
Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat - danso
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/harvard-withdraws-10-acceptances-for-offensive-memes-in-private-chat/
======
metaphorm
I'm so conflicted right now.

On the one hand, yeah, that shit is offensive and I'm not too keen on
elevating a person who makes jokes about sexual assault or violence against
minorities.

On the other hand I'm terrified at the creeping surveillance society that has
institutions examining all of our utterances for "wrong speech", which is much
too close for comfort to "wrong think", which is much too close for comfort to
"wrong person".

~~~
JoshTriplett
Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of
"thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much
_positive_ effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping
ignorance.

There are some ignorant thoughts that have almost entirely fallen out of the
collective consciousness (in terms of serious belief, not abstract discussion
of the past). (As a random example, there are vanishingly few ignorant people
left who genuinely believe that disease is a punishment of the wicked that
should not be interfered with, "ostracize the lepers", etc.) There are many
more that need to.

If you think that some people are inherently "lesser" than others and can be
treated as such, that's _wrong_. If you think that it's OK to assault people,
that's _wrong_. Whether that turns into violent action or not, it still
pervades other actions and societal structure, and it's the source of more
subtle discrimination; that it has gone as far as being written and conveyed
in ways that influence others makes it more than just _thoughts_. It's a good
thing to influence society in ways that make people who think and write and
talk and influence others in that way less successful, favoring people who
don't, and over time find that fewer people think that way.

Because the same power that makes it possible for institutions to do that also
gives us a check on those institutions. It seems entirely fine for an
institution to look at the kind of person they're accepting and be selective
in this way. If we start seeing institutions be selective for things we _don
't_ want to see selection on, we can push back on those institutions. There's
no slippery slope here.

We're not talking about violent suppression of free speech. We're talking
about non-violent exercise of the right to free association, to shun racists
and sexists.

~~~
stcredzero
_Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of
"thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much positive
effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping ignorance._

Authorities, especially institutions of higher learning, shouldn't be in the
business of policing their student's speech. That's not "culture." That's
oppression. Using bad actions in the service of good is still a bad idea.

 _If you think that some people are inherently "lesser" than others and can be
treated as such, that's wrong._

I sure think it's wrong. But policing that _thought_ by policing speech that
results from it is also wrong.

 _If you think that it 's OK to assault people, that's wrong._

Is Harvard going after the "punch a Nazi" memers and advocates with as much
vigor? As a liberal, I find that much more distrubing because in that case
people are dressing up bad actions and teaching young people to think of them
as somehow good and socially redeeming. Is that what we want? Jingoistic
ideologues who can commit guiltless violence, supposedly in the name of your
values and love? (Ironically, the most used word to describe an emotion at the
Nuremberg rally filmed by Leni Reifensthal: Love.)

 _that it has gone as far as being written and conveyed in ways that influence
others makes it more than just thoughts._

Yup. That's called _speech_. So what you want is authoritarian control of
_speech_. In institutions of higher learning. Like Berkeley, maybe?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> So what you want is authoritarian control of speech.

Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences, which can
and should include rejection by widespread parts of civilized society, and
bask in the solitude. The crickets will surely enjoy your free speech.

You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people _like_
it.

~~~
throwanem
There's a bit of a difference between "I don't like this" and "I'm going to
respond to this by attempting to destroy your social and professional life".
It's disingenuous to pretend that your argument encompasses only the former,
when identical contentions are so often deployed in support of the latter.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I think "rejection by widespread parts of civilized society" is a clear
statement that I support both. Let me be explicit: racists and sexists should
find it impossible to maintain a social and professional life, until they stop
being racist and sexist. (And in the process, that also improves social and
professional settings through their absence.) That's not a violent action,
that's a highly effective non-violent action. And if it draws so much fire
from the kinds of people it affects, perhaps that's because it _works_.

~~~
throwanem
Well, yes, certainly social and professional exclusion of one's political
opponents has some historical evidence for its efficacy as a tactic, at least
in the short term.

Those of us who have qualms around consequentialism find this efficacy not
reason enough to regard such behavior as exemplary of virtue. Those who do not
have such qualms might be well advised to consider, from a utilitarian
perspective, the ultimate outcomes which recent history has shown profligate
use of this tactic to produce. And those who try to disclaim the grasp their
political and cultural tendency has on power would do well to remember that
this is, always and only, a tactic of hegemony, without which it cannot work
at all.

