[fullmetal]

That's messed up...wow :(

I think this kind of attention paid to student culture and life will be a good thing, on the whole.  Imagine the next generation of investment bankers and hedge funders coming out of this meme warrior group.

[fullmetal]

That's messed up...wow :(

I think this kind of attention paid to student culture and life will be a good thing, on the whole.  Imagine the next generation of investment bankers and hedge funders coming out of this meme warrior group.

[stupac2]

That's messed up...wow :(

I think this kind of attention paid to student culture and life will be a good thing, on the whole.  Imagine the next generation of investment bankers and hedge funders coming out of this meme warrior group.

It hardly takes any imagining.

[stupac2]

That's messed up...wow :(

I think this kind of attention paid to student culture and life will be a good thing, on the whole.  Imagine the next generation of investment bankers and hedge funders coming out of this meme warrior group.

It hardly takes any imagining.

[Snorlax94]

Lol on the last comments. One of my old close friends is a banker. He's not all bad. I would describe him as mostly amoral reapolitik, but not necessarily unethical or immoral.

As for this whole talk of the unbearable prospect of having an offer of admission being rescinded, to my understanding, this is actually a fairly regular event. I can't recall exactly where I learned this -- it may have been from when an admissions officer visited my frosh dorm for dinner -- but to my recollection, rescinded offers happen occasionally at Stanford. It could be for discovered fraud, but I think the most common cause is a high school senior whose work, consistency and grades collapse when grades are later received (perhaps after the second trimester, at a trimester-based highschool like mine). I recall offers of admission having clear wording that they were conditional.

The bar for rescinding an offer of admission is much, much lower than for expulsion or even suspension.

If the university learned a student had been convicted of a crime, even a misdemeanor, after being offered admission, should the university have the right to rescind the offer? Should the university never expel students and never fire staff out of fear that the person might harm themself? What about applicants who are not qualified but seem like they'd despair if they were not admitted?

Like others have said, I think a life lesson can be learned. Their lives will  not be ruined by going to cal -- or Tufts, the Berkeley of the east.

[Snorlax94]

Lol on the last comments. One of my old close friends is a banker. He's not all bad. I would describe him as mostly amoral reapolitik, but not necessarily unethical or immoral.

As for this whole talk of the unbearable prospect of having an offer of admission being rescinded, to my understanding, this is actually a fairly regular event. I can't recall exactly where I learned this -- it may have been from when an admissions officer visited my frosh dorm for dinner -- but to my recollection, rescinded offers happen occasionally at Stanford. It could be for discovered fraud, but I think the most common cause is a high school senior whose work, consistency and grades collapse when grades are later received (perhaps after the second trimester, at a trimester-based highschool like mine). I recall offers of admission having clear wording that they were conditional.

The bar for rescinding an offer of admission is much, much lower than for expulsion or even suspension.

If the university learned a student had been convicted of a crime, even a misdemeanor, after being offered admission, should the university have the right to rescind the offer? Should the university never expel students and never fire staff out of fear that the person might harm themself? What about applicants who are not qualified but seem like they'd despair if they were not admitted?

Like others have said, I think a life lesson can be learned. Their lives will  not be ruined by going to cal -- or Tufts, the Berkeley of the east.

[GoodGrief]

I think their posts were reprehensible and repugnant, and I confess I recognize some of myself in their attitude (not necessarily in their exact words but in the attempt to be as offensive as possible).

I wish they had been given a second chance, not necessarily because they deserve it but because maybe those are the exact types that need the enlightenment that Harvard could have provided.

I do look at the a-hole things I did and said, especially in my 20's, and I wonder how much I would have missed out if Stanford had rescinded my admittance. I really bristled against the political correctness at Stanford my frosh year, but it was a seed that slowly grew and opened my mind as an adult.

Everybody is an idiot sometimes, especially in what they think is private.

[GoodGrief]

I think their posts were reprehensible and repugnant, and I confess I recognize some of myself in their attitude (not necessarily in their exact words but in the attempt to be as offensive as possible).

I wish they had been given a second chance, not necessarily because they deserve it but because maybe those are the exact types that need the enlightenment that Harvard could have provided.

I do look at the a-hole things I did and said, especially in my 20's, and I wonder how much I would have missed out if Stanford had rescinded my admittance. I really bristled against the political correctness at Stanford my frosh year, but it was a seed that slowly grew and opened my mind as an adult.

Everybody is an idiot sometimes, especially in what they think is private.

[2006alum]

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.

[2006alum]

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.

[dabigv13]

Good take.

[dabigv13]

Good take.

[BostonCard]

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.

Great points.

Also, if you are contrite and show that you've learned your lesson, that counts in your favor; if you act like an entitled jackass, muck less so.

I also have to wonder to what extent the recent allegations of vulgar and derogatory language by the men's soccer team (leading to the season being cancelled) heightened sensitivities here.  This may be a case of Harvard wanting to nip things in the bud, and make sure that the culture of the incoming class is not one that is hostile towards outgroups.

And, lest you think this is just an issue for academia, just today news came out that Uber just fired 20 employees (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/techn...fired.html) amid an investigation into workplace culture.  [Of course, color me a bit cynical about Uber, where the "workplace culture" starts at the top]

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

Great points.

Also, if you are contrite and show that you've learned your lesson, that counts in your favor; if you act like an entitled jackass, muck less so.

I also have to wonder to what extent the recent allegations of vulgar and derogatory language by the men's soccer team (leading to the season being cancelled) heightened sensitivities here.  This may be a case of Harvard wanting to nip things in the bud, and make sure that the culture of the incoming class is not one that is hostile towards outgroups.

