They didn’t depict them, but one of the memes had to do with Dylan Klebold. So, reference to a school shooting. Another made a joke about a Mexican kid hanging himself in a bathroom (the Pinata joke).
My impression was that the Tab had some of the most offensive memes, but not necessarily all of them,
There were a couple that made mention of being aroused by pedophilia or indicated a desire to commit an action against a baby. Really vile.
I’m not going to link to the Tab, but I will quote their statement about how they came to be in possession of them.
That makes me believe that there are plenty of others we don’t have access to.
Disagree a bit about the last few sentences about privilege in the op-ed - the article’s writer is demonizing these teenagers for goodness sake. Yes, it was necessary to rescind the acceptances but it is not necessary to crucify these kids.
Also, CNN’s autoplay videos and toxic comment sections are… bleh.
The author is not crucifying those rescinded applicants. He’s explaining his take on what motivated them to act/behave in such a manner and placing it in the larger Harvard context not only as a columnist, but also a Harvard alum.
If anything, those students have already did it to themselves by their conduct and the motivations for doing so.
Also, by saying “but they’re teenagers”, you’re effectively insulting the majority of teenagers…including the majority of Harvard admits who didn’t act or would be remotely inclined to conduct themselves in such a manner.
I’m hardly saying that all teenagers will act in this way. But it is true that teenagers are simply less mature than adults. The article is accusing them of being toxic and privileged when neither the article’s author or anyone else really knows anything about these kids.
There’s a reasonable case to be made that the very conduct of making vile jokes about genocidal events like the Holocaust, marginalized groups, etc IS evidence that they are toxic and privileged.
We don’t know the identity of the students whose admissions were rescinded. The consensus seems to be that I am wrong in my suspicion that some of them may have been students who were insecure about their ability to fit in at H and wanted to impress their classmates with how “with it” or cool they are. Yet nobody seems to oppose the conclusion that those involved were “privileged.” Yes, they were privileged because they got into H, but I personally would not leap to the conclusion that all of them are from affluent, high SES families as the author of the op-ed implies.
“There’s a reasonable case to be made that the very conduct of making vile jokes about genocidal events like the Holocaust, marginalized groups, etc IS evidence that they are toxic and privileged.”
Wish it were that easy but I work with many ESL and disadvantaged students, some of whom make vile jokes about each other which include racist and sexist jabs at each other. Privilege is not always a precursor to acting like an idiot. Sadly this type of behavior sometimes knows no bounds.
If the subgroup where those memes took place had been existence since December, there’s a higher likelihood most of those in the group are from affluent high SES families considering they’re much more likely to be able to afford to apply and become ED/EA admits. This is likely one factor the author considered not only from research, but also from being a Harvard alum who has presumably kept contact as an alum with his undergrad.
One major difference is that in most cases, the ESL and disadvantaged students aren’t likely to have the language skills, the savvy to conceal those inclinations from HS teachers/admins/general adults, or have the advantages which come with a higher SES background to avoid having those negative characteristics discovered or having parents/family with the means* to shelter them from the worst consequences.
The groups of kids you describe are likely to be sanctioned and punished much more quickly…and not get the crucial LORs needed for selective colleges…especially those at the HYP level.
One stark instance of this I witnessed in middle school was the great difference in how the middle school admins portrayed the worst bullies as “misunderstood” despite the fact one was an outright neo-nazi and all have had serious run-ins with the local law enforcement for violent muggings/beatings of students and random passersby vs other students who did far less.
The main differences…the bullies…especially the ringleaders considered to be “misunderstood” happened to be White and from well-to-do families. The kids who were harshly punished for doing far less…everyone else who didn’t fit both categories.
One would have to be obtuse to not understand the obvious differences in treatment/punishments meted out based on SES differences and the consequent family influence it could command.
As underscored by the fact they weren't able/didn't realize the need to hide that from you.
** Enough influence to convince high school teachers/admins/local community that what happened was a case of a “good kid who made a mistake”.
It could be just me but I feel Harvard is more at fault here on two levels. One they failed to filter out those kids despite being king of holistic. Two they failed to stop the students early in their act. Harvard admitted students are regular kids and some of them could act badly given the right conditions and Harvard in part gave that conditions. If indeed the rescinded are bad kids then the fault lies in the holistic process itself. Teachers, counselors and recommenders would’ve known long ago but they simply cherry picked their presentation. How many goods were packaged more valuable than they actually were in the elite?
I wonder if H admissions counselors will put future applicants whose recommendations came from the same source as these into the “we’ll get around to it” pile.
The recommendation is an important part of evaluating a candidate. The currency these recommenders is debased.
Idolizing Harvard: If a kid made it to Harvard should be a “superior being”. If not then something’s wrong with the admissions. That sounds a bit extreme to me.
The reality of today is that organizations do review social media footprints. Jobs, sororities/fraternities, social organizations, sports teams, security clearances, etc. absolutely look at your online presence. It’s a no brainer and a fact of life today. Why do you think when i retired and was looking for a encore job i scrubbed my very radical online postings. None were racist etc. but let’s just say they weren’t very favorable to the current political situation and I needed to keep my options open. I always counsel students, employees, etc. to keep a lid on their postings. Nothing is private these days.