I think a lot of this stuff turns on intentionality, which is why I suspect Harvard asked people to explain themselves. If you make a crude and possibly offensive joke among an intimate group of friends in a setting where you don't expect or intend others to overhear you, that's one thing.
If you earnestly say something over a list-serve that some people might take offense to, but to which you intended none, and you later clarify the misunderstanding/possible ignorance of your statement, that's another.
If you say something possibly offensive to make a point about free speech, political hegemony, etc., even that may be understandable in the context of the circumstances.
However, if you are cultivating an exclusive culture where it is "cool" to say purposefully offensive things for no reason other than to be a jackass, and to socially promote others for doing the same (and especially where you know the comments will offend a large portion of the very group to which you're sharing them), then the intention behind that is simply to leverage your privilege (i.e., a Harvard admission) as the basis to get others to join you in being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Under those circumstances, I have absolutely no problem with Harvard turning around and effectively saying, "No, you don't get to use the privilege we conveyed upon you that way." I am certain thousands of people are engaging in "offensive one-upsmanship" in facebook groups as we speak. We don't care about those people because they aren't using a very important symbol of privilege and credibility as a means of doing it and getting others to join them.
Context matters. Intention matters. While I generally find it troubling for a university to function as the thought police, in these particular circumstances, I don't find it very troubling, because these students were callously misusing the privilege Harvard had just granted them simply because they could.
If you earnestly say something over a list-serve that some people might take offense to, but to which you intended none, and you later clarify the misunderstanding/possible ignorance of your statement, that's another.
If you say something possibly offensive to make a point about free speech, political hegemony, etc., even that may be understandable in the context of the circumstances.
However, if you are cultivating an exclusive culture where it is "cool" to say purposefully offensive things for no reason other than to be a jackass, and to socially promote others for doing the same (and especially where you know the comments will offend a large portion of the very group to which you're sharing them), then the intention behind that is simply to leverage your privilege (i.e., a Harvard admission) as the basis to get others to join you in being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Under those circumstances, I have absolutely no problem with Harvard turning around and effectively saying, "No, you don't get to use the privilege we conveyed upon you that way." I am certain thousands of people are engaging in "offensive one-upsmanship" in facebook groups as we speak. We don't care about those people because they aren't using a very important symbol of privilege and credibility as a means of doing it and getting others to join them.
Context matters. Intention matters. While I generally find it troubling for a university to function as the thought police, in these particular circumstances, I don't find it very troubling, because these students were callously misusing the privilege Harvard had just granted them simply because they could.