from the anything-you-say-will-be-used-against-you dept.
The Facebook messaging group was at one point titled "Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens."
It began when about 100 members of Harvard College's incoming freshman class contacted each other through the university's official Class of 2021 Facebook group. They created a messaging group where students could share memes about popular culture — a growing trend on the Internet among students at elite colleges.
But then, the exchanges took a dark turn, according to an article published in the Harvard Crimson on Sunday. 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.
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.
Then, university officials caught on. And in mid-April, after administrators discovered the offensive, racially charged meme exchanges, at least 10 incoming students who participated in the chat received letters informing them that their offers of admission had been revoked.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @10:20AM (16 children)
Stay the f-%k out of swamps like facebook. It will suck you in and bite you. Socializing in an environment full of mines and stasi guards is not a good idea.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:01AM (1 child)
Stay the f-%k out of swamps like Haavaad. It will suck you in and bite you.
There, FTFY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:26PM
http://pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Wikipedia. GNU/Linux. WordNet. Google. These things were not on the visible horizon to most of us even as little as twenty years ago. Now they have remade huge aspects of how we live. Are these free-to-the-user informational products and services all there is to be on the internet or are they the tip of a metaphorical iceberg of free stuff and free services that is heading our way? Or even, via projects like the RepRap 3D printer under development, are free physical objects someday heading into our homes? If a "post-scarcity" iceberg is coming, are our older scarcity-oriented social institutions prepared to survive it? Or like the Titanic, will these social institutions sink once the full force of the iceberg contacts them? And will they start taking on water even if just dinged by little chunks of sea ice like the cheap $100 laptops that are ahead of the main iceberg?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:42AM (11 children)
The lesson should be, "don't be an asshole or you will be treated as such". Maybe Harvard doesn't want to be associated with assholes? Imagine that!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:17PM (9 children)
Yeah, but while these stupid kids were, IMO, clearly deserving of losing their Harvard acceptance due to the nasty things they wrote, you can easily make enemies no matter what you write if it's political in the slightest.
So to me, the real lesson here is to avoid stupid places like Facebook where people actually know your name and who you are, and stick to pseudo-anonymous forums like this one. Then, if you do manage to post something controversial at some point, your employer, parents, friends, etc. won't all see it.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:42PM (3 children)
I can certainly agree that speech shouldn't be used to brand someone a terrible person or be cause for expulsion from a uni. If someone randomly posts something offensive on some random board to let off some steam, I personally can understand that (it's an anger release).
But, the thing is you now have a concentration of people feeding off each others anger which begins to foster and normalize those feelings. Perhaps a few posts in bad taste are fine and most of the people will downvote/complain/report/etc. But create an environment where that kind of behaviour flourishes and before you know it, it's now normal. That joke about Obama living in the *white* house and planting watermelon gardens goes from a groaner you share over beer with a few friends to let off some steam is now your daily routine. It degrades into a swamp of hate and anger.
I have a pretty diverse group of friends, most aren't white or are mixed. But we can all have a good laugh at a really offensive joke. And of course, it's every once in awhile. That's fine. Every day and you have a problem.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:01PM (2 children)
That joke about Obama living in the *white* house and planting watermelon gardens goes from a groaner you share over beer with a few friends to let off some steam is now your daily routine. It degrades into a swamp of hate and anger.
While I agree about this, I have to make a tangential comment about this bit of racism: WTF is the deal with the racist stereotype about watermelon? I know, I know, black slaves brought watermelons from Africa and they planted them in the Southern plantations and enjoyed them since they came over with them. But what kind of moron doesn't like watermelon? Seriously. It would be like some stupid racist stereotype about Latin Americans (or more precisely, ones from Central America) liking chocolate (because cacao plants originate from Central America). Everyone likes chocolate! Both chocolate and watermelon were discovered outside of Europe, brought to Europe, and then became very popular foods there, though watermelon came long, long before chocolate. And watermelon became very popular every place it was brought; it reached China in the 10th century and now China is the world's largest producer of it. I guess the racists' fixation on watermelon is just another sign of how stupid they are.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:58PM
Pretty much. It's one of the best fruits so why not love it?