And, lest you think this is just an issue for academia, just today news came out that Uber just fired 20 employees (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/techn...fired.html) amid an investigation into workplace culture.  [Of course, color me a bit cynical about Uber, where the "workplace culture" starts at the top]

BC

[Mick]

Lol on the last comments. One of my old close friends is a banker. He's not all bad. I would describe him as mostly amoral reapolitik, but not necessarily unethical or immoral.

As for this whole talk of the unbearable prospect of having an offer of admission being rescinded, to my understanding, this is actually a fairly regular event. I can't recall exactly where I learned this -- it may have been from when an admissions officer visited my frosh dorm for dinner -- but to my recollection, rescinded offers happen occasionally at Stanford. It could be for discovered fraud, but I think the most common cause is a high school senior whose work, consistency and grades collapse when grades are later received (perhaps after the second trimester, at a trimester-based highschool like mine). I recall offers of admission having clear wording that they were conditional.

The bar for rescinding an offer of admission is much, much lower than for expulsion or even suspension.

If the university learned a student had been convicted of a crime, even a misdemeanor, after being offered admission, should the university have the right to rescind the offer? Should the university never expel students and never fire staff out of fear that the person might harm themself? What about applicants who are not qualified but seem like they'd despair if they were not admitted?

Like others have said, I think a life lesson can be learned. Their lives will  not be ruined by going to ןɐɔ -- or Tufts, the Berkeley of the east.

Oh, I agree, the bar is lower for rescinding offers of admission.  In fact, the Ivies spell it out.

I'm reading from my son's acceptance letter/likely letter.  I won't quote it, but it details three instances in which the offer will be rescinded:
  * If you commit a felony.
  * If you drop a class.
  * If you get a "D" in any of your classes during your Spring semester of your senior year.

Those three things happen regularly, they're known risks.  "If you post something on social media that we don't like" wasn't one of the enumerated risks.

[Mick]

Lol on the last comments. One of my old close friends is a banker. He's not all bad. I would describe him as mostly amoral reapolitik, but not necessarily unethical or immoral.

As for this whole talk of the unbearable prospect of having an offer of admission being rescinded, to my understanding, this is actually a fairly regular event. I can't recall exactly where I learned this -- it may have been from when an admissions officer visited my frosh dorm for dinner -- but to my recollection, rescinded offers happen occasionally at Stanford. It could be for discovered fraud, but I think the most common cause is a high school senior whose work, consistency and grades collapse when grades are later received (perhaps after the second trimester, at a trimester-based highschool like mine). I recall offers of admission having clear wording that they were conditional.

The bar for rescinding an offer of admission is much, much lower than for expulsion or even suspension.

If the university learned a student had been convicted of a crime, even a misdemeanor, after being offered admission, should the university have the right to rescind the offer? Should the university never expel students and never fire staff out of fear that the person might harm themself? What about applicants who are not qualified but seem like they'd despair if they were not admitted?

Like others have said, I think a life lesson can be learned. Their lives will  not be ruined by going to ןɐɔ -- or Tufts, the Berkeley of the east.

Oh, I agree, the bar is lower for rescinding offers of admission.  In fact, the Ivies spell it out.

I'm reading from my son's acceptance letter/likely letter.  I won't quote it, but it details three instances in which the offer will be rescinded:
  * If you commit a felony.
  * If you drop a class.
  * If you get a "D" in any of your classes during your Spring semester of your senior year.

Those three things happen regularly, they're known risks.  "If you post something on social media that we don't like" wasn't one of the enumerated risks.

[Mick]

I do look at the a-hole things I did and said, especially in my 20's.  Everybody is an idiot sometimes, especially in what they think is private.

How about in your teens?

I've heard from numerous people over the years what a terrific, moral, upstanding man my father is and was.  One of my wife's family friends told my future in laws "If Mick is half the man his father is" blah blah blah.  And he was and is a great guy.  At the same time, I've heard about what he was like as a teenager (from my uncles and his ex-wife -- they met and married when they were teens) and the stories were hair-raising.  If they were true, I wouldn't give him a job digging ditches.

[Mick]

I do look at the a-hole things I did and said, especially in my 20's.  Everybody is an idiot sometimes, especially in what they think is private.

How about in your teens?

I've heard from numerous people over the years what a terrific, moral, upstanding man my father is and was.  One of my wife's family friends told my future in laws "If Mick is half the man his father is" blah blah blah.  And he was and is a great guy.  At the same time, I've heard about what he was like as a teenager (from my uncles and his ex-wife -- they met and married when they were teens) and the stories were hair-raising.  If they were true, I wouldn't give him a job digging ditches.

[CTcard]

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.

Doesn't that sentence simply define high school?
[Except for the part about being admitted to Harvard.]


(And despite the snide comment, I basically agree.)

[CTcard]

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.

Doesn't that sentence simply define high school?
[Except for the part about being admitted to Harvard.]


(And despite the snide comment, I basically agree.)

[fullmetal]

I do not think it is at all normal to engage in meme wars-type normalization of violence and racism, at least not among my cohort of top-tier university applicants some decade(s) ago.  As dense, tunnel-visioned, and immature as I was, those kinds of sentiments were beyond reasonable humor for most people I knew, let alone Stanford applicants, let alone admits.

Having said that, it's clear now that those sentiments exist throughout most cross-sections of society, but I do not think they are worthy of tolerance or propagation.

[fullmetal]

I do not think it is at all normal to engage in meme wars-type normalization of violence and racism, at least not among my cohort of top-tier university applicants some decade(s) ago.  As dense, tunnel-visioned, and immature as I was, those kinds of sentiments were beyond reasonable humor for most people I knew, let alone Stanford applicants, let alone admits.

Having said that, it's clear now that those sentiments exist throughout most cross-sections of society, but I do not think they are worthy of tolerance or propagation.