|
Post by celawson on Jun 8, 2017 10:02:43 GMT -5
Some of us here are arguing this is just one slip up, and unfortunately they got hammered pretty hard for it. I see that point.
But I tend to agree with Cassandra here -- we are talking about one of the most elite colleges in the U.S., if not THE most elite. The competition is almost unbelievable. If one C (HECK, even one B!) or one point on the ACT is enough to ruin your chances, why isn't one pretty stupid (though not criminal or even pathologic) behavioral misjudgment? And yeah, Cass is right, so many kids are just as qualified who do not receive that acceptance letter. Sometimes it seems like a crapshoot, and I really think it often is once you reach a certain threshold of viability for acceptance. So it doesn't bother me too much to give the acceptance to another equally deserving student who hasn't publicly advertised that their frontal lobe is still not fully developed.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 8, 2017 10:41:45 GMT -5
FIRE came out with something about this, which I think makes a lot of sense. I basically says that while it is permissible, (unless they've already entered a contract, then there might be some dispute there)that to revoke their admission after this means the students don't have the chance to learn. It may be too harsh. I understand that there are kids who would love to get in and now 10 more will, but these kids worked hard. 1 boneheaded move? And if they try and get into say Yale will they be forced to explain this? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 8, 2017 11:11:00 GMT -5
These are not "lifelong repercussions." Has anyone seen these kids' names listed anywhere? I haven't. They will go to another perfectly fine university, like millions of other kids. I assume they are smart kids who will do well academically and thrive. And maybe, just maybe, this experience will have taught them a thing or two about not being a dumbass online. I don't want to overstate here, but we don't know these kids at all. So you have a high achieving kid who has worked really, really hard to get into Harvard. It could have been a life long dream. We really don't know the emotional impact. And while we don't know who they are, does that mean other colleges won't?
Is it possible that they accepted Harvard and therefore turned down Yale, so the offer from Yale has also been given to someone else?
The current policy on sexual assault expulsion was based on the idea that it's not such a big deal to be expelled from a college with a transcript that reads you committed a sexual assault, it's just an interruption of your education, so the policies are designed to nearly always find in favor of the accused, regardless of how much evidence is available to the contrary.
To recap, here is the full text of Title IX: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
With that in mind, consider some rather stunning admissions from Morse, an expert on governmental anti-sexual assault policy who is asked here to defend extra-legal, university-based adjudication systems for sexual crimes. I have bolded the most relevant passages:
And so, the aims of the court system are completely different than those of the campus-conduct system. A finding of responsibility on the part of the assailant in a campus-conduct system might mean that they are removed from the campus. It doesn't mean that they're going to prison, and it doesn't also prevent that individual from seeking further study elsewhere after a period of time, perhaps.
But the point about the need for federal law and regulation that is trauma-informed and fair is that it can protect the rights to all parties involved in the adjudication process following a claim. … The lower threshold as articulated in guidance in 2011 by the Office for Civil Rights provides the foundation for a likely outcome of responsibility that will protect survivors of sexual violence while still not prohibiting the individual found responsible for seeking educational opportunities later. The point of campus-adjudication processes is to affirm the rights of individuals to educational opportunities. And the reason we need federal laws and regulations to protect that structure, is that absent federal law and regulation, there isn't an established process to do that across the states. Now this isn't that, and there seems to be no doubt the kids who were revoked are responsible. Nor does there seem to be any due process issue if they hadn't been under contract. But colleges have already made the choice to make choices that protect themselves, not their students. I'm a little hesitant to simply assume that these kids will just be able to continue their lives as planned with just a different school.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 8, 2017 15:54:59 GMT -5
Still, I wonder if it's really good for us as a society to hammer every young person with the message "If you are ever caught saying anything offensive, it can have lifelong repercussions." (The reality is that that is currently the case, so yes, they need to learn that.) This would be what I was trying to get to, much better stated. ...and I'll third the sentiment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 17:16:38 GMT -5
I find it giggle-worthy that not attending Harvard might be considered a life-long repercussion that will blight these kids forever.