There is a little background info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype#History [wikipedia.org]
What stands out is this line:
If true, then what better way to stymie their progress than to destroy their symbol?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 10 2017, @02:49AM
I dunno about all of that - but most jokes are rather stupid. Think about it. Even the very best joke you've ever heard, starts to sound stupid on the fourth or twentieth telling.
Also, jokes aren't required to make sense, to be funny. No logic required, no facts required, nothing. The very stupidest of observations can be funny, for a moment, in the proper context.
Having read the post above about the history of watermelons, I can imagine good white slaveowners refusing to sample watermelons. "The darkies grow those things in their gardens, I'm not touching them!" Stupid shit is stupid, of course, but some stupid shit survives for generations.
A comparison might be made to various superstitions. How many generations of people avoided crossing paths with a black cat, etc?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:05PM (3 children)
They don't deserve to be thrown out of Harvard. They're immature, and they deserve to be educated, probably at Harvard or a similar school since they chose to apply to it and Harvard had previously chosen to take them.
What do you think is going to happen to these students now? They'll be stung by the rejection, find it unfair (which it was), believe from their experience that political correctness has run amok and is a huge social problem (there's at least /some/ truth to that), go to whatever school they chose as their backup, graduate, and join the workforce in high-ranking positions of power.
What type of people will they be when they graduate? Well, they'll be individuals, and it's hard to generalize, but, in general, it's a lot harder to learn to empathize with other people when you're fixated on how other people were unfair to you, and what happened to them will sting for a long time. They're probably not going to learn the lesson that "making stupid jokes is evil and wrong" from what happened to them; they're going to learn the lesson that "libtard assholes in universities and elsewhere are evil and wrong".
And they're going to act on that belief as long as they hold it. Their future and past experiences other than this one will shape how long they'll believe that to be true, but Harvard may have just made a few more Trump voters by doing this, and also a few racist/sexist supervisors who will be reluctant to hire anyone who doesn't look like they do, and who also have learned that, when they act on that reluctance, they must to do so in a deniable way.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 08 2017, @02:53PM (2 children)
Yes, they do deserve to be thrown out. Harvard admitted them thinking they were people of good character, and they proved that they aren't, so Harvard had every right to revoke that. People who publicly post blatantly racist and misogynistic garbage are not suitable for an esteemed institution like Harvard. I wasn't like that when I was that age, and none of my friends at the time ever did or said stuff like that either, even in private. That isn't normal behavior, even for 18yo boys; it's disgusting.
Letting them stay at Harvard would tarnish Harvard's reputation, and it isn't going to fix these kids either; they're always going to be assholes. But now they'll be prevented from getting a Harvard degree and developing the social networks that come with going to school there which helps them get into positions of power. And no, they're not going to be in high-ranking positions of power later on, not after getting a degree from some lowly state university. They were always going to be misogynists, but at least now they won't be running major companies or in high-ranking political positions.
Harvard did the right thing here. Now they can clear these spots for other kids who might not have these nasty qualities, and are far more deserving of the benefits of a Harvard education.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday June 12 2017, @03:43AM (1 child)
There are quickly diminishing marginal returns to the name recognition of a college. If they do well in the college they go to, and they will, they'll do well when they enter the workforce ... and they will.
Liberal philosophy is properly based on empathy. The urge to punish those you disagree with is based on sadism. You may wish to engage in some introspection (not being sarcastic; everyone should engage in some introspection).
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @05:24PM
If you equate "refusing to associate with" to "punishment", then your version of liberalism is a doomed philosophy, because willfully associating with people who want to destroy your philosophy and way of life is inherently self-destructive.
