So I’m not sure if you misunderstood my point but let me try to clarify…
I wasn’t suggesting my ESL students are more likely to engage in this sort of behavior or that “elite/privileged” students should t be held accountable for their actions…
I was suggesting that there is a rising prevalence in our younger student populations to engage in “vile” or offensive name calling and that behavior is not restricted to a certain group but pervades across racial, ethnic, socio-economic groups.
The “second chances” I referenced were with regards to the entire student population not just one group. I have plenty of students of all walks of life who fail to understand the consequences of certain behaviors. We are doing our next generation a disservice by not allowing them to experience everyday failures, learn from them and problem solve. It really is the opposite of empowering the next generation.
Not sure what Stanford rapist has to do with this conversation? Don’t recall saying those of higher socio-economic/privilege shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions…I’m in fact saying live with the consequences of your actions.
I’m mystified by the idea that these students’ recommenders ought to be considered untrustworthy from now on. Even parents can’t see into their children’s souls, and are often comically ignorant of what their kids are up to. How on earth are math teachers supposed to do better after seeing the kid 45 minutes a day for two semesters?
The same goes for the idea that requiring additional essays would have ferreted out some deep-seated moral weakness. If you can write two good essays without accidentally revealing that you’re a Death Eater, you can write three.
IMHO, we have to do the hard work of holding two ideas in our heads at the same time. (1) Posting these sort of memes is wrong and Harvard’s decision was reasonable, AND (2) we don’t have enough information to know whether a particular kid in this group is a rotten kid.
As for language, “witness” is a broad term that includes neutral third parties as well as victims and even primary perpetrators. No one who went out of their way to earn membership in a “dark memes” group is a bystander. I’ll stick with “informant,” which makes clear that the party had inside access of some kind.
“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.”
Why can’t there be harsh consequences AND second chances? Second chances can come after a punishment. The alternative to second chances is that all punishments become life sentences. I don’t believe that’s best for young people.
I’ve had people ask me to recommend them for a job. Some of them I’ve politely refused. If someone sent me a glowing endorsement for a sloppy engineer, I’d be wise to remember that next time.
My reputation is why my endorsement has value, and that kind of capital one doesn’t just (redacted) away. At least I don’t.
If Harvard needs straightforward ways of reducing the app stack, this one seems plausible and simple to implement.
I could be on board with that. Mandatory gap year AND submission of proof of some kind of meaningful community service/diversity training with subsequent interview or presentation of some kind to show remorse and new insight Maybe one year of behavioral probation to show that they really “got it.” Or something along those lines.
By bringing them up without accounting for the great disparity in how those from the higher SES have had far greater means, social capital, and inclination to shield(or attempt to do so) their progeny from the worst consequences of their actions* and the savvy to conceal/hoodwink gatekeepers effectively as these Harvard rescindees and Brock Turner have demonstrated vs the likelihood of your disadvantaged/ESL group being remotely able to do the same , your bringing up the disadvantaged/ESL students is not only beside the point, but a good example of a “but they do it too” red herring type reasoning which facilitates this very sort of shielding/attempts to do so.
In short, its a false equivalency which has no applicability in this particular case…especially considering these rescindees are much more likely to come from those privileged higher SES background than RD admits as discussed many times on this very board.
Most students who apply from the lower/middle income groups tend to apply and be admitted during the RD round rather than EA/ED rounds per past discussions on this very board.
I finally broke down and looked at the memes. For kids who frequent reddit or 4chan, these would have been standard fare and not that shocking. I am much more viscerally offended by these than either of my boys, who spend way more time in online banter, would be. Discussion boards are rife with intentionally inflammatory memes. Some are just a revisualization of “Truly Tasteless Jokes,” a book that made the rounds during my college days. We had our Vonnegut books, they have their Chad Kultgen.
^^^Well, it’s not a bad idea for these kids to understand other valid reactions to these memes. From what you’ve said, this stuff has become “normalized,” which is not necessarily a good thing.
I am all for second chances, but not in this case. These kids can’t go to Harvard, and that’s tough when they came so close, but they aren’t losing their freedom, they won’t have a permanent record of their dumb actions that can be seen in a background check, and they can get into another college. This doesn’t have to be a “life sentence” unless they make it one. Their Harvard spots will hopefully be filled by deserving students from the wait-list and next year’s class of 2018 shouldn’t have to give up ten spots or chances to attend to accommodate this group. It is a tough lesson, but they can most benefit from lost opportunity, not delayed opportunity. There’s lots of great colleges and if they work hard and take advantage of all their opportunities, they’ll be fine.
“If someone sent me a glowing endorsement for a sloppy engineer, I’d be wise to remember that next time.”
Sure, but you can be pretty confident that being a sloppy engineer was visible to the previous employer. A taste for sharing nasty images with peers is rarely revealed to high school faculty.
Maybe a line item needs to be added to the teacher recommendation form:
“Does this student share inappropriate memes or other items generally viewed as distasteful on social media?” Then the recommender can check the “not observed” box.
Really, it’s silly to expect teachers to know this aspect of students’ lives.
A teacher or counselor can ONLY comment on what they observe - in the classroom, around the school, involvement in clubs and ECs. That doesn’t extend to online presence, right?? To me, it is outside the purview of the scope of the recommendation expectations.
In Post#159 @roethlisburger wrote: “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…”
Bullies who never outgrow their sadistic penchant for humiliating or denigrating others get away with it because people like you defend them. And, instead blame the victims for being “snowflakes” who got their “feelings hurt.” It’s troubling that you defend the vile behavior and instead attack those who call it what it is. The armchair psychology is really twisted. This thread has been very revealing about human character – of the rescinded students and their defenders/apologists.
Harvard did the right thing in punishing the participants for the reason cited by @apprenticeprof in post #112: “…it also means that they’ve potentially aired their offensive statements to future classmates and roommates that I think would NOT be “special snowflakes” for having some reservations about interacting with someone they knew had posted some of those memes.”
4chan is a popular haven for many in the fringe extremist element. Frankly, the few times I’ve perused it, it was a cesspit of depravity…and active participants would likely take that as a high compliment.
Most tech savvy parents of adolescents/teens/young adults who know about 4chan would be horrified if they found their children were active participants on that site and impose serious consequences.
“A teacher or counselor can ONLY comment on what they observe”
Right. I get the sense that some folks believe these kids MUST have revealed their bad character in other contexts. But even if we knew the full content of their character – and even if that told us they were bad to the bone – it’s still possible that they behaved in school.
@Hanna That’s why I think Harvard and other institutions play a dangerous game when they claim to have a process that “meticulously” evaluates the “whole person” and reaches meaningful results about such things as “character” and “concern for others.”
Instead of pretending to get to know the souls of applicants, to know angels from devils, and then repeatedly being proven wrong, Harvard might do better to spell out exactly what rules, if violated, will result in admissions being rescinded.
It looks like this was a contest to find the grossest, sickest, and most shocking jokes. Some of the memes aren’t much worse than stuff you see on Comedy Central Roasts or YouTube “Comedian Roast” competitions. If you search on some of the terms used (I do not recommend this, who knows how many watchlists my IP address is on now!), you’ll find that most of these memes are recycled from the internet.
Anyway, Harvard has every right to rescind these kids’ acceptance letters, especially since they associated “Harvard” with the group (i.e. they’re too stupid to attend if they didn’t know that would be a problem!).