In any case, as I said before, I like the honesty.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> political opponents

Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too,
given people's allergy to politics. It's sad that this has, especially
recently, become equated to politics. "How should we organize government", or
"are certain functions better handled by government" are reasonable questions
of politics. "Should we treat some people as less than other people" is not a
question of politics, it's a question of humanity, that _should_ be orthogonal
to politics. It's possible to be toxic anywhere on the political spectrum, and
it's possible to be decent anywhere on the political spectrum.

~~~
throwanem
> Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too

How about framing political opponents as "bigots"?

~~~
JoshTriplett
Go re-read the article and tell me again how they're "political opponents"?
We're getting sufficiently abstract here that it's worth going back and re-
reading what we're actually talking about. Their politics were never at
question here, nor was this a political stage. This is a private university
choosing who to admit, based on the culture they wish to encourage. Let's not
elevate what they were doing to "politics".

If the article was "withdraws acceptances for people who advocated X political
belief" (e.g. "less funding for universities", "less power to teachers'
unions", "private healthcare", take your pick of things that the average
university faculty is likely to disagree with), I'd be right there arguing
against that; all of those are reasonably debatable topics in the right
forums. Which is exactly why there's no slippery slope there: when it's
something worth defending, there's no shortage of defenders. So why does there
inevitably spring up an army of defenders to support bigots? There's no "first
they came for" argument here; first they came for the bigots, and then they
stopped and threw a party.

(On a technical forum, in particular, there ought to be an appreciation for
historical pattern matching; today "bigotry against outgroups" looks a lot
like yesterday's "bigotry against outgroups", and it really shouldn't be a
battle that has to get re-fought for every outgroup. One of these days I have
hope that people could simply complete the pattern and skip the next dozen
instances of it. It's the same battle every time, all the arguments look the
same, and the right and wrong answers are always the same.)

