Harvard Pulls Student Offers Over Online Comments (go.com) 689
Reader joshtops shares a report: Harvard University's student newspaper says the school has revoked admission offers to at least 10 prospective freshmen over offensive online messages. The Harvard Crimson says the students posted images and comments in a private Facebook group mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities. The newspaper reported that several group members said at least 10 people were told by Harvard in April that their acceptances had been withdrawn.
Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Interesting)
Harvard is a private school, not a public school. Their call to reject students based on this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it's legal and all. But it sure has a chilling effect - no doubt that's the point. Watch what you say, watch what you think, watch what shows on your face - they're watching you. For your own good, you understand, like a big brother looking out for you.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't say those things. It says if you're an asshole you're not welcome here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it doesn't say those things. It says if you're an asshole you're not welcome here.
To repeat what should have been bloody obvious to you: Who gets to define "asshole." ? Suppose a college withdraws acceptances for some kids who post that they put their faith in $DEITY over government, for example?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Antifa? Alrighty. So let me get this straight - Harvard can have almost completely arbitrary entry criteria, so long as it doesn't violate a government-protected class. Harvard can select kids preferentially based on community service, extra-circulars, grades, essay answers, interviews, etc. All in an effort to get whatever they deem to be a "Harvard" caliber candidate. Yet, somehow, Facebook posts are a line you aren't willing to cross?
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4, Insightful)
The part that not enough people are discussing is why a private Facebook group became public knowledge enough for Harvard to make this decision.
This should be a discussion of privacy and how to not trust anyone, but instead it's all bickering and arguing about who's a bigger asshole.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
The part that not enough people are discussing is why a private Facebook group became public knowledge enough for Harvard to make this decision. This should be a discussion of privacy and how to not trust anyone, but instead it's all bickering and arguing about who's a bigger asshole.
Read TFA. (Also the source article it links to). Harvard created an official group for the Class of 2021. TFA says: "students were required to post provocative memes in the bigger group before being allowed into the smaller one". So of course this was visible to Harvard, which is how the Harvard Admissions Office reached out to the posters of offensive memes asking for an explanation. I have to assume that at least one of the people they contacted, went on to tell them about the private group and showed them messages.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because that view is 100% correct. I don't understand why conservatives think there's a constitutional right to say whatever you want without consequences. it's almost as though they've never read the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never, under any circumstances, intended for there to never be any social consequences for your speech. Only that the State can't censor you for your content. Not everybody else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is...unless there is a societal foundation to support the governmental free spee
Re: (Score:3)
So you're advocating a new federal government law that actually forbids freedom of association?
So if I have a private party in my back yard and someone brings a friend who then starts telling everyone how great Hitler was, I'm not allowed to demand that he leave my property, but instead of I have to have a debate with him about this?
Are you fucking insane?
What the hell has this country come to when the leftists are the ones supporting freedom of association, and the right-wingers are openly opposed to it?
No
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a very narrow view of history if you think that. What happens when the government is complicit in the oppression of a people? The KKK and blacks are a prime example. It wasn't the government oppressing black people but also the government didn't do anything to stop it or enforce law and order. Only when black people armed themselves did the KKK subside in any meaningful way.
What you're saying is that any group can oppress any other group so long as the government is complicit in that oppression. Hey, it isn't the government silencing you or restricting your right to vote. If it's against the law just call the police. Oh, they didn't answer? Well shucks! At least the government isn't oppressing us!
Yes, there are social consequences to your actions but just as other rights have been codified into private policy such as equality before the law so to should there be some protections for speech in such a speak easy world. To put it another way, Twitter (the preferred platform for POTUS for better or worse) should not be able to ban political ideology just like they cannot ban black people.
Re: (Score:3)
The activities of the KKK were not "social consequences". An example of a social consequence is someone exercising their freedom of association and choosing not to do business with you or interact with you on a social level.
Blocking your access to the polls is the same in effect regardless if it is done with a gun or a mob. Is it social consequence protestors blocking the streets that get you fired from your job or your access to the polls? The KKK and modern protestors do it for different reasons but to similar effect. Yes, I understand your milder version of social consequence but you should understand that when you are talking about public accommodations your 'milder' versions of social consequences are blown out of proport
Re: (Score:3)
What's really funny is that, way back int he 60s, it was the liberals crowing about free speech and the conservatives trying to shut it down.
Now, the conservatives carry the free speech banner, and the liberals are doing the shutting down.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't say those things. It says if you're an asshole you're not welcome here.
