hate associated with the words he choose. His own statement confirms this insight as he was trying for shock value. This is the consequence and well deserved.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas is 12% African-American. Can we stop empathizing with this guy who loved to use the word n***** and empathize for a moment with his classmates who had to hear/read it? He demeaned his classmates by saying one young woman would only go out with “n*******jocks,” a misogyny/racism twofer. This isn’t “edgy.” It’s offensive and cruel. Nothing he has said so far makes me believe he realizes how revolting he was.
I’m confused about it being in an APUSH document? Was he writing his own opinion or about historical racism in the USA? i sincerely hope it’s not the latter.
Probably the most common reasons for rescission are academic (something on the final transcript like different less rigorous courses than listed as in-progress, D or F grade in in-progress courses, or very large drop in grades otherwise).
I stand behind Harvard’s rights but don’t wish to argue. Just say this: we all live by rules and expectations. On one hand, we bemoan the mental health issues on campuses and on the other, we confuse this with “freedom of speech?” What message does that send, to indulge him?
The original intent of FoS was the right to protest. Not to proclaim anything you want, directed at anyone you don’t like. It’s the lack of a considered filter that I see as the issue.
Any “teaching moment” isn’t Harvard’s responsibility. Nor is there any value, to the institution nor the individual, to tacitly approve of this behavior. These were choices he made. He now reaps what he sowed.