At this point, I don't feel like there are any new arguments to make here. I
think both of us are well aware of the arguments, I don't think either of us
is particularly inclined to change their stance, and I see little value in
going through the motions. All the arguments either one of us might reasonably
make are posted elsewhere. So, in the interests of the honesty you've
expressed an appreciation for: let's stop wasting each others' time.

~~~
throwanem
I don't think we're wasting each other's time. Certainly I don't feel as
though you are wasting mine, and I hope I may prevail upon your apparently
strained patience to the extent of responding to this comment of yours,
because I think there's some value to be had in my so doing. Should you wish
me to desist thereafter, I will comply without further demur.

> today "bigotry against outgroups" looks a lot like yesterday's "bigotry
> against outgroups"

In every case, bigotry against an outgroup relies upon defining members of
whatever outgroup is targeted by their membership in that outgroup, and
nothing else. People being basically decent as we are, the only way to support
the argument that X outgroup has got to go, is by first establishing in the
mind of one's interlocutor the certainty that membership in X outgroup is _so_
bad, so utterly and uniquely exclusive by nature of every possible
countervailing virtue, that in this specific case it is reasonable - indeed,
that it's righteous - to mete out to members of X outgroup treatment whose
infliction upon anyone else would be iniquitous in the extreme.

Such a concept is not easy to establish, people being basically decent as we
are. Recent history recommends one method as especially efficacious toward
that end - that of inventing or selecting a name generally used in reference
to a given outgroup, and then investing not the members of that outgroup
directly, but rather that name in itself, with all the opprobrium that can be
laden upon it. The nature of the name isn't so important; be it a demonym, an
ethnonym, a name of choice, or a slur, what matters is that it be generally
understood outside the targeted outgroup that the group is the object of the
name. Then, by making people despise the name, you can make people despise the
group, as well.

There is a subtlety here - it's very hard, people being basically decent as we
are, to convince one human being to look upon another not as a fellow
deserving of at least some basic modicum of decency, but rather as a disease
upon the body politic, meriting excision therefrom by methods otherwise too
brutal or mean to be seriously contemplated. But language is the tool we use
to understand the world around us, and it should be hardly controversial in
the modern age that, by modifying the way we understand language, one may
modify the way we understand our world. By investing a name with contempt,
therefore, we can heap contempt upon those whom that name describes, much more
easily than we could achieve the same end without the same semiotic
indirection.

Don't you think it's interesting that you've spent your entire participation
in this thread inveighing against "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots", and
making very clear that those whom you so describe, you have no problem seeing
excluded from social and professional life by means which you'd consider
totally unacceptable if applied to those whom you do not place in the
categories those names describe? I think it's interesting.

But, as you've rightly pointed out, we are getting awfully abstract, and
should bear in mind the situation we're actually talking about here. In that
connection, I also think it's interesting how broadly you define these
categories you're using. We are, after all, talking about some eighteen-year-
old jackasses, which is to say some eighteen-year-old men, who have posted
some deeply tasteless and shameful meme pictures on Facebook, mostly in a
private group.

That such behavior should be firmly discouraged, we agree; I've mentioned
elsewhere in this thread that I would regard disciplinary probation - that is,
preemptive advancement to strike two of the notional three, with one more
incident of misconduct resulting in summary expulsion - as a proportionate
response. Where we part company is in that you find such a response arrantly
insufficient. Nothing will do by you but that these young idiots be, not given
the opportunity to learn from the gravity of their error, but instead totally
and permanently ostracized, from society and from the professions - which is
to say, they should be permitted no friends, and they should be permitted no
opportunity to pursue whatever careers they might have gone to Harvard to
begin. Because they posted some deeply tasteless and shameful meme pictures on
Facebook, mostly in a private group.

You're right that we shouldn't forget what we're talking about here. But I
think that's precisely what your words show you to have done. You're not
talking about some eighteen-year-old jackasses who have perpetuated and played
into some truly shitty stereotypes in front of God and everybody, and should
be firmly swatted for so doing - but should _also_ be given the opportunity to
demonstrate that they have derived a salutary lesson therefrom. You're talking
about "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots" as though the subjects of the
discussion were, not some young damn fools who, like most young men, enjoy
shit-stirring and seeing what they can get away with before someone reins them
in, but rather a klavern of hardcore Klansmen long since beyond susceptibility
to reason. You speak here as though there were no distinction to be made
between the former and the latter, and that simply is not true.

You seem a sensible and thoughtful enough person, and I can't imagine that you
are simply not at home to nuance in general - rather, I think the names you're
using, and the opprobrium which attaches to them, have blinded you to the
nuance which obtains here. Do you think that's very likely to be the only
nuance to which you've made yourself blind?

But, of course, that's your problem, to which you'll attend or not as you so
choose. It's not the sort of thing with which I'd be comfortable, or one which
I could easily compose with a desire to understand, as best I'm able, the
world as it actually is, the better that my actions therein be more virtuous
than the converse. Should I so err, I'd like to think someone would bring it
to my attention. But perhaps you feel otherwise, and in any case I've probably
abused your patience just about long enough. "Just about" \- one last point
and a link, and then I'm done.

You may at this time be inclined to argue that, while I'm not wrong in general
about the fashion in which outgroups are demonized by means of those names
which apply to them, I _am_ wrong to be concerned with your having done so in
this specific case, because, in this specific case, the group you so attack
_actually deserves it_.

And I'm sure you believe that's true! So, after all, has everyone else who has
ever deployed this method against anyone. But perhaps this happens simply to
be the first time in human history that that claim has had merit.

Finally, the link - I'm hardly the first person to speak on this subject, to
say nothing of well respected. If you won't hear it from me, then, perhaps
you'll be interested in this not totally dissimilar formulation, which
predates mine and originates with someone who I gather is generally held in
good regard: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

~~~
stcredzero
Could you tone down the flowery language? I mean, I'm castigated for the
flowery language on HN, but man... Say as much with fewer words, and your
point will be all the more powerful! (Pot, meet kettle! -- I know!)

~~~
throwanem
Clearly I have abused more than one person's patience today! I hope you'll
accept my apologies for so doing; concision isn't my first skill, and I tend
to lose my grasp of it when I'm working on making a point.

------
vinceguidry
People worried about free speech rights should realize that Harvard is a
_private_ university.

If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you called
my dog a 'mutt', you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over
it.

People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to
organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use
to admit students, unless of course they breach civil rights laws, is
ultimately decreasing the amount of intellectual diversity in the world.

People that don't like Harvard can apply to any other college. There's no
shortage of them to choose from. But if you tell Harvard what they can and
can't do, you run the risk of destroying the individuality of Harvard.

Also, there's some mumbling about the fact that it was private speech that was
supposedly surveilled on. Obviously it wasn't that private if school
administrators caught wind of it. If you really want a private group, keep it
truly private and _don 't tell anyone about it_.

The lesson kids should be taking away from this is, don't let your friends
drag you into dangerous situations. Harvard is a nationally recognized school,
any screw-ups earn _national_ attention. It's very much a "if you can't stand
the heat, get out of the kitchen" sort of situation.