Another factor -- these kids didn't just happen to exchange a questionable meme or two in the context of a larger conversation. They formed a special facebook group, the sole purpose of which was to exchange memes they knew people would find offensive with other accepted Harvard candidates. Not just jokes -- offensive memes.
I love my dark humor. But never have I felt the need to form or join a group like that.
I do not blame Harvard for not wanting these kids at their school -- or for having such a group associated with their brand. If I had a corporation, I wouldn't want employees forming a facebook group expressly for employees of Cassandra Corp. to exchange memes. Taking aside whether I'd want to work with the clods, I'd be pissed off that they did so under the auspices of being Cassandra Corp. employees, thus dragging my brand into it.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 9, 2017 7:49:17 GMT -5
I find it giggle-worthy that not attending Harvard might be considered a life-long repercussion that will blight these kids forever. Come on. None of us is saying that. Just that losing a slot in Harvard is a big deal. It's a serious consequence. A deserved consequence, probably, but serious enough to be debatable. Like I said, my argument is not that in this particular case, for this particular offense, that this particular consequence is unmerited. I am just looking at the bigger picture. As a society, we're moving towards "One bad moment on social media can ruin you, especially if someone is out to get you." So it's worth considering. Kind of like I might agree that one particular shooting by a cop of an unarmed civilian was justified, but boy, that sure happens a lot and it's not a good thing, so maybe we should be looking extra hard at this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 8:15:07 GMT -5
But again -- Harvard did not seem to make the names of these kids public. At any rate, I've looked, and can't find them. So their misdeeds will not eternally cling to them.
Either they go to another school this year, or they take a year off (acquiring real world experience!) and apply to another ivy next year.
Also, I must note that as I watch some of my classmates and old acquaintances achieve high positions, I have my doubts about youthful misdeeds keeping someone from future success. I could tell you stories about a couple of people...stories of people playing dirty to get a judicial clerkship, getting caught, getting blackballed for that year...and coming back to get a prestigious clerkship the following year and ultimately becoming a judge. Stories about people actively involved with radical, controversial activities...and later rising to become a national mainstream figure.
And then there's Trump and the pussy tape.
The kids are paying a price, yes, but it is neither out of proportion nor fatal.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 9, 2017 14:43:26 GMT -5
The kids are paying a price, yes, but it is neither out of proportion nor fatal. What's the basis of saying it's not out proportion? What are you comparing it to? Seriously. You may be okay with it, may think it perfectly fair (and others might simply understand and accept Harvard's choice), but there's not an established standard here. If it were a state school or a community college, would your position be the same? Because mine wouldn't. I understand Harvard's decision because it's Harvard; if MDCC did this, I'd say they were overreacting in the extreme (given what I know about some of the kids and adults who attend that school). And if your position isn't the same, doesn't that indicate a lack of an actual standard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 16:46:32 GMT -5
Yes, I would be fine with the same standard applying. An exception might be if the school had some sort of specific procedure in place for this sort of scenario that obligated it to give a warning or some other punishment. (A state school might, for all I know.)
And as I've indicated above, I'd be fine with a company canning someone for this, or withdrawing an offer.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 9, 2017 16:55:14 GMT -5
So what if these kids end up having a hard time getting into any college because it's become known that they did this? You had Harvard as your 1st choice, accepted and now want to go to ABC college? And that's because why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 17:19:19 GMT -5
1) how will it be known to the admissions committee of every school when the first school didn't release the names?
...unless the kids were dumb enough to use their real names on the internet for every school in the world to see. In which case, it's up to each school whether it bothers them enough to deny admittance.
Frankly, even then -- if the kids work for a year or two, and then write an essay with their application talking about what they learned from the experience, at least some schools would admit them --maybe even Harvard.
People with criminal records get into colleges. For pity's sake, they will get in somewhere, though it's possible they might have to work a year.
