<p>good grief,
</p>
<p>Enough with the claims that the actions taken in this case have to do with race. If there were a couple of white girls who aided four white guys, who were intent on drug interactions, to gain access to a building that they can only access as a guest and in the end one shot the other in order to steal drugs and money, I am sure Harvard would be taking action in that case also. Claiming that this is a race issue takes away from those cases that are indeed race issues.</p>
<p>The fact that plenty of students use drugs does not mean that when administrators are made aware of drug use by a specific student, they will ignore it. It seems that in this case, information about drug use–possibly more–by this student came to light in the course of the investigation into Justin Crosby’s murder. This does not at all mean that the young woman had anything to do with the murder. Just that, unfortunately, investigations often turn up other information that can snare other people. Chances are the Harvard administration does not want to be seen to be lax in enforcing drug laws while a murder investigation involving drug use is going on. It has information involving a particular student and probably feels that it needs to act on this information.
I don’t see how the student can claim racial discrimination here. I believe the last drug case that received publicity at Harvard involved a Caucasian student. That was a couple of years ago.
Of course, all this is speculation on my part. As usual, the Ad Board does not provide details.</p>
<p>Read that first clause again, smoda. I wrote, “If she was indeed expelled just because of her association with soft drugs. . . .” If is the operative word. I was merely entertaining a possibility raised by marite, albeit one that I myself believe is highly unlikely.</p>
<p>It’s impossible to have a serious and civil discussion about this issue if you’re going to accuse people of “playing the race card” every time they mention the words racial discrimination. Inventing hypothetical situations does not prove that racial discrimination in this case was impossible.</p>
<p>In any case, if you look at my posts, I never once said anything to the effect of “she was singled out because she was black.” That’s not what I’m arguing; I’m merely entertaining possibilities to better understand the problem. You need to stop these knee-jerk reactions to the word race. They’re not helpful.</p>
<p>Mustafah, you’ve removed the scales from my eyes. Massachusetts is indeed a non-progressive State, if one can believe what is reported: </p>
<p>Example 1: Not so long ago, women were burned at the stake as witches, without any access to an appeal.</p>
<p>Example 2: And now I hear that the state is forcing homosexuals into a state of matrimony, before permitting them to–reproduce, or whatever it is they do. And yet, in the United States, both Harvard and Massachusetts are considered to be unusually “liberal”; which also means progressive, I think. What is to be done? </p>
<p>Example 3 (Final example): Now we have a soft drug dealer being murdered for nothing more valuable than his soft drugs and money. Could this happen in Canada? I think not, eh? Your thoughts?</p>
<p>I was talking about the nature of Massachusetts’ human rights legislation relative to Ontario’s, nothing more. You’re talking about irrelevant nonsense.</p>
<p>Have you entertained the thought that the accused “could” make a similar claim in MA but has not done so? Does the Ontario Human Rights Commission actively seek out cases or does it wait for complaints to be lodged?</p>
<p>2kids in c- Believe it or not, there are a lot of people at Harvard who don’t do drugs. Harvard can pick and choose which ever potsmokers they like to bounce. How surprising would it be if they pinpointed someone whose key card magically landed in the hands of a murderer?</p>
<p>Mustaf-are you sure you are ready to live in Massachusetts? Without the cozy blanket of Canada’s social(ist) safety net?</p>
<p>I’ve been reluctant to weigh in on this because I actually know the parties in question, but seeing the direction this conversation is going I think it’s important to say that it IS likely that the charge of racial discrimination being made is just a distraction from the matter at hand. The fact of the matter is, BOTH of the girls involved are black and from poor parts of New York City - unless someone wants to argue that Harlem is a significantly richer and safer area than the poorer parts of Brooklyn. And despite this, only <em>one</em> of them has been barred from graduation and forced to leave campus. If it was just about being black and coming from a rough neighborhood, then both of them would surely be gone. </p>
<p>It is absolutely a safe bet that the administration at Harvard knows a good deal more than the media is aware of. Also, you’ll notice that the black student community at Harvard - which never shies from pointing out racial injustice <em>where they see it</em> - has been utterly silent on this issue. That, together with some of the comments about the non-graduating student on Crimson articles, should throw up a red flag. </p>
<p>I’m very wary of accusing people of “playing the race card” whenever racial discrimination is brought up - others are absolutely right in saying that the accusation stifles discussion and progress. But in this case, when Harvard is treating the two students involved - both black and ostensibly poor - in different ways, and when there’s real cause to believe there’s more to the story than the media has demonstrated, the charge of discrimination rings really, really hollow. </p>
<p>I acknowledge that the Ad Board can be shady. But I also know that college policy is for students brought before the board or removed from campus to be told EXACTLY why it’s happening to them. So while they have no obligation to share that with the media, Campbell’s charge that she personally has no idea why she was kicked out seems extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>“Unless of course she is completely innocent and is speaking out because she wants to clear her name and walk across the state next week. Right now the public doesn’t have any discernable evidence to the contrary. Until I see something, she gets the benefit of my doubt.”</p>
<p>If she’s innocent and is putting her name in the press for the reason you suggest, I think she’s very foolish. This is the type of situation for one’s lawyer to handle without one’s name’s being made public. If she’s innocent, why would she want the public to know that she’s losing her graduation privileges due to some kind of connection – however accidental – with a murder?</p>
<p>“What you are advocating is “guilt by association”. Didn’t we go just go through this with Rev. Wright and William Ayers?”</p>