~~~
a_puppy
"People worried about womens' rights in the early 20th century should have
realized that Harvard was a _private_ university. If I held a party at my
house and didn't want to invite you because you were a woman, you'd get
laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed
to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing
Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use to admit students, unless of
course they breach free speech rights, is ultimately decreasing the amount of
intellectual diversity in the world. Women that don't like Harvard can apply
to any other college. There's no shortage of them to choose from. But if you
tell Harvard what they can and can't do, you run the risk of destroying the
individuality of Harvard."

"People worried about reproductive rights should realize that Hobby Lobby is a
_private_ corporation."

"People worried about gay rights should realize that Chick-fil-A is a
_private_ corporation."

The choices of private organizations and individuals have huge effects, and
it's reasonable to criticize them if we disagree with their actions. But on
the other hand, I agree that it's important to give private organizations
freedom. This is a difficult trade-off; we need to consider both sides of it,
and whatever principle we decide on, we should apply consistently. So unless
you'd also defend historical gender segregation at private universities, or
defend Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, you should find a different defense of
Harvard's actions.

~~~
maxwin
On the other hand ,how do u stop hate speech?

~~~
gdix
You defeat bad arguments with good arguments. By the way this is the ONLY way.

Silencing those you disagree with will only enrage and mobilize those people,
and those people vote. Hence, Trump.

~~~
vinceguidry
I would argue that Trump is a manifestation of the exact opposite, that no
matter how good the argument is, it won't beat a bad one.

~~~
pdeuchler
>> that no matter how good the argument is, it won't beat a bad one.

What kind of absurd, nihilist nonsense is this? Sounds like yet another
example of Trump's opponents being unable to think critically and assuming
their attempt at forcing terrible policy down the throats of common people is
a "good argument" against the threat of facism.

Trump is winning precisely because there's no "good alternative", 99% of all
"alternatives" are just less shitty, and even then only less shitty for
certain segments of the population. People never resort to facism with good
alternatives, yet strangely it's the default whenever they're stuck with a
shit sandwich.

But I mean only all of history repeats this lesson, not like we'd expect
anyone to understand that or anything.

------
ziggysak
I think an article such as this one is a clear example of the generational
differences between older and younger people. I'm fairly close to these kids'
age and I've browsed memes from /r/dankmemes and enjoyed them.

The thing is, is that these memes are supposed to be self-aware of how
offensive they are. That's the joke. They're meant to be so offensive and
ridiculous that reactions can be drawn from outside spectators so they can get
offended and you can laugh at them for being a "normie".

I have no issue with these jokes unless they've been made in a sincere attempt
at racism or sexism, and knowing my experience with the internet, I don't
believe this is the case.

~~~
Houshalter
It's not a new thing. Dead baby jokes have been around forever, and popular
comedians often use similar black humor. The article mentions the card game
cards against humanity. Which is pretty popular and based on the same premise.

I used to really like black humor. I frequently told dead baby jokes and
similar stuff. Thank god that wasn't recorded.

I'm alarmed to see many of the comments here outraged over the stuff the
students said. I guarantee most of them have probably told a similarly
offensive joke at some point in time, or at the very least have friends who
have. Especially when they were younger.

~~~
kbenson
> The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty
> popular and based on the same premise.

Except that the premise of Cards Against Humanity is that you are all opting
in to the situation where you expect that, and usually an a somewhat private
setting.

The equivalent to the CAH suggestion would be where some private group of
people indicated that to become members, you had to go to a public cafe and
play CAH loudly in public. Were that Cafe to get mad at you and ban you from
their premises, getting upset at that outcome is rather silly. You either knew
that was a possibly outcome, or you _should have known_. In any case, that
Cafe is well within their rights to decide they want nothing to do with you
anymore.

~~~
ziggysak
I wouldn't consider that equivalent at all. This was an invite-only private
chat between students. So in other words, it would be like they were playing
CAH in a dorm room and somebody in the group decided to tell on them to
administration.

