Undone by social media: Harvard rescinds admissions

This is interesting… if you were the parent of one of these kids, what would you think?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/

On the one hand, I’m not a big fan of policing people private chats.

On the other, Harvard is private and can do what they want. They don’t want people who share racist, sexist, deplorable things and that’s their prerogative.

My gut reaction is they did the right thing.

This is absolutely not a freedom of speech issue before that line of argument even gets started in here.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/1996681-harvard-rescinds-admissions-for-10-admittees-based-on-facebook-posts.html#latest

Someone else already started a thread on this topic and I saw it either on here or in the cafe. It seems it was moved to the Harvard forum. I think the topic has broader significance and could be discussed generally.

Yes, can apply to nearly any private and even publics

At the very least, universities should compare these types of social media posts to the students’ applications. Student’s who wrote glowing essays about their passion for helping those less fortunate or for promoting diversity and inclusion and then post that type of garbage should have their essays invalidated and be rejected on the basis of submitting false information.

@romanigypsyeyes I’m with you regarding concerns about policing private social media accounts. However, in this particular case it appears that the groups formed as offshoots of social media groups centered around the university, and comprised exclusively of people associated with the university.

How many threads do we need on this topic?

I agree thGFG, that is has broader significance. Any school could do this, kids need to be more aware that what they post online can really come back to bite them.

I shudder to think either of my kids would post a meme calling a Mexican baby a pinata, or anything like that. I’d need to explore with them why they thought that was OK, first. I would be deeply ashamed and disappointed.

Then, I’d be scared - time to hustle and figure out plan B - another school? gap year? service year?. Then ugh…have to come up with a reason for all the friends and relatives why kid’s college plans are changing.

If I was the parent of the despicable student who posted the pinata meme I’d withdraw any support for college. Harvard is absolutely correct in rescinding these kids, their posts were vile.

Some kids just have to learn the hard way. Very sad.

What’s sad is how these kids got admitted in the first place. Apparently, they have neither the smart nor the maturity to figure out what the social norm is. Its like an uneducated person crashing a social elite party and was thrown out for misbehaving. Perhaps the ten kids were impostors to begin with.

Educated (or aspiring to be educated) people can be boorish or otherwise unpleasant people, and uneducated or less educated people can be nice people.

Of course, even boorish or unpleasant people can behave when they see that they are being judged. But sometimes they think that no one will notice (or those judging will approve).

At that age, many kids are stupid and immature. Granted, the pool of Harvard admits should have a lesser percentage of them.

And yes, what I have read is vile.

" concerns about policing private social media accounts. "

“private” and “social media” should not be used together, IMO.

From reading the Harvard Crimson article, it seems their chats weren’t exactly “private” as the group was organized and membership decided by who was already part of the official Harvard group for the accepted incoming frosh class:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/

Through that connection and the fact their “private” group required them to post sketchy offensive memes in the general official Harvard group for accepted incoming frosh class before being admitted as members, Harvard wasn’t policing people’s “private” chats…but were policing chats taking place on and abetted on one of their official Harvard affiliated FB groups.

Thus, Harvard’s name was clearly associated and as an institution, needed to do something to express its disavowal and disapproval of such posts/group as a result.

Not only is this not a free speech issue, it’s also not an effort of Harvard’s policing people’s private chats. Especially when some of it is taking place on a group officially affiliated and organized by Harvard itself.

What essentially happened here is no different than if say…a newly hired employee decided to use his/her newly issued corporate/firm internet account to post messages contrary to firm policy/values or worse, place the firm in legal/PR hot water whether it’s inflammatory against some marginalized groups or even posting that a competitor’s product is better than that of the employer’s.

Moreover, many public and private employers can and do reserve the right to monitor your internet activities…including accessing your private email accounts if it is done using employer/firm computers.

@Muad_dib “How many threads do we need on this topic?”

Sorry, I wasn’t aware there were others. Admins, feel free to close/merge this thread.

It’s also not a free speech issue because any “freedom of speech” type rights just doesn’t apply to this context. A lot of those folks most vocal about free speech seem not to understand how the laws work.

Unfortunately, it seems many commenters under that Harvard crimson article…including possibly some Harvard students seem to fail to understand this very point…

Freedom of speech refers to the government’s right to restrict or ban speech, not to my right to tell my boss he is a big fat pig. I have the right to do that, the government can’t restrict it, and my (former) boss has the right to fire me.

But these are stupid 17-18 year olds who Harvard thought were perfect for Harvard. I’m sure they were tell fart jokes when they were in 5th grade and thought they were uproariously funny (they weren’t). I think Harvard should have required them all to attend sensitivity training, bullying school, a hour of detention with a nun with a ruler writing “I will not be mean.” In cursive.

Stupidity and having bad characteristics isn’t indicative of or the sole exclusive province of 17-18 year olds.

It’s endemic in every group…including those of middle/senior years.

One bright spot for Harvard is that by exhibiting this openly per the articles, it has exercised its first amendment rights to disavow itself from those statements and the posters themselves by rescinding their admission into the class of 2021.

“As a reminder, Harvard College reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission under various conditions including if an admitted student engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

Nothing to argue about.