Support NeoGAF

[Ponn]

I have to imagine that rescinding a (theoretically merit-based) offer of admission on the basis of private, protected speech would likely not look great in a courtroom, based on my understanding of how vigorously protected speech has been protected in public institutions by the courts in the past. Of course, if they had known beforehand and refused the offer with that knowledge, they'd be legally in the clear because nobody could prove it was primarily because of that, but after the admission, it certainly reads as something taxpayer-funded taking punitive action on the basis of protected speech, which seems, in principle, to be the kind of behavior courts have ruled negatively against colleges on in cases I'm aware of. (It's for this same reason that public institutions' "diversity codes" are often window dressing, as courts have ruled students can't be punished for protected speech by schools in the past.) At the very least, I think there would be a case to be made, though of course the smart, moral thing would be for the kids to take the L and not be such morons next time.

They

were

making fun

of dead children

You can try to rationalize this all you want, thats your right but i feel its in bad taste. Especially since the punishment was already handed down. People that do this shit have a very broken moral compass. And yes, this type of shit drips over to "real life" after all this was all being shared in a group of the same incoming classmates influencing each other.

Fuck 'em.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

ya know there are jokes and then there's...i dont think anyone right in the head would make 'jokes' like that

 

[Cagey]

I have to imagine that rescinding a (theoretically merit-based) offer of admission on the basis of private, protected speech would likely not look great in a courtroom, based on my understanding of how vigorously protected speech has been protected in public institutions by the courts in the past. Of course, if they had known beforehand and refused the offer with that knowledge, they'd be legally in the clear because nobody could prove it was primarily because of that, but after the admission, it certainly reads as something taxpayer-funded taking punitive action on the basis of protected speech. At the very least, I think there would be a case to be made, though of course the smart, moral thing would be for the kids to take the L and not be such morons next time.

I equate it more to a government agency extending an offer to new employees and, between receiving acceptance of the job offer and the employees' start date, the agency learns the employees have said some foul shit that would get them fired had they begun working.

If these 10 students were getting the boot from Michigan, UVa, or another "public Ivy" post-admission pre-enrollment, I would guess they would receive the same lessened protection as the woman waiting to start work.

My mind keeps coming back to the right or property interest in the admission to college these students would have to claim was unlawfully taken from them, but I could be missing other legal arguments because of my focus there.

 

[kswiston]

It was only a few years ago that actual conversations about online behavior have even started, yet alone being taken seriously. A lot of people still think that whatever you do behind a computer screen doesn't matter.

"Last few years" means all of the current decade, which is half of these kids' lives. Definitely the half that mattered for online behavior. Facebook has been open to the general public for 10 years. The conversations on online behavior followed shortly after.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Wait, Harvard is not taxpayer funded. Some students are taxpayer funded, but that's not the same thing, unless you're suggesting Harvard kick low-income students out of the school so that they can maintain legal control over their campus.



To be honest, I suspect most of the parents are going to be thinking "Oh, not again."

You misunderstand, I was musing on the hypothetical of a public university rescinding an admission offer on the same grounds.

 

[Quixzlizx]

They're a private university and can kick people out for almost any reason they deem acceptable, but being an edgelord dummy in a private Facebook group is kind of a flimsy one.

It seems like too much exposure to "ironic" garbage eventually rots your brain to the point it's no longer ironic to you.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Your first class at Harvard: Consequences & Personal Responsibility 101. Something your parents obviously never taught you.

 

[Earthbound64]

"God-awful memes" is definitely one way to describe "tremendously bigoted hate speech used as a punchline."

Seriously.
Just call it what it is.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Don't worry about these kids, they should have no problem getting into Penn State or Baylor.

 

[Omega Kirby]

Haha , this generation of kids are moronic

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

They're a private university and can kick people out for almost any reason they deem acceptable, but being an edgelord dummy in a private Facebook group is kind of a flimsy one.

On one hand you have an admissions essay talking about their hopes and dreams of being a successful doctor, lawyer, businessman, or politician that will affect the outcomes of hundreds of people's lives. On the other hand, you have hundreds of screenshots of them making jokes about raping children and lynching brown people. If you're in admissions, do you do the right thing, or let it slide because "boys will be boys"?