~~~
kbenson
It's actually somewhat unclear exactly what happened. From the article:

 _Some of the group’s members decided to form an offshoot group in which
students could share obscene, “R-rated” memes, a student told the Crimson. The
founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes
in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group._

But from wording later, the examples given seem to be from the private group?
I'm also unclear if the private group some some offshoot of the main group
within Facebook (that is, whether it's some Facebook sub-group feature,
obviously they are members of the main group).

In any case, Harvard says they reserve the right to reject admission based on
"honesty, maturity, or moral character" so if this information is brought to
their attention, then it falls under what they consider valid acceptance
criteria. It's no different than if they Google searched the applicant
initially and found verifiable information that put the student in the same
light.

------
SurrealSoul
My fraternity got suspended because someone trash talked some administration
person on our private chat page. Turns out one of our members really disliked
the trash talker and the insult in general and reported the incident. The
private group chat in Harvard probably either has a [for lack of better word]
tattle tail, or even a shadow member who is associated with advisors to take
into consideration what the new members are saying.

Long story short, these young people are getting their first dose of 'what
happens in Vegas, is likely to cause long-term relationship issues'

------
g051051
Considering how competitive the acceptance criteria are for Harvard (2,056 out
of 39,506 applications), this is just another decision point. Now 10 other
people are able to get in, and the entire body of current and prospective
students have learned a valuable lesson about privacy and free speech.

~~~
alunchbox
unfortunately for these 10 ex-applicants of Harvard they might not get into
any University period for 2017/2018... This isn't a small implication to them
for stupid posts online. I'm not 100% sure if I feel that's fair. them not
getting into Harvard is one thing but losing education at this point in time
is even worse.

~~~
bjl
Some of things they said went beyond just 'stupid posts'.

~~~
mattnewton
Presumably they were all jests in bad taste though?

~~~
beisner
Why presume that?

------
std_throwaway
We'll have to create a public and a second, private, personality just like in
the old days of the police state.

Society is more open than it probably was ever before but at the same time, if
close minded leaders of fascist political or religious color came into power
they'd have their tools handed to them to create an oppressive apparatus never
seen before.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
> The students in the spinoff group exchanged memes and images “mocking sexual
> assault, the Holocaust and the deaths of children,” sometimes directing
> jokes at specific ethnic or racial groups, the Crimson reported. One message
> “called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child ‘piñata time’” while
> other messages quipped that “abusing children was sexually arousing,”
> according to images of the chat described by the Crimson.

You know, if that's your personality, I'm OK with you feeling ashamed enough
that you feel the need to keep it private.

~~~
std_throwaway
I don't care what they said. If it's against the law, let the law deal with
it. If it's covered under freedom of speech, let them speak.

~~~
eropple
They _were_ allowed to speak. They _did_ speak. "Freedom of speech" applies
only and strictly to governments, not to a private institution. And that's
because the only way "freedom of speech" matters is if others are free to
react to you as they please; Harvard might not like you and might tell you to
get the hell out of their (and my, as it happens) neighborhood.

If you don't like that, then you have options. One, don't be cretinous. Two,
hide it better. Three, accept that being cretinous will cost you opportunities
and own it.

Actions have consequences. You don't get to hide behind "my free speech". Own
what you do.

~~~
std_throwaway
Cutting down to the point.

* What these students did or didn't do does not matter in this case.

* Harvard can withdraw the acceptance for anyone at any time for any reason.

We don't need to argue about privacy or free speech here. All we can argue
about as a first point is if Harvard should have the ability to withdraw their
acceptance or not.

~~~
mattnewton
Racists are not a protected class. I see no reason why Harvard should not be
allowed to act the way they did.

It is unfortunate that they chose to share those memes on a Facebook group
chat though, I think the debate is about how not "private" a lot of our
"private" chats have become and how sometimes people are just not thinking
about where there communications are stored enough. If they had printed
pamphlets with the material and shared them with classmates I think the same
consequences would have happened, but they would have had more time to stop
themselves and think about what could go wrong. Now sending offensive jokes is
easy and "private" channels are deceptively public.

