Are Colleges Right in Rescinding Acceptances for Teen Misconduct?

The recent controversy surrounding Harvard University's decision to rescind several acceptances due to offensive posts made during adolescence has once again brought the spotlight to a critical issue in higher education. This case is complex, drawing into question the balance between student freedom and institutional transparency.

The Context of Harvard's Decision

Harvard, like many universities, evaluates applicants based on a variety of criteria, including academic performance, extracurricular activities, and personal statements. Importantly, one of these criteria is often the individual's past behavior, particularly during adolescence. This is because universities see this period as a critical formative phase that not only predicts academic success but also character development.

The recent decision highlights the ethical and legal challenges faced by admissions officers. The core issue is whether institutions are justified in evaluating and considering past behavior, especially if it occurred during a less responsible phase of a person's life. The OP (Original Poster) argues that being a "teen" gives individuals an excuse for making poor decisions, suggesting a contradiction if schools ignore such behavior.

The Impact of Legal Liability

A recent lawsuit has made colleges in the United States more accountable for student behavior. This added responsibility, particularly after the acceptance was rescinded, has prompted universities to reassess their practices. A notable example is the $11 million libel verdict against Oberlin College, which could serve as a cautionary tale for other institutions.

When colleges face significant penalties due to student actions, they become more cautious and consider legal consequences as a driving factor in decision-making. This legal aspect adds pressure to admissions processes, making it essential for universities to carefully examine the teenage backgrounds of applicants.

Case Study: Kyle Kashuv

A recent lawsuit involving Kyle Kashuv further highlights this issue. Kashuv, a former member of Turning Point USA, faced expulsion from Harvard for posts containing offensive and indeed racist content. The nature and extent of his statements are crucial in understanding the decision:

There is substantial evidence suggesting a pattern of behavior that crosses the line into inappropriate and offensive actions. Many of these posts are not isolated incidents but part of a larger conversation, indicating a consistent pattern of behavior. The evidence includes:

The second post made a school shooting joke, potentially showing a lack of respect for victims and survivors. The third post used a racial slur, which ties into broader racist tropes, suggesting a deeply inappropriate mindset.

The Strategic and Ethical Considerations

Harvard's decision reflects a strategic and ethical choice. On a strategic level, it strengthens the institution's image by taking a clear stance against offensive behavior. This move can help protect Harvard's reputation and discourage offensive behavior among applicants.

From an ethical standpoint, the decision aligns with the moral imperative to uphold standards of respect and inclusivity. By rescinding acceptances, Harvard is setting a precedent that will influence future applicants and promote a culture of accountability.

Had Kashuv denied the comments, the situation could have escalated into a public relations nightmare, similar to the situation with Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. Harvard's strategic decision to accept the admitted guilt helped mitigate public backlash and fulfilled their responsibility as an institution.

Conclusion

Harvard's decision to rescind acceptances based on offensive teenage behavior is a complex issue with multiple layers of legal, ethical, and strategic considerations. While some may argue that teenagers should be given a second chance, the reality is that institutions like Harvard must confront these issues head-on.

As the landscape of college admissions continues to evolve, the role of past behavior in the selection process will undoubtedly remain a subject of intense debate. However, the Harvard case sets a notable precedent in this context, emphasizing both the legal and ethical dimensions of such decisions.