To repeat what should have been bloody obvious to you: Who gets to define "asshole." ? Suppose a college withdraws acceptances for some kids who post that they put their faith in $DEITY over government, for example?
You are saying you would WANT to attend a college that considers such a thing?
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gets to define "asshole." ?
Harvard gets to decide. It's a private school.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if you're arguing that it's the government's role, then the fact that Harvard is a private business is irrelevant.
If you're a libertarian, who believes in freedom and limiting government power then you would say that each of these businesses (Harvard, the bar and the bakery) can make their own choice.
Re: (Score:3)
if Harvard can do what it wants because it's a private entity then why shouldn't the bar owner? Who should decide? The business (who chooses to cater to smokers) or the government?
Many states, cities, and other municipalities have decided to regulate smoking in bars because of the public health hazards of secondary smoke. Local governments generally have much broader discretion in determining such polices than, say, federal free speech laws or whatever.
If you're a libertarian, who believes in freedom and limiting government power then you would say that each of these businesses (Harvard, the bar and the bakery) can make their own choice.
Actually, libertarians generally believe that your rights only extend so far that you don't harm others. There's at least a legitimate argument -- which you may or may not agree with -- that the health hazards of secondary smoke are
Re: (Score:3)
They do. Assholes are not a protected class, unlike blacks, gay folks, etc. There's nothing that says a private institution can't discriminate based on what a person says.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the people who are deciding whether you are admitted to their private organization get to define "asshole". And they did.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the college gets to define it. It is a private institution and as such has a reputation that is based on the moral as well as academic reputation of their graduates. SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have. That is what makes their brand and degree more ( or less) valuable the someone else's.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
It is a private institution [...] SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have.
Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. There are still anti-discrimination laws private institutions must follow, so for example a whites only or blacks only college is illegal under federal law. Also, Harvard receives federal funding which, despite being a private college, makes them subject to a slew of other laws controlling what criteria they can use to admit students.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, right. The First Amendment only protects the obnoxious organized religions and not the moderate unorganized religions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what your counter-argument is. Because no one can define a black-and-white line between the two, anything goes?
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose a college withdraws acceptances for some kids who post that they put their faith in $DEITY over government, for example?
Depending on the choice of $DEITY my college may have rejected me. But that's their prerogative as a private and exclusive institution. Quite frankly the admissions process to top universities in America is already a subject of many comedic jokes. This case here is completely fitting.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not able to talk about such things, then the belief in them doesn't go away..it just goes underground, and festers.....and then they never get exposed to other points of view.
The free exchange of ideas, allows for beliefs to be put forth and discussed, and in such discussion, the better ones stay and the others fade.
They fade NOT because they are shouted down, or not allowed to be expressed, but by thoughtful conversation and making valid points to address the weaknesses of the weaker argument.
I was just watching an interesting video yesterday on Amazon Prime Can We Take A Joke" [imdb.com] , and it really puts an interesting light on what's happening on today's campuses.
Its interesting how in the past, saw with Lenny Bruce...that is was the far Right that had him arrested and shut down.
It was the more liberal colleges that pushed the greatest back then, IMHO, for true free speech...even controversial speech.
And now today...PC and such, are closing down speech again, but this time, instead of the right pushing it...it is the left.
I would posit the best way to get bad speech out of the way, it to allow it to be spoken, and don't shout it down, but speak against it and debate it.
Surely the best side will win on merit?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that some speech suppresses other speech. Having a KKK march on campus is likely to creating a chilling effect on other students. The institution has to balance competing freedoms. That is done by requiring people to moderate the way they express their ideas, while trying to allow even the most extreme ones to still be expressed in full.
In other words, it's as much about the manner of speech as the content.
Re: Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
You're comparing mocking sexual assault, racism and the holocaust to religious beliefs?
Uh, yeah? Have you ever read the Bible/Koran/Torah? They make 4chan look tame in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget Christianity and Judaism. There's one part in the Bible where the Jews attack and murder all the members of some other tribe because supposedly God told them to. And I'm pretty sure there's verses in there supporting sexual assault (including other attacks on other tribes where they subjugate the women after killing the men).
Also, the Holocaust was committed by Christians. Debate the secret beliefs of the top nazi leaders all you want, but all the people actually manning the camps and abduct
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so your values agree with their values, and that's all that matters? Of course that's all that maters! Unpeople are unwelcome anywhere!
Re: (Score:2)
It actually says that if you are, IN THEIR OPINION, an asshole, you're not welcome there. It also defines that people should conform to the norms and standards they are setting to be able to prosper in society (by influencing other colleges to follow suit on private censorship - "if the most respected does, we should do it too").