I have to imagine that rescinding a (theoretically merit-based) offer of admission on the basis of private, protected speech would likely not look great in a courtroom, based on my understanding of how vigorously protected speech has been protected in public institutions by the courts in the past. Of course, if they had known beforehand and refused the offer with that knowledge, they'd be legally in the clear because nobody could prove it was primarily because of that, but after the admission, it certainly reads as something taxpayer-funded taking punitive action on the basis of protected speech, which seems, in principle, to be the kind of behavior courts have ruled negatively against colleges on in cases I'm aware of. (It's for this same reason that public institutions' "diversity codes" are often window dressing, as courts have ruled students can't be punished for protected speech by schools in the past.) At the very least, I think there would be a case to be made, though of course the smart, moral thing would be for the kids to take the L and not be such morons next time.

College admissions run along the same lines as "at will" employment. Stuff you say on social media is open season in the consideration just as much as your official references. The offer of admission is just that...an offer, and can be rescinded at any time for any reason that isn't legally discriminatory.

Edit: and Harvard is a private school, not public.

 

[kswiston]

Haha , this generation of kids are moronic

Every generation of kids is moronic. People aren't emotionally mature until their mid-late 20s, which leads to dumb decisions, even if they are intellectually gifted.

 

[Armaros]

Every generation of kids is moronic. People aren't emotionally mature until their mid-late 20s, which leads to dumb decisions, even if they are intellectually gifted.

And didn't communicate in media that are easily and automatically preserved like Facebook and twitter.

Older gens said the same kind of things just none of it was recorded.

 

[Zaru]

Class of 2021 means that's when they graduate. They'd start this fall.

... someone who starts attending Harvard in fall 2017 graduates in...

Class of 2021, meaning they will graduate in 2021 (assuming a standard 4 year curriculum).

They would be class of 2021, AKA graduating in 2021, so they would be freshmen this Fall.

This guy definitely didn't get into Harvard.

; )

All kidding aside, good riddance to those idiots.

lmao

To be fair that's not how it works in my country

 

[wildfire]

Smart enough to go to Harvard, not rich enough to stay.

^

 

[wildfire]

The craziest thing to me is that they were in Facebook and not Snapchat. I work with high schoolers and whenever anyone brings up Facebook they roll their eyes and talk about how only old people use it nowadays.

They are slightly bullshitting you and themselves. Facebook is too ubiquitous as a social media platform. They still use it but not as frequently as other platforms.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

On one hand you have an admissions essay talking about their hopes and dreams of being a successful doctor, lawyer, businessman, or politician that will affect the outcomes of hundreds of people's lives. On the other hand, you have hundreds of screenshots of them making jokes about raping children and lynching brown people. If you're in admissions, do you do the right thing, or let it slide because "boys will be boys"?



College admissions run along the same lines as "at will" employment. Stuff you say on social media is open season in the consideration just as much as your official references. The offer of admission is just that...an offer, and can be rescinded at any time for any reason that isn't legally discriminatory.

Edit: and Harvard is a private school, not public.

I acknowledged that, my response was to Cagey's statement he didn't think it'd make a difference if it were a public university. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of admissions case law to make a judgment either way, my (non-specialized) familiarity is with first amendment case law with respect to students already attending, which is pretty solidly on the side of public schools having a Constitutional obligation to honor protected speech, which is why Auburn University in Alabama was required by a judge a few weeks ago to allow Richard Spencer to speak on campus. I'd hypothesize there is a junction, there, or that one could potentially open up, but I'm not clear on that, tbh.

 

[ArgyleReptile]

 

[Bronx-Man]

Facebook is weird in this generational timespan. Everyone I knew used it in middle school, no one used it in high school, now everyone's using it again in college.

 

[Fuchsdh]

"Last few years" means all of the current decade, which is half of these kids' lives. Definitely the half that mattered for online behavior. Facebook has been open to the general public for 10 years. The conversations on online behavior followed shortly after.