A private institution has every right to refuse admission to people who do not uphold their values, and who would destroy its reputation. How is a liberal institution going to maintain a reputation for liberal-ness if they're full of non-liberal people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:10PM
What? It's none of Harvard's business. Why are they playing speech police? I don't care how vile what they said was.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:49PM
These people were perhaps assholes and Harvard spared their existing students a lot of chagrin. But the point is that real-name social media where all official institutions scrutinize whatever people write at any time is not a good idea to express one self. Any communication there should have the flat professional tone of politically grey and neutral speak that don't tell anyone anything that matters but most importantly to never do anything wrong.
The whole idea to mix the private and professional life in a database that continuously feed security services, law enforcement, employers etc. Is just a recipe for serious chagrin. And when the majority of participants are less than insightful it's even worse. It just becomes drama and rumors which then invades all your social spaces.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:46AM
They should have used whatever the replacement for this [wikipedia.org] is.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:31PM
Didn't someone recently promise to drain those swamps?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:01AM
Racism and rape jokes? That's tame! They should read bash.org [bash.org] or sickipedia.net [sickipedia.net] before some of the really twisted stuff.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Geezer on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:06AM
tl;dr: Stupid Facebook users are stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:52AM (14 children)
This really seems like a missed opportunity for educating these individuals. If this is Harvard's approach to education, these folks might be better off.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:57AM (5 children)
I think those clowns just learned a lesson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:42PM (4 children)
Indeed, they learned that moral busybodies will hound them to the ends of the earth just for that rush of drugs your brain releases when you punish the evildoers, or the wrongthinkers as this case might be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:40PM (3 children)
What does the world look like to you? A scary place where everyone judges you? Did you buy extra guns and ammo because Obummer was coming for your 2nd amendment? You really think Harvard administrative personnel got excited at a chance to kick in the teeth of some asshole students?
Get real you fool. If anything this probably gave them anxiety, the PR and parental blowback alone would almost be worth tolerating these shits. Idiot kids being edgy on the school message board? I guess we should make every space, real or digital, safe for assholes to spew their crap. Totally different from other "safe spaces" because this time its about freedom!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:34PM (1 child)
obummer was coming for our guns. he just couldn't get traction, even when smuggling guns via fast and furious(or whatever it was called) and getting border patrol agents killed. wtf are you talking about, jackass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:59PM
News for ya, Bubba, us liberals are still coming for your guns, and WE can get tractors! Ha ha! And thanks to your rather prodigious purchasing spree, we have a rather precise lock on your location.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:14PM
Even though you're being sarcastic, what you said is actually true. Not wanting someone to use their authority to punish you based on your speech is quite different from other types of safe spaces, if it can even be called a safe space to begin with. Sometimes I don't have problems with "safe spaces", or at least ones that are more like exclusive clubs. I do have a problem with those who have authority punishing people because they said something deemed offensive or vile.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deadstick on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:18PM
I disagree...their education just kicked off, big time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:17PM (4 children)
They learned an important lesson: When you do something you know you shouldn't do, even if you're doing it for the lulz, even if it's legal to do it, there are consequences. I mean, how many people have lost their jobs due to stupidity on social media?
Harvard's attitude, in essence, is "We're Harvard, which means we don't need to put up with bad behavior from anybody. Attending and/or working for this university is a privilege, and you'd do well to remember that." This isn't limited to students: For instance, a president of the university was ousted over an extremely sexist speech he had given. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the few members of my family without some kind of affiliation with Harvard, so while I have a bit of an insider perspective I'm also biased as all get-out.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:24PM
> When you do something you know you shouldn't do, even if you're doing it for the lulz, even if it's legal to do it, there are consequences.
Sometimes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-the-harvard-crimson-2010-3 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:43PM (2 children)
To be fair, Larry Summers was ousted for several reasons; he was already rather unpopular at Harvard and had other issues beyond the speech.
And the reception of the speech [wikipedia.org] was oversimplified. It was widely reported that he was implying "women are dumber in science and math," but what he actually was arguing is that the standard deviations for men in cognitive tests tend to be larger, which leads the distribution for men to have longer "tails." Thus, there are potentially more "really dumb" men with math and science skills compared to women, but also more "really smart" men. For average math and science people in their careers, this shouldn't result in a significant difference in distribution of men vs. women, but Summers was specifically talking about tenured faculty at top universities and research institutions, where the "long tail" distribution of men MIGHT make a part of the difference.
