The Controversies
Harvard
Harvard invites admitted undergraduates to join an official Facebook group, which is moderated. The site warns students that “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.”
From the site, students can form their own chat groups. According to Harvard’s newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, members of one group sent each other “memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children … Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups.”
Sometime in mid-April members of the group received an email from the Admissions Office:
The Admissions Committee was disappointed to learn that several students in a private group chat for the Class of 2021 were sending messages that contained offensive messages and graphics. As we understand you were among the members contributing such material to this chat, we are asking that you submit a statement by tomorrow at noon to explain your contributions and actions for discussion with the Admissions Committee.
Soon thereafter, Harvard College revoked admissions offers to at least ten members of the group.
Some members of the community supported the university’s decision. “I do not know how those offensive images could be defended,” one student said. But some professors condemned it. Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School, expressed the view that “Harvard is intruding too deeply into the private lives of students.”
Harvard declined to respond to various inquiries writing that “We do not comment publicly on the admissions status of individual applicants.’’
Supporting Links
Hannah Natanson | The Harvard Crimson | 06/05/17 (Article)
“Harvard Rescinds Acceptances for At Least Ten Students for Obscene Memes”
Lois Beckett | The Guardian | 06/05/17 (Article)
“Harvard rescinds admissions offers over offensive memes on Facebook – report”
New York University (NYU)
On October 10, 2023—three days after Hamas launched an attack on Israel—NYU’s SBA president, Ryna Workman, published a message in the organization’s weekly newsletter email. In it, Workman expressed “unwavering and absolute solidarity with the Palestinians in their resistance against oppression,” as well as the view that “Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life.” (A screenshot of the message is below.)
By the evening of October 10:
- A law firm, Winston & Strawn, rescinded Workman’s offer of employment because their “comments profoundly conflict with Winston & Strawn’s values as a firm.”
- NYU’s SBA voted to initiate Workman’s removal as SBA president. In its message, the SBA wrote, “multiple students have received significant targeted harassment and death threats … We urge NYU Law’s administration to do more to protect students’ privacy and safety in the face of targeted harassment.”
- NYU’s law school dean issued a statement repudiating Workman’s message.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), in contrast, defended Workman in a letter to NYU (written out of concern that NYU might be investigating Workman):
Workman’s reported statements … are the very sort of passionate, core political speech one might expect on a college campus. They are wholly protected even if other students found them offensive or even hateful … Law students, especially, must be free to debate the legal issues of the day without fearing institutional reprisal for engaging in protected speech.
Supporting Links
Claudia Aoraha | DailyMail.com | 10/10/23 (Article)
Michael Goodwin | Business Wire | 10/10/23 (Press Release)
NYU Law SBA | NYU Law | 10/10/23 (Press Release)
Troy McKenzie | NYU Law | 10/10/23 (Press Release)
“Message to the NYU Law Community”
Troy McKenzie | FIRE | 10/16/23 (Press Release)
Additional Reading Materials
Erwin Chemerinsky | Daily News | 06/21/17 (Article)
Josh Moody | U.S. News | 08/22/19 (Article)
“Why Colleges Look at Student’s Social Media”
Benjamin Herold | Education Week | 07/06/17 (Article)
“10 Social Media Controversies That Landed Students in Trouble This School Year”
Listen to (or read) this NPR podcast about the personal consequences of the Harvard meme scandal for one student from Pennsylvania.
“Online Behavior, Real-Life Consequences: The Unfolding Of A Social Media Scandal”
Discussion Topics
- Harvard/Winston & Strawn are private entities but what if they were public? Would rescinding admissions/employment offers based on “behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character” or value conflict violate the First Amendment?
- FIRE claimed that Workman’s speech was the “very sort of passionate, core political speech one might expect on a college campus.” But Workman’s expression was in an organization’s newsletter, not in a personal email or social media account. Likewise, the Harvard students were on school-sponsored social media, not a private-personal communication channel. Are these distinctions with or without meaning?
- The Harvard case generated a great deal of commentary—much of which also applies to the NYU case. The editorial board of The Washington Post wrote,
It would be a mistake … to conflate the recent events at Harvard with any kind of attack on free speech. What happened at Harvard is simply this: Misguided young people with an outsize sense of entitlement have been required to suffer the consequences—about which they had received sufficient warning—for ugly and inappropriate behavior. Harvard was right to insist that those who are granted the privilege of attending the private institution adhere to its standards.
Defend The Washington Post’s position. Would your argument also apply to Workman, a student (not admitted) at NYU? - Will Creeley of FIRE claimed that the revocations were in tension with a speech delivered by Harvard’s president defending the importance of free speech. The president said:
We must remember that limiting some speech opens the dangerous possibility that the speech that is ultimately censored may be our own. If some words are to be treated as equivalent to physical violence and silenced or even prosecuted, who is to decide which words?
We need to hear those hateful ideas so our society is fully equipped to oppose and defeat them.
Defend Creeley’s position with regard to the Harvard and NYU cases.