I think the concern here is that it was private.
I think that people are mistaken when they believe that they can have private electronic conversations. Even in-person conversations are mildly suspect. If you're a part of a social media group where you don't know every single person in the group, or you are not certain whether newly invited members of the group can see old messages, you should assume this content will get published by a news agency. "How would it look to my boss, my parents and all my friends and family if they were to read what I'm about to write?"
We can mull about technical solutions to this problem and social solutions too. But as frustrating as it is, I believe that this is a net benefit to society. We've rooted out a lot of corrupt individuals with this same sea of audio/video sensors. We must now adjust to the reality that our electronic conversations have a very high likelihood of being leaked.
Both the main and offshoot were technically private chats, but the people in the main chat didn't sign up for that kind of behavior.
It's the difference between playing Cards Against Humanity with a few people and walking around school telling other students your most obscene card combos as jokes.
Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit:
> We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.
Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy:
> the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,”
One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character and avoid a paradox.
[1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...
FB issue aside, I think people should be allowed to joke about whatever they want in private. However some people bring jokes from 4chan and b/ into the workplace. High school and college students probably have a harder time drawing the line between facebook and the classroom.
They were allowed to post it, nothing stopped them. Its just that after they did Harvard made the (IMO reasonable) decision to revoke their acceptance.
> The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group.
Putting hate speech in the internet doesn't make it magically more private.