And this was all offered among other discussion of other theories about why there aren't more women in such top positions, and it was placed in a talk that Summers himself repeatedly labeled as "provocative" while giving it.
I personally don't think he was right about this being the primary factor, but it's a reasonable argument to at least discuss what impact "long tail" distributions for men might have here. But this speech seemed to be a "domino" that added to the other criticisms of Summers already in place, and that ultimately led to his resignation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)
what he actually was arguing is that the standard deviations for men in cognitive tests tend to be larger, which leads the distribution for men to have longer "tails."
While the difference in standard deviation is relatively small (a ratio of around 1.1), it makes a huge difference when you get out on the tails. This has been repeatedly demonstrated, although people who don't want it to be true continue to deny it. Amusingly, one paper that tries very hard to disprove it actually does the opposite [ams.org]: look at the graph on the top-right of page 14, and you'll see the ratio of 1.1 very clearly shining through their data.
As for the effects: above an IQ of 130 (2 standard deviations out), you expect around twice as many men as women, and above an IQ of 145 (3 SDs), roughly 3 times as many men as women. Engineers are typically in the 120 to 130 range (so we might expect about 1/3 women and 2/3 men from the outset). In the upper reaches of science and mathematics (IQ 140+), women should be expected to make up under 25% of the cohort. Obviously, other factors are in play as well. Men tend to like things, women tend to like people. More women tend to become nurses and doctors, whereas more men are technicians and engineers.
All of which is very unacceptable to the crowd that is determined for people to be identical, rather than equal.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:22PM
Why are we even using pseudoscience like IQ? We don't even understand intelligence, yet so many people believe that IQ is an accurate measurement of it. The social sciences tend to be nonsense and we should pay little attention to them until they clean up their act or on the very rare occasions when they produce something decent.
This isn't to say that you are wrong, but that IQ has not been proven to accurately measure someone's intelligence. It is correlated with several things, but that doesn't mean those things are all that relevant to one's intelligence; it is mostly arbitrary.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:21PM (1 child)
It's not the job of institutions like Harvard to educate young adult in basic manners. If they haven't learned that by age 18, then they need to just start working a McJob because they're beyond hope for anything more advanced than stocking shelves or flipping burgers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:42PM
Which is why those immature punks were given the boot.
That was your point right?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:14PM (5 children)
and economic polarization makes symbolic gesture to appear politically correct while doing nothing about the problems it pretends to oppose. News at 11.
see "virtue signaling".
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:55PM (4 children)
Out of curiosity, what action could Harvard take in this case that you would not see as virtue signaling?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:16PM (3 children)
You're interpreting his comment wrong. Saying "virtue signaling" is the newest way right wing authoritarian followers have of virtue signaling. People in the Political Correctness movement are new to the right-wing authoritarian follower game so they haven't quite figured out how to fit in with more traditional kinds of right wing authoritarianism.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:16PM (1 child)
In this case it's both though. Which is to say, while the poster is virtue-signalling, *so is Harvard.* GP is completely right about Harvard's elitism, especially in the economic sense; how many of our greediest greedheads went to the Ivy Leagues, for example?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:34PM
It's an interesting list of Ivies with movers and shakers. For example, among presidents, you have:
Harvard - John Adams, John Q Adams, Rutherford B Hayes, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, George W Bush, and Barack Obama. Of those, I'd say the Roosevelts were good, Jack Kennedy and Obama were decent, John Adams was good enough except for the Alien and Sedition Acts, George W Bush was an idiot, and Hayes was an evil bastard who should never have gotten into office in the first place.
Yale - William Howard Taft, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, George W Bush. Of those, Taft and Bush Sr did OK-ish, Ford committed the unforgivable sin of putting the president above the law, and George W Bush was (as previously mentioned) an idiot.
Princeton - James Madison, Woodrow Wilson. Madison has the distinction of being the only US president to lose control of Washington DC, and Wilson was good in some ways but was unable to prevent US involvement in WWI. Not a great record.
