I’m sure the other Ivies are well aware of who they are and at this point it is too late to accept an offer. Why would Yale or Princeton want any of these students in their freshman class if Harvard took the stance it did. Hard life lesson.
@cobrat
Your scenario was perhaps applicable say 20 years ago in my school district but isn’t a correct reading now. Perhaps it just that students of every walk of life are more emboldened to be public with their attitudes about others or that social media has desensitized a whole generation but these memes and the kids who find them entertaining are sadly not a small, isolated group. We do actually hold students accountable across the board no matter their demographic profile. It is true we are more likely to encounter resistance from parents of students of higher socio-economic status but that doesn’t preclude those students from a consequence.
Come on. How did Harvard “give the right conditions”?
It’s amazing to me how many people really don’t care for personal responsibility. Someone else must always be to blame.
Coming in fairly late to the discussion, but I also wanted to comment on the use of the word “snitch.” Hanna wrote that “But lawyers, including prosecutors and those whose clients benefit from the information, regularly use “snitch” in conversation to describe a co-conspirator or co-inmate who provides information to authorities.”
In my opinion, the most important words in this statement are “co-conspirator or co-inmate.” There is no evidence that the person who reported the memes was a “co-conspirator.” In fact, the indications are to the contrary. It appears to have been a student who joined the group expecting something slightly edgy and transgressive, but found the memes to cross common boundaries of decency. That is quite different from being a “snitch.”
Where should Harvard should draw the boundaries of decency? JHS (if I recall right) mentioned that some of the memes were no more offensive than Sarah Silverman’s stand-up comedy. I don’t care for that type of comedy (fly-over country out here). But I don’t take the objections as far as my spouse does; he considers South Park to be offensive. I like The Onion, but some of the items there cross the boundary for me. Didn’t Conan O’Brien graduate from Harvard? I wouldn’t sign off on some of his jokes.
In my opinion, the point where society draws the boundaries of acceptability should be connected to the boundaries that it is fair for Harvard to draw, for students who have never set foot in a Harvard classroom. What does the overall environment of discourse in the US communicate to students about the boundaries?
When QMP was in a public high school, I objected to the administration about a genuinely vile, yet popular rap song that was played during the homecoming dance, and was later played in the school cafeteria (which the students could not leave). No action was taken on this, and the general view seemed to be that I was just out of it. Yet, I have the impression that a student who posted a direct quotation from that song would be very likely to have his/her acceptance rescinded. I also objected privately (and on CC) to some of the literature that the high school students had to read. Aside from a few posters, most who replied to that thread seemed to think that I was wrong to object.
So, it seems to me that there is an element of “I’m shocked! Shocked and appalled!” in the reaction to this (Casablanca reference).
All of that being said, I think the Harvard community is better for not having these students in it. Free speech arguments apply differently at a private vs. public university; they do not apply to Harvard.
Also, this is just another piece of evidence that the “sees all, knows all” view of admissions committees at “top” schools with holistic admissions is wrong. (Special insights of admissions committee members are occasionally claimed on CC.)
“I’m sure the other Ivies are well aware of who they are and at this point it is too late to accept an offer. Why would Yale or Princeton want any of these students in their freshman class if Harvard took the stance it did.”
No. The Crimson article said they were rescinded in mid-April, before the May 1st response deadline. So they still had time to accept one of their other offers. And their identities have not been released, so it’s unlikely that Yale or Princeton or any other school knows who they are.
One further thought, from a Harvard disciplinary point of view, it’s unfortunate they chose to commit these acts BEFORE they enrolled as students on campus. Because Harvard shows far more leniency to current students who have committed what IMO are far worse offenses - cheaters, plagiarists, students caught with serious illegal drugs, etc. They usually get suspended for a semester or two and then are allowed back. But these guys (and somehow I’m assuming all 10 offenders in this case were male) got the functional equivalent of permanent expulsion, even though their offenses are milder IMO by comparison. They should have waited until they were enrolled and safely on campus before they got stupid.
The group started in December so presumably were mostly SCEA admits (so maybe no other acceptances), though I guess some could have joined later, after regular admission.