Even were that not the case --
2) Does every kid need to go to college? As opposed to learning a trade, starting a business, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Jun 9, 2017 17:27:30 GMT -5
I think being a dick and engaging in dark humor are two separate things. Since I've been known to engage in humor of the darker sort, and since I've consequently interacted with a bunch of humorless people, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this. Well, not uniquely, but you know what I mean.
I have no idea what these kids posted so I can't judge them, but I can say I've seen a lot of vile crap online that I pretends to be dark humor but isn't. That said, I've also seen a whole bunch of people who wouldn't know humor if it bit them in the ass.
But it seems to me that while Vowels meant.this thread to be about dark humor, we can't seem to separate it from the fate of those poor ex-Harvard kids. I think a discussion of dark humor is something I'd love to have. A discussion about these kids is valid. But the thread doesn't seem to.be finding its way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 17:34:12 GMT -5
I agree with the pup.
My take on this, fwiw, is certainly based on my impression (culled from multiple articles) that these kids started a site for the purpose of sharing vile stuff, not because they engaged in a bit of what I'd call dark humor.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 9, 2017 17:56:47 GMT -5
I agree with Haggis as well, insofar as:
1) the kids are being judged--by us and others--based on general descriptions of what they did/posted, not on specific things (and that's a problem).
2) I did mean this thread to be about dark/irreverent humor in general, with regard to how it is or isn't acceptable.
And per Amadan, I think this Harvard situation reflects a general "one strike" mentality, with regard to people claiming that other people are doing offensive things (which explains and justifies Harvard's actions: appearance matters above all else), with dark humor potentially being one of those things.
So again, are there topics about which no joking should ever occur? Because that's what another member of the group said, one who WILL be attending Harvard next year. If one over-the-line meme makes someone "too dumb to live," does proclaiming that some topic are off limits make someone else too narrow-minded and puritanical to live?
I mean, think there's a real thing here, with dark humor: sometimes it misses. Doesn't make the person who missed into the scum of the earth, imo. It just means they missed. Now, if they keep on missing to the point that it reflects a mindset...
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 9, 2017 18:29:30 GMT -5
1) how will it be known to the admissions committee of every school when the first school didn't release the names? ...unless the kids were dumb enough to use their real names on the internet for every school in the world to see. In which case, it's up to each school whether it bothers them enough to deny admittance. Frankly, even then -- if the kids work for a year or two, and then write an essay with their application talking about what they learned from the experience, at least some schools would admit them --maybe even Harvard. People with criminal records get into colleges. For pity's sake, they will get in somewhere, though it's possible they might have to work a year. Even were that not the case -- 2) Does every kid need to go to college? As opposed to learning a trade, starting a business, etc.? 1) If they accepted an offer from Harvard, and turned down an offer from say Yale, then would Yale not want to know why? Also, there's a huge difference between choosing to take a year off to work vs being forced to. To have your life plans flushed down the toilet. And if writing an essay would get them into a college, why would Harvard not be able to tell them they were being put on a probation and tell them you must write an essay as put of understanding the reason why this is such a big deal? 2) of course not, but it's usually helpful if you say want to become a lawyer. Are they losing out on thousand of dollars worth of scholarships that they earned because they stayed home and studied more than the 10 wait-listed kids? You can't really think it's no big deal for a kid who has worked hard enough to earn a place in Harvard that they no longer get that spot and instead they should just forgo their dreams of a law degree and instead become a plumber. There's nothing at all wrong with choosing that. In fact, the opposite is true. We put far more value on the idea that you need that college degree. I'm a supporter of the idea that college just isn't for everyone. People think that they're going to go to college and therefore they will get a great job, but often they study shit that has no job opportunities. However, I think it's silly to assume that these kids would be fine just losing out on their life plans. Again, I don't know that Harvard was wrong, but I can't just shrug it off, nor do I think it's easily the only or even best choice they could have made. Kids screw up. Should a screw up like this have what could be life long consequences? Make 'em volunteer to work in a homeless shelter, a rape crisis center, a suicide prevention line. They're a fucking college, try turning it into a teachable moment.
|
|