Columbia - Barack Obama. Already covered.
Penn - William Henry Harrison (never graduated). Died before he could do anything as president.
Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth - nobody yet.
However, according to my Harvard undergrad sister, a large number of the undergraduates end up doing business consulting, which basically involves getting paid big bucks to fly around the country living out of a suitcase giving Powerpoint presentations on subjects they may or may not know anything about.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:34PM
All the downmods on your post prove exactly who the real snowflakes are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:38PM (29 children)
Special snowflakes rejoice, free speech is dead, victim to the right to not be offended.
The established academia finally shows its ugly elitist face: not only it does nothing to stop the censorship against errr... conservative speakers, but now is directly and without shame involved in censorship.
Even more, it denies the (paid for) education to some 10 potential brilliant minds and confirmed free spirits** only because they dared to challenge the establishment on Facebook - THE ultimate public forum, bastion of individual freedom.
Let the honest debate begin!
(grin)
** free spirits are always stronger than free bears (it was free bears, right? Because there can't be free beer, one always keep beer bottled or canned. Otherwise we'd have free flowing beer - and we can't have good stuff wasted - freedom is for meh or outright shitty stuff)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:04PM (3 children)
For people who want to offend snowflakes there are schools for that. Even Christian schools for white, male, heterosexual, christian, rich, conservative students. Schools where racism and sexism are embraced. Sexual assault may not be openly embraced but at least tolerated -- especially when perpetrated by the right people. Or if the victims are the ones "who deserve it".
I'm sure some of these schools are happy to censor evil liberal ideas. Or you'll go to hell.
Some schools, like a business school that a president graduated from, will let you graduate even if you can't read, write or speak in complete sentences. Critical thinking isn't even on the radar, so no worries.
And no double standards. It's okay for conservative schools to select those they like and don't like, but outrageous for liberal schools to do likewise.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:42PM
For example, Bob Jones university interracial dating was an expellable offense until 2000. [christianitytoday.com] These were the guys who popularized the phrase "religious liberty" in 1983 - for the right to discriminate against black people. [uscivilliberties.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)
Allowing someone to speak freely isn't the same as embracing their speech.
What if you're consistent and believe that neither should punish people for speech deemed offensive or vile?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:12PM
People are free to speak offensive or vile things.
Others are free not to listen, or expose others to it. Including private institutions of higher learning.
It's one thing to discuss and discourse about vile or offensive things. It's another to say hateful things. For example, discussing the subject of sexual assault is different than bragging about having done it, or how one would like to do it.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:13PM (2 children)
Do you even know what free speech means in the context of our constitution? Have you recently read the first amendment? Based on your comment, I'm guessing no, but if you have, please point to the part that covers speech between private parties.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:04PM
Not really. Do you? Who is "our"? I'm English, and we don't have a constitution, since we have always been British.
Again, amendment to what? My life insurance policy? We soylentils need context, not all of us are Americans! (thank god!)
My comment? Part of what? Who are you?
Oh, I must know!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:28PM
He didn't mention the Constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is much broader than the legal implementation of it. On a website like SoylentNews which basically doesn't censor comments at all, you could say you have a very high degree of freedom of speech, and you could say that you have less freedom of speech on sites that heavily moderate their comments. Freedom of speech has never been just about the government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:42PM
So I guess you missed the memo. Right wingers are the snowflakes most of the time. They demand everyone accept their shitty behaviors including the right to ignore the rights of others. The brains are broken.
Free spirits who choose to amuse themselves with fucked up memes? Sounds like psychopath material.
Why does the right wing crowd always defend the most horrible offenders but condemn innocent people because they're different? Happy holidays you turds!
(Score: 3, Disagree) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:14PM (5 children)
Given the "(grin)" I'm not sure how much of this is serious.
