Harvard uses (restricted) early action, not early decision, although it is possible that some early action admits did not bother with any other applications after receiving the Harvard admission offer (though they may have already submitted some applications before then).
@momofthreeboys I disagree with your blanket statement. Under your definition, the Penn State assistant coach who informed Joe Paterno that Jerry Sandusky was raping little boys in the shower was tattling and therefore a snitch?
@maya54, I just want to be clear on two points.
First, are we in agreement that there is no government action in this case? That this is a private institution that is permitted to restrict speech if it determines that the speech violates its code of conduct, its honor code, etc.?
Second, there * are * restrictions of one’s first amendment rights in the areas of obscenity and child pornography. Even if this had been a public institution, don’t several of these memes fall under those exceptions?
“First, are we in agreement that there is no government action in this case? That this is a private institution that is permitted to restrict speech if it determines that the speech violates its code of conduct, its honor code, etc.?”
Agree that there’s no govennment action at Harvard ( remember though that I was responding to a poster who claimed that the situation would be exactly the same at UCB. That was a less than intelligent statement )
The question is how much of a free speech one has at Harvard. It’s not a First Amendment right but The FIRE.org has what I consider to be a decent analysis that would apply to Harvard:
First they say that Harvard advertises itself thusly: ( I have not independently verified):
"Free speech is uniquely important to the University because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse. Free interchange of ideas is vital for our primary function of discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching, and learning. Curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom that defines our purpose. It also deprives some individuals of the right to express unpopular views and others of the right to listen to unpopular views.
Because no other community defines itself so much in terms of knowledge, few others place such a high priority on freedom of speech. As a community, we take certain risks by assigning such a high priority to free speech. We assume that the long-term benefits to our community will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious views. Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational processes, we do not permit censorship of noxious ideas. We are committed to maintaining a climate in which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea."
IF this is true than one can’t say there is no free speech right at Harvard.
As FIRE argues " private colleges and universities are contractually bound to respect the promises they make to students. Many institutions promise freedom of expression in university promotional materials…private institutions are still legally obligated to provide what they promise…
“Second, there are restrictions of one’s first amendment rights in the areas of obscenity and child pornography. Even if this had been a public institution, don’t several of these memes fall under those exceptions?”
I haven’t seen the memes. “Obscenity” is theoretically an exception but almost never actually an exception to the FA in any modern court ruling. Child pornography which actually used real children in sexual situations and thus the very creation of which was a crime IS an exception. I don’t know if any of the material at issue here qualifies.
I looked at the memes. They were actually somewhat less offensive than I had imagined. The average Sarah Silverman standup set is a lot worse. But “a community committed to reason and rational discourse,” as well as “[f]ree interchange of ideas” and “discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching, and learning” does not necessarily have to tolerate cartoons about getting erections in the presence of child abuse and death, or celebrating racist cliches, on an invitation-only forum. As with the marketplace of things and money, the marketplace of ideas needs some rules and regulations to function well.
I do believe that outrageousness and boundary-testing for its own sake have communicative and ideological value, and deserve free speech protection. I grew up on Mel Brooks’ The Producers and Blazing Saddles, and Michael O’Donoghue’s Adventures of Phoebe Zeit-Geist, all of which are more offensive and far funnier than the memes. But having free speech protection doesn’t mean an absolute free pass, no matter what @maya54 or FIRE say. And it certainly doesn’t mean that Harvard must not take offensive speech into account in its admissions decisions.
In my kids’ time, a group of students they knew from their former private school were on a spring AP Spanish trip to Costa Rica. Fourteen of the 20 kids on the trip were disciplined because they were all sitting in a room where one joint was being passed around. It was never clear how many of the kids actually partook, or intended to partake; knowing some of the kids, I believe some absolutely would not have smoked (but didn’t leave the room or, um, snitch). The school said it didn’t care, they were all there and would all be disciplined, and it told all of the colleges that had accepted them about the discipline. Six of the fourteen kids were planning to go to Oberlin, and five of them had their admissions rescinded. (Oberlin! Talk about the pot calling the kettle weed! The sixth kid had been accepted ED and had no other admissions; he was told he could not come until spring semester.) The point is that colleges do rescind admissions for stuff that is comparatively minor in the scheme of things, and no one’s life ends because of that.
“one of two University of Oklahoma fraternity members expelled this month for leading a racist chant said Wednesday that he was “sorry, deeply sorry” for his actions.”
Racist expression is a violation of the code of conduct and can lead to separation from a state university.
The recent Harvard incident is quite similar: racist expression is not permissible at a private university either.
“one of two University of Oklahoma fraternity members expelled this month for leading a racist chant said Wednesday that he was “sorry, deeply sorry” for his actions.”
“Racist expression is a violation of the code of conduct and can lead to separation from a state university”
OMG. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS NOT LEGAL. The student chose not to fight it. If he had, ANY First Amendment Attorney would know that his chance of success is 100 percent.
For those not clear on the concept : public university speech codes can not trump the first amendment. Say it, memorize it, understand it.