------
jswny
I think a lot of people are missing this:

> “As a reminder, Harvard College reserves the right to withdraw an offer of
> admission under various conditions including if an admitted student engages
> in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral
> character,” the group description states.

Whether you think that this was ok for Harvard to do or not, doing this kind
of stuff in the official Harvard student Facebook group (managed by Harvard
employees) given that description is just downright stupid.

------
Simulacra
What you do and say on social media can and will be used against you.

~~~
std_throwaway
Extend this to any place connected to the internet or other means of
collecting information and linking it to you. Social media is just the easy
way in.

~~~
Simulacra
I'm going to make my children say it like the pledge of allegiance.

------
fdsfsafasfdas
For such apparently intelligent people, such dimwitted use of a centrally
managed communications.

Not to mention bad taste, it seems.

~~~
std_throwaway
People go to the toilet to get the crap out. Same for many online forums.

~~~
Ntrails
Most online forums involve the cunning use of pseudonyms so when I say "FYAD
bitch" it doesn't come up on my college applications...

~~~
std_throwaway
Not yet. The data is there to link it to you.

~~~
kodt
And by what legal means would a private university access that data to connect
it?

~~~
DanBC
If you're not posting under your confirmed real name, in a facebook group
under the control of the private university, there's probably nothing they can
do.

------
akhilcacharya
Someone at a state school would have the same thing happen to them if they
pulled stuff like this. No reason why they should be treated with kid gloves
because they got into Harvard.

~~~
pyroinferno
I think the concern here is that it was private.

~~~
pc86
Why? People are totally within their rights to share these things in public or
in private. Private institutions, including Harvard, are totally within their
rights to rescind admissions offers because of it.

~~~
weberc2
And private individuals are well within their rights to point out that
Harvard's actions are inconsistent with their purported values of free speech.

~~~
pc86
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And from a legal
perspective free speech just means the _government_ can't punish you for
protected speech. Individuals and entities are free to discriminate based on
your protected speech all they want.

~~~
weberc2
Free speech means exactly freedom from consequences. You're confusing the
value of free speech with the specific contractual guarantee provided by the
government. In other words, a university that commits itself to free speech
contradicts that commitment by unaccepting students based on their speech.

~~~
YCode
It is somewhat hypocritical.

Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free
speech, including this bit:

> We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been
> twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual
> to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism
> or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could
> reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one
> the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve
> the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs
> antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.

Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy:

> the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the
> admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into
> question their honesty, maturity or moral character,”

One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character
and avoid a paradox.

[1]
[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-2017-free-
speech-ed/)

~~~
weberc2
I assumed all along that the reason for their unacceptance was the "speech
which displays a lack of maturity", but this is also inconsistent with the
value of free speech. Even though their official view on free speech might be
deliberately vague, this doesn't seem to be the attitude displayed by the
Harvard community who (in my observation) have taken a more traditional and
Berkeleyan philosophy. Even if Harvard's action isn't hypocritical, it's still
permissible and reasonable to criticize them for behaving in a manner
incongruent with the value of free speech, even though they believe restricted
speech is free speech.

------
Finnucane
Harvard: We can revoke your admission if we see that you are an asshole.
Students: Let's be assholes over here in the corner, because stuff is totally
private on Facebook. Harvard: You're assholes, and also stupid.

------
googletazer
USSR style censorship when you can't even crack a joke in private. As for
Harvard admitting people of high moral character, being of high moral
character meant completely opposite things 50 years ago and now.

------
mgiannopoulos
Duplicate :)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485529)

------
Skywing
I also believe that Riot Games would fire employees for excessive offensive
in-game chat.

~~~
Coding_Cat
Noteworthy difference being that, I believe, Riot employees are identified as
such and their communication is public (in the eyes of Riot) not private.

In this case I think it might very well be a case of "The Aristocrats" humor
like they mentioned in the article (CAH). I disagree with withdrawing the
invitation based upon private communication here, but if it was publically
visible and said "hey we're Harvard Students" I can understand Harvard's
position and cautiously agree with them.

~~~
DanBC
It wasn't just a private group.

> The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative
> memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group.