But let's keep in mind that Harvard rejects about 95% of its applicants, as it is. Every year it rejects applicants who are valedictorians, who have perfect SAT scores, etc. Those rejections happen for all sorts of subjective reasons. Yet some are troubled because a few are rejected when they post stuff online advocating death and rape of children, etc.? I know the posts weren't serious, but it does reflect very poor judgment. If Harvard does nothing when such a forum for new Harvard students crops up online and attaches itself (unofficially) to an OFFICIAL Harvard forum, is it condoning such actions?
In the real world, people get fired from jobs for what they post on social media. College admissions staff, just like prospective employers, frequently look at social media posts to gauge something about the character of applicants. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind here that IF the college admissions staff had discovered such posts BEFORE offering admission that Harvard wouldn't have summarily threw these students into the 95% rejection pile? I'm sure there were 10 more students in the 95% pile who didn't crack jokes about killing and raping children online in pseudo-public place online, and who would have been thrilled to be admitted.
It seems to me there are only two reasonable objections here:
(1) It was a "private" group. I don't buy that an excuse, though. "Privacy" on the internet is mostly an illusion unless you take extreme measures to protect your privacy. These students did NOT -- they posted on Facebook using their REAL NAMES in a group dedicated to people recently admitted to Harvard! Anyone who thinks anything said in a "private" group with such characteristics couldn't find its way to public disclosure is an idiot.
(2) The punishment was overly harsh. I sort of agree with this, but only for one technical reason. That is -- I've read that last year Harvard had somewhat similar issues of new admits posting bad stuff, but they merely condemned it and apparently didn't punish anyone. To go from a precedent like that to summarily rescinding admission is troublesome. Of course, Harvard's a private institution, and it can do whatever it wants. (And it's hard to defend keeping students with such poor judgment in the admission pool when 95% are still out there wanting to take their place.) But perhaps given that precedent, Harvard could have done something less extreme (maybe forcing students to delay admission for a year or something, and go through a partial reapplication process of some sort if they still want to attend?), while then publicly signalling that in future cases students WILL have admissions offers rescinded for such behavior.
No, this has nothing to do with "free speech." No government official is locking anyone up here, so no "rights" are infringed. Free speech doesn't imply freedom from consequences. The students showed very poor judgment. In the real world, what you say on social media (even when you think you have privacy settings "on") can have serious consequences, including losing a job prospect or even a current job. Why should college admissions be different?
(Score: 1) by Sourcery42 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
Bingo. This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. These kids were being assholes, and they got shown to the door.
They could probably be assholes all they want, except they shouted it into the big megaphone for stupid that is social media.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:28PM
I would rather that they all shout it into a big megaphone. That makes them easier to identify. Like wearing brown shirt uniforms or black arm bands. I DON'T WANT them mixing in with normal people.
People that commit violence and sexual assault first think these things and say these things. Let's catch it there before it escalates into actions that actually hurt other people.
People who wouldn't do barbaric things probably don't talk, even jokingly, as though they would. And certainly not in a quasi public place.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:58PM
"free bears" set in contrast with "free spirits" and considerations on "canned free beer" may have offered a clue.
Otherwise, FYI: (grin) [soylentnews.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:36PM (1 child)
Which shouldn't happen in the first place. There's your third objection: Employers, colleges, etc. shouldn't be playing speech police. Even if they are legally allowed to do so, those who support the principle of freedom of speech reject things like this. I don't believe punishing people just because they said something that others did not like or that was wrong to be justifiable.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:10PM
It depends on the context. I actually agree with you that this sometimes is overused, but on the other hand, employers and colleges have their reputation to protect.
Being an employee often involves being a representative of the company. In the past, this mostly happened in official capacities. The average person didn't easily have access to thousands or even millions of people in an audience for their views. Nowadays, a tweet can go viral and make someone infamous overnight. If said tweet reflects views that are grossly inconsistent with the company's ethical standards, firing may be justified.