Related to this, the whole "private censorship is fine" argument is a mean to obtain total censorship. Just like the third party theory is being used for total surveillance.
Note: if
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah? Define 'asshole'. I dare you.
You can say some things are intolerable without having to be able to define an exact line between asshole and not-asshole.
From the summary:
a private Facebook group mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities
Yeah, that falls pretty solidly within realm of 'asshole.' No tough call here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
If you can provide a specific example then we will evaluate it and reply to you.
Just so we're on the same page here, bear in mind that the history of the region within the last couple-hundred years is rather complicated, so you might not like the result.
Re: (Score:3)
Just so we're on the same page here, bear in mind that the history of the region within the last couple-hundred years is rather complicated, so you might not like the result.
s/within the last couple-hundred years //
Seriously, is there any region on the planet that's been invaded by more different people?
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4, Insightful)
One can object to the political situation in the middle east without invoking racial or ethnic slurs.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how the participants in the fight like to frame it, because then it forces you to pick a side. The key is to not fall into that trap and call out whoever is behaving badly.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you may be labeled antisemtic, or labeled racist or islamophobic, but labels are usually applied by others. Those others in-turn have their own labels, etc.
Granted, you can be those too, but you do not have to be those things in order for someone that disagrees with you to label you as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you're anti-Semitic in both cases, since Arabs are Semites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, they're assholes, too. Generally speaking, advocating for the destruction of a populous is an asshole thing to do. If somebody got accepted to a private school in Palestine, and then they got busted, in a private FB group, calling for Palestine's destruction, I don't see how that wouldn't also be subject to a reasonable, "no assholes here" rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. It's a private institution and the only thing that matters is what the board of admissions thinks along with the guiding hand of anti-discrimination law.
Re: (Score:3)
do you not see the double standard though?
private organizations either have the right to choose who to admit, or they don't. the actual opinions they're weighing in on should be utterly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
having said that, they are a private school and can admit or refuse anyone for any reason
No they can't. Federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination against specific classes of people, and some of those laws, including the ADA, apply to college admissions.
Harvard also receives federal grants and is a government contractor, so that adds additional requirements and obligations.
However, no anti-discrimination laws protect racist assholes, so Harvard should be okay in this case.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the red flag here isn't bigotry, it's hazing. Prove you're extreme enough to join our in-group, then pressure others to do the same.
Toxic conformity produces all the ills bigotry does and then some, but with none of the sincerity. It's doing what you're told simply because you were told.
Bigotry, where it isn't tied to some kind of psychopathy, is mainly a matter of ignorance. You can educate people out of it. But the hazing mentality is refractory and self-perpetuating. The recent Penn hazing case shows that academically smart kids who are prone to act like irresponsible conformist idiots can't be fixed by anti-hazing policies and educational programs. They just have to grow out of it. Some people never do.
People who are susceptible to this kind of social pressure might even need a controlled form of supervised hazing, like boot camp.
Re: (Score:3)
First thing.
Free speech is only in regards to the ability to have the freedom of speech and not have the government (federal or state) stifle what you can say.
Second thing.
You are welcome to have the freedom of speech to say anything you want, but that freedom does not remove the consequences of your speech.
So if YOU are one of those people that feels you should be able to say anything you want but should not faces any consequences then you can "FUCK OFF".
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
You socially engineer an invitation to join. For some reason that doesn't strike me as being particularly difficult in this instance.
A lot of people have leapt immediately to "free speech" arguments, what they don't get is that the people who outed themselves by joining this group also proved they're too dumb for university because they left the information where it could be found relatively easily on a system with no anonymity. Put it this way: 99.999% of Slashdotters are smarter than that, would you want that bottom 0.001% attending your college?
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Harward University's definition of "asshole" evidently includes people mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities... and that's the only definition which matters when discussion Harward University's decision to revoke these admission.
You are still entitled to your own definition of "asshole", which might differ: just don't expect it to have any weight whatsoever on Harward University's.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't need to. The Harvard admissions board does, and did. That's the idea of a *private* institution. What you or I think has no bearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the thing. There 'SHOULD' be a strong divide in what people expect from a private institution vs a government run one. In my house, my rules. If you don't like them don't come in. Don't do business with me. This is a private college so they have every right to accept or reject anyone based on any characteristic the governing group thinks makes their private association better. Other people can not like it and think it is crappy as much as they want but this is NOT a public institution. Simi
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
but what will it be tomorrow?