I think the rise of people saying dumb and/or racist stuff on their public Facebook profiles shows that the belief that it was internet anonymity that was driving the "Internet dickwad" theory was incorrect. People are just assholes when they aren't face-to-face and have an audience.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I acknowledged that, my response was to Cagey's statement he didn't think it'd make a difference if it were a public university. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of admissions case law to make a judgment either way, my (non-specialized) familiarity is with first amendment case law with respect to students already attending, which is pretty solidly on the side of public schools having a Constitutional obligation to honor protected speech, which is why Auburn University in Alabama was required by a judge a few weeks ago to allow Richard Spencer to speak on campus. I'd hypothesize there is a junction, there, or that one could potentially open up, but I'm not clear on that, tbh.

Classes, graduation, services rendered are not the same thing as being allowed to speak in a geographical area.

 

[Dali]

I equate it more to a government agency extending an offer to new employees and, between receiving acceptance of the job offer and the employees' start date, the agency learns the employees have said some foul shit that would get them fired had they begun working.

If these 10 students were getting the boot from Michigan, UVa, or another "public Ivy" post-admission pre-enrollment, I would guess they would receive the same lessened protection as the woman waiting to start work.

My mind keeps coming back to the right or property interest in the admission to college these students would have to claim was unlawfully taken from them, but I could be missing other legal arguments because of my focus there.

Most schools have a code of conduct that students must follow. Failure to follow the code can result in expulsion or suspension. Even if they started class their deplorable behaviour could have had them given the boot anyway.

 

[Armaros]

I acknowledged that, my response was to Cagey's statement he didn't think it'd make a difference if it were a public university. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of admissions case law to make a judgment either way, my (non-specialized) familiarity is with first amendment case law with respect to students already attending, which is pretty solidly on the side of public schools having a Constitutional obligation to honor protected speech, which is why Auburn University in Alabama was required by a judge a few weeks ago to allow Richard Spencer to speak on campus. I'd hypothesize there is a junction, there, or that one could potentially open up, but I'm not clear on that, tbh.

Using that logic, a university can't actually use the essay you send to them for admission against your admission if you apply the exact same free speech argument. Because the students could have just put all that filth in their admission essay and it couldn't be used against them.

Which is why admissions is not the same as just going to a place to speak.

 

[Darryl M R]

The first lesson I heard about social media back in high school was not to put up things that reflect poorly of myself like underage drinking.

Memes are the great equalizer.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

Good, fuck them tbh.

 

[Peltz]

I have to imagine that rescinding a (theoretically merit-based) offer of admission on the basis of private, protected speech would likely not look great in a courtroom, based on my understanding of how vigorously protected speech has been protected in public institutions by the courts in the past. Of course, if they had known beforehand and refused the offer with that knowledge, they'd be legally in the clear because nobody could prove it was primarily because of that, but after the admission, it certainly reads as something taxpayer-funded taking punitive action on the basis of protected speech, which seems, in principle, to be the kind of behavior courts have ruled negatively against colleges on in cases I'm aware of. (It's for this same reason that public institutions' "diversity codes" are often window dressing, as courts have ruled students can't be punished for protected speech by schools in the past.) At the very least, I think there would be a case to be made, though of course the smart, moral thing would be for the kids to take the L and not be such morons next time.

As part of Harvard's "merit-based" admissions, as you put it, they should be able to consider the character, maturity, and ethics of the applicant. I don't see how free speech has any bearing on this issue at all. Harassment isn't protected under the free speech in any of its forms. And the institution should be able to revoke admission to a student who commits immoral acts.

Even if Harvard were a public school, I don't agree with your assessment.

 

[Cagey]

Most schools have a code of conduct that students must follow. Failure to follow the code can result in expulsion or suspension. Even if they started class their deplorable behaviour could have had them given the boot anyway.

Right, following due process set forth by the school's grievance procedures, which is what I've argued.

Because these are admitted students not enrolled, I don't believe they have a property interest in their admission and thus aren't entitled to a more thorough due process (i.e. college grievance procedures).

 

[Kayhan]

Smart enough to get into Harvard.

Not smart enough to see this was a bad idea.

?

 

[ChrisD]

Dead children and the concept of human piñatas made even worse by applying racism.
How screwed up do you have to be in the head? They even said it publicly, this isn't 4Chan anonymity. Facebook has shown that racism isn't hidden from people's actual image, but dead children and hangings tends to be something even a racist will steer clear of.