In this case, these students weren't randomly saying nasty things in private chats on the internet. They were participating in a group of other Harvard admitted students, in a forum that deliberately associated itself (even unofficially) with an official Harvard forum. Not doing anything about this in response would mean that Harvard was "okay" with students affiliated with it acting this way.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:10PM (10 children)
Was at a museum a while ago. Policy allowed photos, but (reasonably) no flash, and, surprizingly, no "posing". When another patron inquired as to the reason for the "no pose" policy, they responded that some young people engage in lewd and obscene behavior in public places, so they can photograph it and post it to social media. So again, idiots have no rights, and especially do not have rights to associate their idiocy with the reputation of any respectable institution. Or even Harvard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:26PM (3 children)
some young people engage in lewd and obscene behavior in public places, so they can photograph it and post it to social media
First 1984, now Brave new World got real. I wonder if they were works of fiction or instruction manuals hidden in plain sight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:54PM (2 children)
It isn't 1984 or Brave New World until the government steps in. We're getting close though, the whole "no dancing" bit at our monuments was a big clue. I think we're losing sight of what freedoms really mean. It isn't a right to do anything and everything, and it is actually a good thing for us to explore and discover the boundaries.
Respect private property and follow the rules laid down there as long as they don't violate actual laws. Push against any bullshit restrictions, take it to court and get a precedent set. I'm thinking of a somewhat recent video (sorry can't find it) where a guy flew his drone around a police station and has a cop hassle him demanding identification, etc. The cop's superior ends up coming outside and telling the cop to leave the guy alone, no he can't demand identification, no he can't demand the guy stop, totally legal. We need more of that.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:43PM
I'm not so sure about that. I think important boundaries should be bright-line clear. You don't cross over them. Nothing to be discovered or explored. I'm not talking about putting your elbows on the table kind of boundaries. The no dancing at monuments is probably a stupid rule. (It doesn't affect me.)
Similarly for the police harassing the drone guy -- the police should also not have to "explore" or "discover" their boundaries. That cop's superior should not have had to come out to tell the stupid cop to stay within his proper boundaries.
Now about the speech, the 1984 and Brave New World thing. It is already a thing that you don't say certain things. No bomb jokes in airports. No making threats against the president. Joking about sexual assault or the holocaust or other talk about hurting people is something that no other people, nor a university should have to tolerate. It's not like this was speech about an political opinion, or religious viewpoint, or some other controversial subject people can disagree about.
I can't tolerate intolerant people. :-)
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 10 2017, @02:37AM
"It isn't 1984 or Brave New World until the government steps in."
Are you sure about that? Corporations have a lot of power today, especially insurance companies. There are a number of laws today, which were pushed through by insurance companies. If government and voters don't see a need for a law, but the insurance companies see a need to increase profits - there will be a law. Seat belt laws are the foremost example of that.
Add in the fact that the richest of the rich keep getting richer, and the poor just keep getting poorer. So, a very small elite owns everything, and they decide to make the rules they like.
I think you can arrive at 1984 and BNW without government stepping in. If not, the small elite can use government as a tool to achieve their goals.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 07 2017, @10:09PM (5 children)
Magister, I find myself disappointed.
What?... A serious and didacticist reply? To a tongue-in-cheek trolling post, using as much as I could the memes and reality distortion of right wing trolls? Inviting to a "honest debate" in the end?
Really, that's all I could elicit from you? An as moralizing as Aesop "idiots have no rights, and especially do not have rights to associate their idiocy with the reputation of any respectable institution" based on a single anecdote?
I must try harder next time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:19AM (4 children)
Your efforts do no go unnoticed,
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:59AM (3 children)
> Your efforts do no go unnoticed,
Eh, if nothing better, good enough for a start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:32PM (2 children)
It was a tough spot, free speech, social media, Harvard: what ya gonna do?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 09 2017, @10:20AM (1 child)
You are asking what I would have done (in your shoes) to dismantle my troll?
Or asking me what I'll do for the future?
Or how I'm gone to reply to your lukewarm reaction?
Or when I'm going to grow up and stop tongue-in-cheek trolling?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday June 09 2017, @04:20PM
Nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary. On the other hand. To the point at hand, and vice versa, I was only saying that the article was weak material for proper trolling. Let it go, young padawan. Soon there will be opportunity enough to put your training to use.