Its important to the fundamental operating of our democracy that our citizenry not be confused about their rights
@maya54 has identified herself as a lawyer who spends a lot of time in freedom of speech issues yet many here continue to argue based on opinion. I’m not going to say what I think Harvard should or should not have done.
What I do want to say is that I sincerely do not believe these are bad kids. They made a mistake, who hasn’t?
I haven’t seen the memes and from what I have heard they were in very bad taste but in my opinion (based on what I’ve read) they do not constitute a hate crime. I also believe that just because 18 year olds post something on social media, it does not mean they are going to go out and commit a hate crime as some here are insinuating. Any person here that believes your 18 year old is perfect, and has not made bad decisions and bad judgement calls is just naive.
@bhs1978 please be clear that the incident under discussion is not a first amendment issue. First amendment challenges arise when the * government * interferes with protected speech. Harvard is a * private institution * and has the right to rescind admissions decisions based on the behavior and offensive speech of these students.
@maya54 went on to suggest that Harvard’s statement lauding free speech is inconsistent with the actions the school has taken against these prospective students. I firmly agree with @JHS that
I don’t see the inconsistency between the statement and the actions of the university.
@maya54 Citation please? I’m not being snarky. As far as I know, the SCOTUS has never ruled on the issue of whether a speech code at a public university is unconstitutional in all circumstances. It has found particular restrictions unconstitutional and held that the public university is a government actor. The lower court decisions in which restrictions on speech by students in public universities have been analyzed have NOT uniformly condemned them in all circumstances.
Who here has said that they constitute a hate crime?
It’s strange when someone assumes anything so far outside of the evidence, and even odder when multiple people like the post. If anything met the legal definition of child pornography, I’m confident Harvard would pass the information to the FBI or some other law enforcement agency and not just rescind their admissions.
“OMG. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS NOT LEGAL. The student chose not to fight it. If he had, ANY First Amendment Attorney would know that his chance of success is 100 percent.”
I am not a lawyer so that I am not able to assess the statement of a successful rate of 100%. But I do know that racist expressions are not permissible at all state universities I have affiliated. I also know that before a state university expels a student due to racist expressions, the university is almost surely having a green light from its legal consults.
On the Oklahoma issue, here’s one law professor’s opinion.
@Nrdsb4
“isn’t disseminating images condoning rape or hate crimes illegal”
This quote was earlier in this thread.
However, I must also apologize in that I have been following both threads on this topic. The other thread has a few references to, these memes equal “hate thoughts” which “might be considered hate crimes” . There is also a post on the other thread referencing these kids as “future criminals”.
What interests me, more than the free speech aspect, is the Harvard selection process. I work with high school students and I truly believe the vast majority of students I work with would never post anywhere the kind of material that these students posted, let alone on a “Harvard (or substitute any other college name) Class of 2021” Facebook page. The vast majority wouldn’t do it because it is not in their character to do so; the rest wouldn’t do it because they are too smart to do something so stupid. Yes these ten students are young, but most college bound high school seniors simply know better.
Harvard has 40k applicants to choose from, they have a ‘holistic’ selection process, essays, LORs, college reps in the field, and alumni interviews. They make nearly three million dollars from rejected applicants. I know it is only 10 student admits out of whatever percentage of the 2k admits who actually joined the Facebook group, but to me it seems that a school such as Harvard, a school that can be as selective as any in the nation, could do better. I can’t believe that the best of the best, the nation’s brightest, would think that posting the things that were posted was acceptable in any way. This and the cheating scandal and the soccer team scandal … I have to believe Harvard has a somewhat flawed admissions process.
I do feel sorry for the ten who had their admissions rescinded. It’s a tough lesson, but hopefully it’s a call to character. I am also glad this became public because it gives high school educators an opportunity to show their students that character still does matter. Life is a product of decisions made.
@roethlisburger I’m not assuming anything. I read the Crimson article and learned there that the memes seemed to encompass child pornography and obscenity. While it’s not relevant at all to whether these rescissions were lawful, it’s a simple reminder that there are categories of unprotected speech, even when government action is involved.
Nor is this a lawsuit before us to decide so there is no “inside” or “outside” the evidence. ** It’s a discussion. **
You can hardly expect a small admissions committee to be able to completely vet every Harvard applicant. I was one of the few lucky ones to get an interview although I wasn’t accepted. Many don’t even get an alumni interview. Besides, social media and a false feeling of anonymity brings out the worst in many of us.
On the Oklahoma issue, this is another law professor’s opinion:
“Questions had swirled what would happen to the fraternity members. St. Louis University Law Professor Justin Hansford says constitutional free speech issues don’t apply in this case.”
“Nobody has the right to college, or even the right to education, in the United States, so more often than not, when you’re looking at a decision to expel a student, you’re looking at the violation of the terms of a contract that they signed when they agreed to attend the university,” Hansford said."
A part of the this contract is the code of conduct.
@3girls3cats there is an article out there if you search Harvard rescinded screenshots that has the actual pictures. I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest child pornography but they were certainly obscene and very bad albeit, I could understand how it may seem funny in the moment to the person.