I hope these people never get permitted into a prestigious education.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Can't say I feel bad for these kids. Hold the L go to another school and learn not to be shits.

 

[louiedog]

Smart enough to get into Harvard.

Not smart enough to see this was a bad idea.

?

These parents probably spent a few thousand on SAT prep and essay writing classes to get these kids into Harvard.

 

[BobTheFork]

This is fine.

What's the point? Harvard can't teach them the one thing they need to learn.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Using that logic, a university can't actually use the essay you send to them for admission against your admission if you apply the exact same free speech argument. Because the students could have just put all that filth in their admission essay and it couldn't be used against them.

Which is why admissions is not the same as just going to a place to speak.

The university could easily say it wasn't the content of the essay, but failure to follow directions in drafting it, that influenced their decision, or any number of other "outs". The difference here would be the lack of ambiguity in the rationale for the decision, and the level of latitude a public university would have in rescinding an offer of admission.

 

[Angelus Errare]

These parents probably spent a few thousand on SAT prep and essay writing classes to get these kids into Harvard.

So?

 

[Magwik]

These parents probably spent a few thousand on SAT prep and essay writing classes to get these kids into Harvard.

Maybe they should have raised better kids

 

[louiedog]

So?

So it's maybe less that the kids were smart and more that their parents had the resources to turn them into competitive prospective students on paper.

 

[ShyMel]

These parents probably spent a few thousand on SAT prep and essay writing classes to get these kids into Harvard.

Maybe should have had them go to a few character building classes too. That's some gross stuff to say, especially in a Facebook group.

 

[Armaros]

The university could easily say it wasn't the content of the essay, but failure to follow directions in drafting it, that influenced their decision, or any number of other "outs". The difference here would be the lack of ambiguity in the rationale for the decision, and the level of latitude a public university would have in rescinding an offer of admission.

So why would a public university even have the essay requirement if they could not use its contents? Something else would exist.

Again using that kind of logic, that they would use procedure and not the contents means at some point their would have been a case about a university violating free speech regarding the essay for admissions by using its contents against a prospetive student.

It does not hold up

 

[Messofanego]

Haha

 

[Deepwater]

Sorry. When I first read through the thread, I read that as you wanting someone to make the argument.

So many people misunderstand the first amendment, it's kind of a rote response by now.

It is all good. We slip up from time to time.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Classes, graduation, services rendered are not the same thing as being allowed to speak in a geographical area.

True, but if they were ALREADY enrolled, the university would not be able to punish them for, say, saying something racist, as "speech codes" at public universities have been roundly rejected by courts. The question of what degree of protection these kids have relative to already enrolled students seems, to me, to be potentially legally open, but as I said, I do not know much of anything about admissions case law.

 

[mm04]

There is no recourse for these kids. Universities don't have to accept you if you meet a certain criteria. That's not how the admissions process works. Now their internet stupidity is likely going to get them blacklisted from other Ivies as well.

 

[SugarDaddy]

What an interesting story

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Wonder how many rapey frat boys with a rich dad fly under the radar

 

[AnkhWeasel]

Masters of Edgelord.

 

[Juke Joint Jezebel]

Should've just stuck with "THICC" memes and called it a day.

 

[itwasTuesday]

Masters of Edgelord.

Masters in Edgelord.

 

[BigDug13]

I'm sure none of these kids were from highly privileged families and especially public families though. If it was Barron Trump in this chat group, he would for sure not be denied entry into Harvard. Same for any other Harvard alumnus politician's kid.

 

[excelsiorlef]

True, but if they were ALREADY enrolled, the university would not be able to punish them for, say, saying something racist, as "speech codes" at public universities have been roundly rejected by courts. The question of what degree of protection these kids have relative to already enrolled students seems, to me, to be potentially legally open, but as I said, I do not know much of anything about admissions case law.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ersity-after-racist-post-goes-viral/90737194/

This seems to be far far less clear cut than you seem to believe.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ersity-after-racist-post-goes-viral/90737194/

This seems to be far far less clear cut than you seem to believe.

Belmont is a private university.

Edit: FIRE is a conservative organization with conservative spin, which one must pick out like raisins, but their roundup of case law seems to show pretty clearly that speech codes at public universities are not looked upon fondly by the courts.