(Score: 2, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:34PM
> Otherwise we'd have free flowing beer [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Beer_Flood [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by sjames on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:01PM (2 children)
Nobody has made any attempt whatsoever to prevent those ex-students from speaking nor to keep others from listening/rteading it.
I suppose you also think it's an attack of free speech if you claim in an oral exam that Colombo discovered America in 1972 and you get an F?
Free speech can be a two edged sword. If you reveal through your speech that you're a backwards asshole, people may not want to be associated with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
Punishing someone for their speech by withdrawing acceptances is not an attempt to discourage such speech? You don't think this sort of thing could have an effect on what others decide to speak/joke about?
Are you willing to defend this kind of thing no matter what? Logically, what you said should apply to *any* type of speech, not just speech deemed offensive or vile. What if they withdrew acceptances for people who criticized Trump, said they did not believe in god, etc.? Would you still be using such an argument? Even if you would still use the same argument, you'd just be shortsighted; in a society where you can be (and frequently are) fired from your job or kicked out of/not accepted into colleges or universities simply because you said something deemed offensive elsewhere, that will have a chilling effect on certain types of speech. As long as it's not the type of speech you like being discriminated again, maybe you'd be fine with it, but you would be an authoritarian.
Giving someone an F is not the same as withdrawing acceptances. Grading speech is fine, but punishing people for speech that is merely offensive or vile is not.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 08 2017, @05:34PM
I wouldn't characterize that as repression of free speech. I would call it discriminatory and wrong.
Would you insist that the Catholic church not pass someone over for Pope just because he said "There is no God, it's a bunch of fairy tales"?
Do you consider it repression of free speech when someone says "I robbed that bank last week" and he ends up on trial for bank robbery? I'd love to see you argue that one in court!
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:06PM (5 children)
I hope they take it even further! I hope they start rejecting admission from people who listen to metal music. I hope they start banning users who have drug-related social media posts, or who use guns.
They will soon cease to be known for producing alumni who are capable of not just thinking, but living outside of the box, and their prestige, admission rates, and endowment will eventually wither and rot as individuals who were rejected for no meritocratic reason are rudely awakened to the fact that thousands of Ivy League graduates are struggling with unemployment as a result of Globalism, and they will sew their brilliance in more fertile fields.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:35PM (3 children)
The amount of outrage and grandiose compliments of genius is ridiculous. What happened to "its a private business sorry but they can do what they want"? Oh,this time they targeted people you like? I am shocked that the right wingers are falling over themselves to condemn the punishment of horrible little shits getting off on hate culture. SHOCKED I say!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:27PM
> What happened to "its a private business..."
It got a squiggly red line under it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:28PM
And meanwhile, the President banning people from his Twitter necause they hurt his precious feelings is totally fine. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jiro on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:10PM
"It's a private business" just means that the private business's activity shouldn't be made illegal. It doesn't mean you can't complain about the private business. In fact, you're supposed to complain about the private business in order to put pressure on them.
It's perfectly legal to sell bad-tasting restaurant food too. By your reasoning, food critics have no reason to complain about the food, since the restaurant is a private business.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:46PM
Can universities reject people on the basis of sexual orientation?
Vi vs Emacs?
Tabs vs Spaces?
Semicolons vs not semicolons?
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:51PM
"The party game for horrible people" :)
I kind of expect that if they had any evidence of child porn, they would've mentioned that in the lede.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Bot on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:22PM
Let me greentext...
> current year
> submit yourself to initiation procedures, which in general (and even in this case, a bit) are basically giving somebody a free handle to embarass or even incriminate you should the need arise.
These guys deserve any (unjust) punishment they get. This will be a lesson worth as much as those they could have gotten at Harvard.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:19PM
>>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.
itt: idiots post /b/ shit on facebook instead of /b/, somehow surprised when it gets out
Nah, no sympathy.
Also, this is a pretty good, clear reason to not use Facebook or its ilk -- you're definitely being watched by your school, your employer, etc.
Why put up with that?