Scholarship table
So we can now say things like Conway sure had a scorching take this morning, or Noonan, or Buchanan.....at this location without actually linking it? What could go wrong? The hypocrisy from Harvard is the real story here, but that is nothing new. Group think apparently is diversity now.
They did it to 10 kids two years ago over the exact same type of thing so their is a precedent but keep playing the teeny tiny 🎻 College admissions is literally judging kids on behavior and academics they did as kids. Every admissions letter has a clause about it being contingent on xyz. How is this different if a kid got admitted, then flunked out their 2nd semester of senior year?New information came to light and they made a decision they feel is the best interest of their community. And if this is group think, put me in the group that doesn’t use horribly racist language.
Sorry if I don’t hold 16 year olds to adult standards....because they aren’t adults....legally, maturity, etc. The young man is fully qualified academically and was admitted as such. A campaign was put out there against him (that is American retribution today) because of his politics. You seem an honest broker Reinko, you know that is what happened here and the young man ousted walked through that yesterday. Meanwhile, there are examples where Harvard let similar statements go entirely unpunished by students, so the example of 10 kids previously is a nothing burger as they move goalposts and apply different standards of justice on same moral actions solely based on group think. Or we could look at The NY Times, maybe we should examine the racist commentary by one of their board members, Sarah Jeong....imagine if this young man just used her exact words (she is an adult), I’m Sure Brooks and the Times would have been just fine....right? That’s the hypocrisy.
Sorry if I don’t hold 16 year olds to adult standards....because they aren’t adults....legally, maturity, etc. The young man is fully qualified academically and was admitted as such. A campaign was put out there against him (that is American retribution today) because of his politics.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
If I read the Brooks article correctly, he actually said Harvard should have let him in.It's a hard balance between forgiveness and accountability. I haven't followed the situation closely enough to make a judgement. But if the kid sincerely apologized for his behavior, I would have let him in.
The kid who made numerous racist statements isn't the problem. The kids who exposed his numerous racist statements are the problem. Blameshifting 101.
I am, and work in this field, so maybe I’m biased. But again, college admissions is literally the definition of judging kids on their behavior as kids. He took his AP classes as a child, was in lots of extracurriculars as a child, did awesome on his SATs as a child, and yes, made horribly racist remarks as a child.So I think your example of adults being judged on their behavior as kids is apple and oranges in this instance.
DId you read the Brooks piece? He thought Harvard made a mistake.
Nope. The kid, correct term, made poor statements when he was a kid...he apologized for them. He took ownership of them.Meanwhile, the school has admitted people with same transgressions and The NY Times has someone on their board that continues to use such language, but apparently that’s all cool. Meanwhile, this young man who did something at 16, is now retroactively punishes while the Times piles on all awhile having someone on their board that can say whatever she damn well pleases. That’s not blameshifting, that is is fact.
That's a very bad false equivalency. I mean, if you're going to play whataboutism - the sure sign of a strong argument - at least make sure the situations are remotely similar.Anyhow, when it comes down to it, Harvard every year is faced with thousands more qualified applicants than it can enroll, and the line between accepted and rejected in many instances is razor thin. If Harvard decides that repeatedly spouting racist sentiments puts an otherwise qualified applicant on the wrong side of that line, that's not unreasonable to me. Apparently it is to you, as you seem to be arguing that repeatedly spouting racist sentiments ought not carry any serious consequences.You're entitled to that opinion as well, and when you run a private university, you're welcome to accept such applicants to your heart's content.
What’s unreasonable is holding something against someone they did at age 16 while allowing the same behavior by others to be ignored.
I’m sure you will remain consistent in your arguments next time a 16 or 17 year old breaks the law and should be shown mercy.....or should they?
A court of law and admission to a college are two very different things. Talk about a straw man. Anyway I do think Cheeks has a point here. I think he should be admitted because redemption is a powerful human property. But Harvard is well within its eighths to deny. And they’ll be fine doing so.
This is about where I'm at. Harvard is well within their rights to rescind based on this information but I also believe in forgiveness and second chances.
https://twitter.com/samsanders/status/1141150756529065984?s=21
That's fine. I don't care whether Harvard admits him or not. Up to them.I just think the narrative that this is some unfortunate kid who made a silly mistake and is really being targeted for his political views is asinine. His political views were known before he was admitted. If Harvard's issue were with his political views, they wouldn't have accepted him in the first place and could have avoided this whole kerfuffle.
His political views is what got a third party with an axe to grind to approach Harvard after the fact and demand they rescind his acceptance. This is the society we live in now. Meanwhile, David Hogg who couldn’t get in to a majority of schools he applied to (his own admission), will be at Harvard despite some outlandish comments....go figure.