That is scary!
They might start only admitting kids who have done community service, out of some quaint notion that "good" people (by Harvard's arbitrary definition) might volunteer to help others.
They might start only admitting kids who answer an arbitrary essay question in some way that Harvard deems acceptable.
They might start only admitting kids who were on team sports because Harvard has decided that they arbitrarily value this "ability" to work together as some kind of character worthy of Harvard.
It's a truly slippery slope we are on when these colleges get to decide what kind of a person attends.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is suppressing "free speech". These idiots are free to spout their nonsense all they want. No one is stopping them.
but in the US the constitution protects free speech and the truest test of free speech is whether you would allow a person to express opinions you detest.
Again, no one is prohibiting these idiots from saying what they want. Not Harvard, not Facebook, not anyone. They can continue to spout off as muc
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, people are always watching Harvard. They really need to watch what their students say, it could really reflect badly on their student population at large if some of them happened to be insufferable pricks. It'd be almost like saying they condoned that kind of behavior...
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chilling effect? I'd disagree-- Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
You can say these things without being prosecuted by law, but don't be surprised when nobody likes you and nobody wants you around.
Re: (Score:3)
Not associating or being around someone you don't like is very different than having limited access to public accommodations. If the government is complicit with your "consequences" what is the effective difference if that person cannot exercise their rights or use public accommodations? Do you think black people were happy not able to vote because it was the KKK that stopped their vote with a complicit government?
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
Um, yes, that's exactly what it means. That is, in fact, the definition.
No. It means that you are free from governmental consequences. Private entities are still free to tell you to fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's legal and all. But it sure has a chilling effect - no doubt that's the point. Watch what you say, watch what you think, watch what shows on your face - they're watching you. For your own good, you understand, like a big brother looking out for you.
That assumes that they're doing it because they personally disagree with what was said. Instead, it could be that they simply don't want to be dealing with lawsuits or riots in two or three years because some asshat with a history of posting egregiously racist or sexist jokes continued doing similar things once they matriculated.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting fired for telling your boss to go fuck himself/herself also probably has a chilling effect. Anyone in the office who thought maybe they could get away with doing the same thing without getting fired will have a serious disincentive to express their 1st amendment free speech rights in this way.
I'm a libertarian, and this is the sort of chilling effects that I am comfortable with.
The private school maintains it's freedom to accept and reject whomever it wants, and the students are free to apply to any other schools they wish and those other schools are free to accept or reject them.
Your actions have consequences. The constitution promises that your speech will not have legal consequences in most circumstances (except special cases like perjury, etc). It is not limitless. These kids are either adults or soon to be adults. This is an important lesson to learn. Another important lesson is that one setback (e.g. not getting into a particular school) is not the end of the world, and it is an experience you can learn from and improve yourself. A third very important lesson, is to assume that everything on the internet is forever. Everyone says embarrassing stuff on the internet and in real life. Embarrassing things are easily forgiven if not forgotten. Try not to say to many things that you would be actually ashamed (not just embarrassed) of if made public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't mock rape. I think rapists deserve the death penalty. And I will mock the SJW who say that 1/4 of the women in college are raped as I don't think that "hitting" on a girl qualifies as rape
So yeah, mocking may actually be in order -- DEPENDING (of course) on what they're mocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah they're "private" but they take in a shit load of public money, to the tune of over 600 million dollars in a recent year. Not to mention the exemption they enjoy regarding their endowment. It's not as simple as just calling them private full stop when they sidle up to the public trough.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, the only reason people use the 'it's legal therefore fine' argument is because it's the "right" side punishing the "bad" offenders. Were the ideological stances juxtaposed, it would no longer be 'fine cause it's legal', it would be censorship and abuse of power. It has nothing to do with autism and everything to do with double moral.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken, there are at least some people who have enough ideologically integrity to realize that private liberal college has just as much right to expel people for opposing abortion as a catholic college has to expel people for supporting it. Or more over if such a thing as a private 'atheist' college exists they have every right to expel a student who joins and professes a religion or belief in God , just as much as a Catholic college has a right to expel anyone claiming to be an atheist. ( Yes, I
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In the US?
List them.
Re:Seems reasonable. (Score:4)
I wonder if you'd have that opinion if the school was not accepting them for liking the same sex or having dark skin. After all, they're still free to like the same sex and have dark skin.
Mr burns can get them into yale! (Score:3)
Mr burns can get them into yale!