<p>I’m not advocating “guilt by association.” I’m saying that her post college options will be limited because of the fact that anyone now can Google and find her name connected with a murder case. That would not have happened if she hadn’t revealed her name to the public.</p>
<p>I think that many people would hesitate at hiring or admitting to grad school someone whom they knew had a friend who was accused of dealing drugs and murdering someone. For good reason, people are judged by their associates. Even more off putting would be the possibility that the alleged murderer apparently is suspected of using her key to gain access to the victim.</p>
<p>^^ I think that’s a fair take, caramelkisses. I was not, myself, arguing that she was targeted because she was black, regardless of fauve’s misinterpretation of my posts. My concerns were that (a) the Ad Board was doing the university and the student a disservice by being so secretive about the grounds for dismissal (assuming that the student in fact does not know why she was expelled) and (b) there need to be effective legal mechanisms in place to investigate complaints of racial discrimination, perceived or real. That’s the best way to ensure confidence in the system and to avoid drawn-out controversies.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen at other colleges, ad boards don’t reveal information about their decisions. I think the policy is connected to privacy laws.</p>
<p>Thank you for sharing your insider’s perspective on the situation, Caramelkisses. Your observations are extremely informative and appreciated.</p>
<p>The most recent of local broadcasts:</p>
<p>[WBZ-TV</a> Video Archive - wbztv.com](<a href=“CBS Boston - Breaking News, Sports, Weather, I-Team Investigations”>http://wbztv.com/video/?id=77154@wbz.dayport.com)</p>
<p>I would like to make one thing clear. My only point here is that we don’t know all the facts and until we do we should not be making assumptions. With that said, until I see or hear of the reason why this action is being taken against this young lady, she gets the benefit of my doubt.</p>
<p>“If she’s innocent and is putting her name in the press for the reason you suggest, I think she’s very foolish.”</p>
<p>What can her lawyer be thinking?</p>
<p>Let’s assume for a moment she is innocent; she is putting her name in the press so Harvard will allow her to participate in graduation ceremonies. </p>
<p>Would any of you like to attend the top college in the nation for 4 years and not be able to walk across the stage?</p>
<p>I am sure most of you would feel different if this were your child and she told you she was innocent.</p>
<p>Getting kicked off campus because of drug use - That’s a serious accusation.</p>
<p>Kicking a student off campus because of her race - That’s also a serious accusation.</p>
<p>Shouldn’t the “innocent until proven guilty” dictate that we stay quiet, that we refrain from making all those “assumptions”, until all the relevant facts are out, or at least until we are sure those facts will not come out?</p>
<p>^ cubism4nerds</p>
<p>While I agree with your “innocent until proven guilty” dictate, that’s not being applied in this case. She has been expelled from campus and cannot participate in graduation ceremonies. Absent of any evidence being disclose to the accused or the public, this sounds like “guilty until proven innocent”.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but if this were an attractive blue eyed blond white girl from a rich well known family who just happen to know the girlfriend of a guy who committed murder in her dorm, it would take a lot more than what we know now for her to be in the same situation as Ms. Campbell.</p>
<p>Harvard needs to pony up on the reason why this young lady was expelled. Given Ms. Campbell’s public statements, the school has an obligation to refute her claim of total innocence if in fact it has evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>That said, I would like to see the letter she received from Harvard admin.</p>
<p>^^ Harvard does not need to do any such thing. Their policy is to respect the privacy of students by not releasing details of its investigations to anyone who doesn’t NEED TO KNOW. Students at Harvard know this, and willingly submit to that policy by enrolling. So that means two things: </p>
<p>1) The claim that she doesn’t know why she was expelled is nonsense, because the Ad Board literally HAS TO tell students, <em>in writing</em> precisely why they’re being removed from campus. It’s in the handbook - why would the university violate the rules it created! Directly from the site:</p>
<p>“Disciplinary actions within the Houses and dormitories under College supervision include admonition, probation, and requirement to leave the premises. In the latter instance, ** a written warning will describe what the unacceptable behavior is, the fact that the House Master or Dean of Freshmen has the right to require the student to leave, and what steps must be taken by the student in order to remain in residence. ** Should the student be unable or unwilling to take the steps to improve the situation and should the student continue to behave in a manner that is detrimental to the well-being of the residential community, the House Master or Dean of Freshmen, in consultation with the Dean of the College, may then require the student to leave the premises even though he or she may continue to be enrolled in the College.”</p>
<p>and 2) The simple fact that Campbell has talked to the press and now all of a sudden the public <em>wants</em> to know, doesn’t mean that we <em>need</em> to know. Further, the university’s decision isn’t part of the legal process or the criminal investigation, so the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply here. </p>
<p>From the Ad Board website: “It is important to recognize that the College’s disciplinary system is not a legal system, and that the procedures of the Administrative Board are designed to achieve ends different from those of criminal or civil litigation. While a court of law may only be interested in establishing innocence or guilt, the Board is interested in the larger educational, developmental, and community implications of student conduct.”</p>
<p>"Let’s assume for a moment she is innocent; she is putting her name in the press so Harvard will allow her to participate in graduation ceremonies. </p>
<p>Would any of you like to attend the top college in the nation for 4 years and not be able to walk across the stage?</p>
<p>I am sure most of you would feel different if this were your child and she told you she was innocent."</p>
<p>If it were my kid, we’d be working closely with a good lawyer, and would not be putting my kid’s name in the press. I would not want my kid – whom I’d presume would be innocent – to have their future ruined by being publicly connected with a murder nor would I want everyone digging into her background looking for dirt.</p>