Seems one was female, the daughter of a donor per the Boston Globe: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/06/06/daughter-of-harvard-donor-among-students-who-lost-admission-over-offensive-memes
@Scipio, the Globe article yesterday stated that one of the kids rescinded was the daughter of major Harvard donors. (I too had assumed the 10 were all male until I read that article). I would assume that that particular student will go elsewhere for a year or two and be accepted to Harvard as a transfer.
Future Harvard admissions:
In addition to wondering if Harvard will note who recommended these kids, I wonder if Harvard will add an essay about ethics or a related topic aimed at understanding students’ characters.
I was surprised that Harvard only asked for the Common App essay, a very short essay on an extracurricular, and an optional long essay on pretty much any topic.
In contrast, universities like MIT, Caltech, and Stanford ask for a number of essays that get at a student’s character. Stanford has the roommate letter, “What matters and why?”, and most significant challenge that society faces essays. MIT asks how you have contributed to your community. Caltech asks about an ethical challenge that relates to Caltech’s Honor Code.
I understand that Harvard has a lot of applications to read, but it’s less than half the number of applications most UC campuses deal with, and the UCs ask for 4 essays now, including several options that get at character.
Of course, kids can present a face that doesn’t match their true selves in essays (you see it happen on CC), but at least it’s another hurdle.
I would guess most of the kids were either SCEA admits who applied to few (if any) other schools after they got into Harvard, or had already accepted their Harvard offers by mid-April (when they were rescinded), since they would have received any other admissions decisions weeks earlier. I doubt many (if any) had other options immediately available when Harvard backed away.
I’d also guess that the student who told Harvard about the group did so because they believed Harvard would find out, and they thought that by coming clean in advance they’d escape punishment, particularly if they hadn’t posted the worst of the memes themselves.
And, finally, having been told about the memes, Harvard probably was deeply concerned that the Boston Globe or the Crimson might also find out, and if this happened after these kids showed up on campus in the fall, and it was clear that Harvard knew about the memes months before, it would be a PR nightmare not worth enduring (particularly in light of the soccer/cross country team chat scandals). I think Harvard concluded it was better to get in front of it and rescind the kids’ offers.
But they might have been on notice in February or March that they were at risk as Harvard asked them to submit their meme and an explanation.
I read in one article that a similar incident happened last year, it wasn’t publicized so no ‘warning’ and no cautionary tale for this my kids. I depend on other people’s kids doing stupid things so I can show my kids articles that serve as a warning-- car surfing, sexting, getting drunk, skipping school, wearing the wrong dress to prom. How will my kids learn if they can’t learn from others being stupid?
From The Crimson article. “The anonymous student also said that administrators informed implicated students that their admissions status was under review and instructed them not to come to Visitas, Harvard’s annual weekend of programming for prospective freshmen held at the end of April. Roughly a week later, at least ten members of the group chat received letters informing them that their offers of admission had been withdrawn.”
Visitas was held April 22 to 24, so they were officially informed in late April.
Then they had time to make another college arrangement if possible.
I don’t find that with the majority of current college students or those of generations younger than mine(Tail-end Gen X). Most are actually much more sensitized and aware that such vile tasteless jokes are unacceptable than was the case with past generations with the exception of the extremist fringe.
Especially considering casual racist/sexist jokes were much more accepted by the larger general population beyond the extremist fringes back then…and parents/older adults much more likely to defend such behavior by a wider group of adults as “oh they’re just joking” and “they’re just kids/teens” back then as opposed to within the last 10-15 years with a few exceptions due in part to a backlash from that extremist fringe.
Also, the OP is focusing on a small subset of Harvard admits/rescindees who were part of a subgroup which splintered off the general Harvard class of 2021 group. A splinter group which has existed since December so most in this group are very unlikely to be disadvantaged or ESL students according to many demographic reports of EA/ED applicants.
Thus, for this particular case, that CNN author and Harvard alum is on point when he cited privilege and a toxic culture as factors which prompted the behavior/motivation behind those posts.
I don’t know how much they could have done if they first got wind that they had a problem in February/March. If they hadn’t applied anywhere else after getting into Harvard, or had already turned down any other offers or withdrawn their applications, they would have to find somewhere else that was still accepting applications very late in the day, no? Probably better to take a gap year, find something interesting to do, apply to a range of schools next year and pray (i) that the applications to those schools don’t ask questions that you’d be uncomfortable answering truthfully and (ii) that word of what happened to you doesn’t get around.