------
alunchbox
another example why shenanigans shouldn't be done on Facebook. if you wanna
$#!K around do it on a platform that isn't personal how is this so hard to
understand ? (mind you this does seem excessive from what they are reporting)

~~~
std_throwaway
What platform isn't personal? Sure, you don't use your real-name here or
there, but it can and will be linked to you in the future. Any online and
offline activity has a real chance of being linked to you at some point in the
future.

~~~
alunchbox
true enough, but as long as law enforcement don't need to get involved (obv
don't do stupid stuff) a username is easier to throw away then a Facebook
account... But even then I suppose it wouldn't be possible - Big Brother here
we come.

------
em3rgent0rdr
I think these memes illustrate a serious superiority complex of harvard (and
other "prestigious" schools) students/alumni. I think this represents just the
visible tip of the iceberg...I'm sure many more Harvard students still exhibit
similar superiority complexes and thoughts even though they are too wise to
not share such memes in a private chat.

------
bedhead
The creepiest part is that Harvard goes all stalker on its admits in the first
place. It's creepy AF.

------
aestetix
Maybe I missed it from the article:

1\. Were the students given a warning before having their admissions
withdrawn?

2\. I'm curious why Harvard chose the nuclear option, rather than to use this
as an opportunity to teach why the memes were considered offensive, and more
appropriate ways to express themselves.

~~~
cpncrunch
>I'm curious why Harvard chose the nuclear option, than to use this as an
opportunity to teach why the memes were considered offensive, and more
appropriate ways to express themselves.

Presumably they don't want nasty, highly offensive people in their
institution. Which is perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't want anything to do
with people like that either.

------
mschrage
Here are some examples of the offensive memes:
[https://thetab.com/us/2017/06/05/harvard-memes-
rescinded-694...](https://thetab.com/us/2017/06/05/harvard-memes-
rescinded-69413)

~~~
stillsut
Interesting...I'd rate these no more offensive than Sarah Silverman stand up.

------
egwynn
One issue is the prevailing idea that all/most online interactions should be
shared publicly. It would still have been ill-advised to make these jokes even
in private, but I’d go so far as to say there’s a big concrete difference
betweeen expressing yourself privately versus publicly. Your friends have a
lot of context with which to judge you and your words, but the public doesn’t.
You might say something sarcastically or in jest, but someone else might
conclude that you believe it earnestly[1]. And if you ARE earnestly expressing
yourself and feel like your ideas deserve public platform, then you need to
have thought ahead about what kinds of responses you might get.

[1] See also Poe’s Law.

------
hprotagonist
i watched 5 people fail to matriculate at my alma mater in 2002 for similarly
adolescent idiocy. they happened to do it on campus during orientation, but
little else seems different.

------
LyndsySimon
This isn't even _really_ about speech - this is about a few people who
exhibited shockingly poor judgement, and were rejected from Harvard as a
result.

------
stillsut
Interesting fact: Richard M Stallman dabbles in 9/11 conspiracy theories while
being 'employed' at MIT.

[http://www.stallman.org/articles/911-new-
investigation.html](http://www.stallman.org/articles/911-new-
investigation.html)

------
creaghpatr
On a similar note, it's safe to assume college admissions officers are
checking social media profiles, so prospective students should make sure to
scrub all high-risk (read: republican) political affiliations and statements
from their profile, and maybe pile on some PC-friendly ones.

------
threepipeproblm
I don't want to take from the gravity of the main topic, but it seemed notable
that the online group -- and this is the larger one, not the subset that got
in trouble -- identify as "bourgeois". Unless Harvard has really changed,
then... nope!

------
burntrelish1273
It sends a message that boundary-free affluenza and bro culture aren't welcome
at Harvard. You don't want to enable or embolden 4chan-like behavior from the
next supposed batch of leaders.

------
ybrah
This is why I like 4chan. I can shit post to my hearts content without getting
screwed by the morality police.

~~~
VLM
The critical advantage of 4chan is there's no trademark dilution.

There's just /b/ or whatever, there is no /Harvard/ board to insult the image
of a multibillion dollar organization.

Regardless what the kids were posting, I'm not sure what they were thinking,
using a name like that can't possibly end well.

------
losteverything
We are expecting children to grow up too fast.

------
modzu
creepy treehouse

~~~
modzu
[http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/the-creepy-
treehou...](http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/the-creepy-treehouse-
problem/23027)

------
atroll
why a facebook group when they have 4chan

