@maya54 First off, Harvard is not in CA so I’m not quite sure how that’s relevant to the topic at hand. Second, the government is the only entity that is not allowed to tell us what type of language we can and cannot use. Also, just because we have “the right” to say something does not mean there are no consequences to our words. I may have “the right” to use the N word but that doesn’t mean my employer can’t fire me for using it. And yes, Harvard can do as they want in this situation.
Also, no need for the “sigh”. I’m not an uniformed child that needs to be spoken down to.
Was in the rescind is appropriate camp when the news broke, and still may be, but came across this interesting piece from David Brooks of the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/opinion/harvard-admission-kyle-kashuv.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage Snippets because of the paywall.
"This case has nothing to do with free speech. Harvard clearly has a right to disinvite students who violate its standards. I’d say, rather, that the decision, which Harvard is not commenting on, may reflect a misunderstanding of how moral character develops…
Moral formation is not like learning math. It’s not cumulative; it’s inverse. In a sin-drenched world it’s precisely through the sins and the ensuing repentance that moral formation happens. That’s why we try not to judge people by what they did in their worst moment, but rather by how they respond to their worst moment. That’s why we are forgiving of 16-year-olds, because they haven’t disgraced themselves enough to have earned maturity…
These days many people seem to think that the way to prove virtue is by denouncing and shunning, not through mercy and rigorous forgiveness…
It’s hard to know if Kashuv has learned from his repulsive comments, but if he has, wouldn’t Harvard want a kid who is intellectually rigorous and morally humble? Wouldn’t it want a student who could lend a hand to all the perfect résumé children who may not have yet committed a disgrace, but who will?"
I brought up the topic as to what Stanford could do noting that this student woukd have likeky been protected their. He certainly Wouk does have been protected at Berkley. By law all private California college t are the same as “ the government “ when it comes to students. When a First Amendment right to free speech exists that specifically does mean that there can be no consequences for speech, including hate speech if it is not a threat of harm or incitement to violence. ( and trying to claim that all hate speech is a threat or incitement is a no go under well established law though many have tried ). You don’t have a right if you can be punished for excercising that right. The ‘ sigh” is because I’m dismayed by how many people don’t understand their very fundamental rights under the Constitution. That’s very scary to me.
@maya54 I disagree strongly with your interpretation. Their are consequences to free speech. In this case the student is not protected from consequences and is facing them. The Bill of Rights is a protection against government action. There needs to be state action for any constitutional rights to be infringed. It’s not a violation of my free speech if my boss says I can’t say nice things about our competitors to clients. Congress shall make no law that abridges my right to free speech or bear arms. That’s what the Constitution says.
I’m so sorry that my “ignorance” scares you. I would beg to differ.
@BKSquared : i’m 100% in favor of Kashuv re applying as a transfer, demonstrating what he’s learned, and Harvard admitting him if he has the grades& leadership. However there doesn’t seem to have been any growth since last year as far as has been documented.
To comment #81:
“Morally humble” is the opposite of an 18 year old saying his hateful comments as a 16 year old should be treated as unimportant. Sure, he could have grown…but his recent comments demonstrate just the opposite. David Brooks offers some stirring analysis, but he’s picked the wrong poster child for an argument about moral character development.
Did David Brooks see any evidence that Kashuv is “intellectually rigorous and morally humble”? I don’t see any. Kashuv was a racist and an opportunist. He may change but I haven’t seen any evidence of it. A contrived apology with only words but no action is no evidence. These types of changes are usually gradual and accompanied by some dramatic events and/or experiences.
Excuse the typo above. “There” not “their”.
Where is the evidence of the moral humility? A self-serving non-apology followed by no actions whatsoever that would indicate remorse and the desire to atone for his ugly slurs? And he didn’t even apologize to the people he insulted, as far as we know.
What Kashuv appears to have learned is that if he whines on Twitter, he’ll get sympathy from some people.
We know what they will do. In 2017, they rescinded 10 students who had been swapping racist memes and other offensive memes on an unofficial Facebook page for admitted students.
Of course he apologized. He was faced with his acceptance being rescinded. That doesn’t make him humble or even sorry for what he said. Sorry his acceptance was being rescinded maybe.
@collegemom9. I am and was speaking only about public college throughout the US as well as ALL California college because California state law says that private college are bound by the First Amendment with respect to their students. While Harvard more probably than not has no requirements to provide free speech just as a private employer does not, I find it interesting that if this kid had been going to Berkeley or UVA or Michigan he could not have been rescinded. And this is very likely true of Stanford also ( whether an “ admitted student” is a student is an issue private colleges have in my experience not wanted to fight but there in no case directly on point. The arguments that they are I believe be much more persuasive than the ones that they are not). There is no question that a student already attending Stanfordcould not be kicked out or otherwise punished for their speech even if hateful and repulsive.
I find it highly ironic that the lawsuit against Harvard uncovered that Asian applicants were rated lower on average on “personality traits”, but Kashuv and the other racist loudmouths who have been rescinded were obviously judged to have great personalities when they were admitted.
This is not about Asian Americans. You have no idea how he presented in his app.
As a private Massachusetts University, Harvard is fully in its right to rescind the acceptance of any student for any reason. This is akin to what Harvard did to a group of students several years ago: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/:
Of course this is not about Asian Americans. Just shows how unreliable is the “personality traits” score. Or I guess being an activist probably adds points to it, but being a shy nerd subtracts points. But this is probably a topic for a different thread.
The rescission of the group of students after the facebook postings was for actions taken after acceptance. In this case the information was ‘out there’ for Harvard to see before the acceptance. Harvard could ask a supplemental question about prior acts, about racially offensive acts, but it doesn’t.
In this case, Harvard offered the spot and then rescinded after the student took action (turned down other schools with scholarships) based on the offer.
^^ @twoinanddone: It doesn’t matter. As previously stated: As a private Massachusetts University, Harvard is fully in its right to rescind the acceptance of any student for any reason. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/18/what-leads-harvard-rescind-admission-racism-plagiarism-killing-your-mom/?utm_term=.47e97b71486c
The information was not “out there” for Harvard to see. The ugly comments were disclosed by a fellow student in late May, well after acceptances came out.
Harvard can say “no thanks” to an admit whenever they feel it has merit and is defensible.
This isn’t about him being the “other” political party or standing for gun rights. His lack of filters in what he chose to say and write, over time, points to other problems.
Has he changed? Actions speak louder than words. It’s not for H to undertake teaching him this filter. Not their purpose. Not the role of your own kids, either, when they’re classmates.