Several CC threads have now proven that it’s fun to pile on 10 immoral and social-media inept teenagers who had their offers rescinded by Harvard. For what it’s worth, I agree that Harvard had the right to do that, and that it was the right thing to do.
But I’d like to suggest that Harvard and other prestigious institutions are not entirely innocent in these sorts of incidents. As part of their branding, they like to say they prize “maturity,” “character,” and “concern for others” in the students they select for admissions. It sounds great in the brochure, but how hard do they work to define what that means, and how transparent are they in sharing how they evaluate it in applicants? Not very. And what kind of ongoing self-assessment do they do to ensure that each year they improve on past year’s process? Not much, one would think, since incidents keep happening.
There’s an inherent risk of moral hazard when a power imbalance is severe. In this case a wealthy, powerful, coveted institution sits in judgment on teenagers during a supposedly thorough application process – “Our admissions process enables us to give deliberate and meticulous consideration of each applicant as a whole person,” they claim on their website – and gets it so wrong that they later have to rescind 10 acceptances on moral grounds. That suggests that their morality clause is either so much smoke-blowing or they don’t know how to implement it.
It sounds like at least a few (if not all) of those students could benefit from taking a gap year in which they are in contact with and helping members of the groups about whom they made their vile comments. The exception would be children, as I don’t think it would be worth taking the risk to expose young children to people who find humor or"arousal" in jokes about child abuse/pedophilia.
I’m not convinced that every single one of the ten is from a high SES background, (and Cobrat has a posting history reflecting pretty strong bias against people of that demographic), but he may be right that a good number of them are. It would do them good to witness what it’s like to have struggles the likes of which they have never actually seen, much less experienced.
As long as their names are not made public, this whole thing could be the wake up call they need, or at the very least, a valuable growing experience.
Or that no selection process is 100% perfect due to many factors including savvy applicants being able to hoodwink their LOR writers and adcoms about their true characteristics and the unpredictability about how an individual will change as time passes.
And it’s not limited to elite colleges. Many employers…including equivalently competitive/prestigious employers have made the same hiring mistakes.
One good example of this…Barings Bank’s hiring of Nick Leeson to be their derivatives broker after his presumably fine stint at Morgan Stanley:
So my two cents after being in education for almost 20 years is that we are certainly moving towards an environment where students are not allowed to experience the consequences of their behavior. There has been a decided shift, with good intentions, to assist students and give them second chances for a lack of a better phrase. The unintended result is many, not all, of these students lack self-awareness and cannot learn from basic life experiences. I do worry for my students when each misstep is met with a consolation and excuse. Add a lack of how social media plays into this and you’ve got a very real problem on your hands.
I think considering we don’t know anything really about the particular make up of these young people it’s best to not make generalizations about what their demographic make up may be. It’s all too easy to label them “priveledged” or “elites” when the only evidence we have is they applied ED.
I will say I did view these memes on the “Tab” website and found them offensive and wondered how could anyone be so stupid to post these things with their name attached…
With our current national atmosphere being so toxic it’s no wonder some of the youth of our country take their cues from the adults in their midst. 
The “second chances” has always been around to a greater extent for those from the higher SES and/or certain demographics whether it was 20 years ago or even nowadays.
How does one explain the disparity of school disciplinary/judicial sentences for the same/comparable crimes between those of lower SES and/or racial minorities and those who aren’t…including recent cases like the rape convict Brock Turner.
Are you going to argue that if he was lower SES, not an athlete attending an elite U, or a racial minority that this judge would have extended the same kid-glove treatment to them? I’d doubt it. Especially considering the judge was found to have been a student athlete from the same institution with a similar SES background.
Likewise, most Harvard ED/EA admits are likely to be from the higher SES than not…hence the privilege label is applicable in their case.
I agree with you. This seems to be a Rorschach test, where if you still have a chip on your shoulder from middle school 25 years ago, you project that onto the bullies. Some posters seem to forget that if your gross family income is under about $120k/year, Harvard can be cheaper than your in state flagship.