As it should (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something that everyone should be aware of when posting views and comments on the Internet. If you do not want it to be public forever, then do not post.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is something that everyone should be aware of when posting views and comments on the Internet. If you do not want it to be public forever, then do not post.
Or, you can post without using an account and post whatever the fuck you like.
Anonymous Coward is not really accurate. Anonymous Smarter Person is more like it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is some of the best simple advice everyone should be aware of.
Good news (Score:3, Funny)
Good news for 10 people on the waitlist.
Man (Score:4, Funny)
People forget Colleges are not Vo Techs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Colleges are not Vo Techs. It was NOT the original purpose of a college to prepare someone for the work force. They were designed an intended to teach people MORALITY first and science and information second. Western universities come to us originally as an effort of Medieval religious education intended for priest Monks and the ruling class. So anyone going to college should expect to be subject to moral formation. It might be an idea for parents to consider if they agree with the moral formation they are paying for. No one should kid themselves. Even state run schools have an agenda and program of moral formation. Often times a very anti-religious one.
Re:People forget Colleges are not Vo Techs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I learned "morality" as a child, and I didn't learn it in school. If I wasn't moral by college age, I wasn't going to be.
Private group? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be warned, millenials! Nothing is private on the interwebs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Private group? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is pretty much Rule #1 of Internet use: No matter what you post, no matter how private the message or restricted the forum, assume that it WILL get out. If you wouldn't say this to your spouse, parents, siblings, relatives, boss, co-workers, etc, then you should seriously reconsider saying it online.
Re:Private group? (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
There was no need for access to the private group if the entry requirement was to post something like the memes described in the official Class of '21 facebook group set up by Harvard employees.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a troubling trend (Score:4, Informative)
As a private institution, Harvard does indeed have the right to pull the plug on admissions on anyone. However, it is a (and excuse using what often is a logical fallacy [wikipedia.org]), a slippery slope. With all of the illogical attacks and rampant emotionalism happening on campus these days, I often say to my sig-other, that I would never attend college these days. In fact, as a alumni of one of the most liberal colleges, I don't support the alumni association with donations, instead I give my dough to thefire.org [thefire.org]. If you haven't been keeping track, here are a few examples: Yale 2.0 at Evergreen State College [thefire.org], When the left eats its own [nytimes.com], Harvard president defends free speech in commencement speech; Harvard still actively suppresses student rights [thefire.org], and the list just goes on and on. The trend away from using logic, peer-review, toward speech-crimes and railing against traditional western liberal free thought and debate is just intellectually mind numbing.
Cover your ass versus protection from harm? (Score:3)
Over 400 comments, so it's what passes for a "popular" topic on today's Slashdot. Especially disappointed by the feeble attempts at humor, but maybe those funny mods were just examples of the latest craze among trolls, using "funny" mods to attack in a less obvious way. "Hey, just because YOU didn't appreciate the humor."
The obvious angle for insight did not seem to be touched at all. Of course I started by searching for comments modded as "insightful", and then I went through a bunch of keyword searches. Came up with nothing along the lines of my Subject: question.
In brief, if the Harvard people are just trying to cover their own ass (the university's collective ass?) by avoiding being linked with stupid posts on Facebook (or Slashdot), then it's a depressing kind of cowardice in what is supposed to be one of the leading institutions of America. ("Hey, but it's just a symptom of how America is LOSING", as the Trumpists would say.)
If the Harvard people are sincerely interested in protecting society from harm, then it's a completely different thing. Maybe they remember such moral disasters as that AG who defended torture for Dubya and that little Ted Cruz coward who were empowered to do much of their damage by their Harvard imprimaturs. I for one would not blame Harvard for seeking to avoid creating the next (and possibly worse, ITIP) Ted Cruz.
Lots of largely incoherent mumbling about free speech in this Slashdot discussion, but I doubt most (or perhaps any?) of them actually know what freedom is.
Re: Cool (Score:2)
Swing and a miss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Thoughtcriminals (Score:2, Insightful)
Posting on a forum is an action. People can still be as racist as they want in their thoughts, those can't be read (yet).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the "left-wing point of view" sexual assault is bad, the holocaust happened, and people of different races are people too.
LOL, you're a funny boy/girl
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Schools have codes of conduct, many of which prohibit forms of what would be perceived as hateful behavior (whether that's righteous or not is not the point here). Would not surprise me that this crossed the line, hence the rescind.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the results of her trial for the Marin County Courthouse affair, she is not a murderer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that Universities welcome free speech, but this story is not an example of that phenomenon. These were prospective students, not actual students. Wait for the story of Harvard expelling actual students for the same.