Hacker News Reader

Comment by subroutine | Hacker News Reader

Some quotes from the article makes it seem like they are more worried about the potential social and political backlash, than their personal beliefs on whether she has been rehabilitated.

> "We didn’t have some preconceived idea about crucifying Michelle,” said John Stauffer, one of the two American studies professors. “But frankly, we knew that anyone could just punch her crime into Google, and Fox News would probably say that P.C. liberal Harvard gave 200 grand of funding to a child murderer, who also happened to be a minority. I mean, c’mon.”

This is so cowardly.

View on HN

... wow. I'm pretty shocked that a Harvard prof would admit to overturning someone's admission due in part to them being a racial minority, fearing the prospect of bad press from Fox News. Fox has really won the culture wars in a major way.

> shocked that a Harvard prof would admit to overturning someone's admission due in part to them being a racial minority

Harvard has come under a lot of criticism for having a lower standard for blacks and a higher standard for asians. He seems to imply that he felt or that others would feel (I can't exactly tell) that Harvard would not have accepted someone in the same situation who wasn't black. This is different than saying he didn't think she should be accepted because of her skin color.

I'm not arguing for or against their decision--just that within the context of current lawsuits against Harvard, his statement has a bit different meaning.

Why would Harvard actually care what Fox news thinks? Honest question.

They don't want to be a negative target of DC. DC is currently Republican led and Republican politicians most definitely care what Fox news thinks.

My guess is that the profs saw this as such a perfect shitstorm that, if it becomes a major story, DC would feel they have no choice but to do something about it.

I was going to say something more 2015-ish, but with Donny's revealing of the wizard behind the curtain, yeah, you are right.

Why do they care?

I mean, they have enough cash in the bank to never let another student in for 200 years, and still be just fine. They have more good-will built up than anything else out there. They make advances in human knowledge comparable to almost nothing else besides another University. They have it all. So what could they want then?

The only thing I can come up with is that they do think Fox would be correct in that assumption. They aren't worried about the money. Maybe they are worried about the woman herself and just are using the Fox stuff as cover? Nothing else really makes sense.

The idea that sufficient resources mean you can just ignore politics has historically proven inaccurate.

What do you think most of their donors watch, practically exclusively? Gotta make sure Johnny's not going to one of those SJW / safe space / PC / ... colleges like Yale!

They're trying to avoid being part of Fox's whole anti-University arc this season.

i'm pretty sure they turned her away for being a child murderer

Worse, he's apparently a scholar on antislavery and professor of African American Studies, i.e. a demographic supposedly more cognizant of barriers minorities face and importance of their getting opportunities like admission to Harvard.

I imagine there are plenty of very highly qualified scholars who, to use the professor's own words, "happen to be a minority," that never killed their infant child.

Plenty of very highly qualified scholars who didn't grow up in the context that she did, whose backgrounds aren't comparable. Doesn't make her less deserving of this opportunity; she committed a crime and did her time, she's allowed to move on.

She absolutely is and should not have any impediments from the state in moving on with her life. Private individuals and institutions are under no such obligation, though.

So, you're stating that I'm not allowed to have an opinion that disapproves of the actions of Harvard in this instance?

No one is stating that Harvard had an obligation to accept her. People are expressing their dissatisfaction with Harvard's actions. That's still allowed, right?

[As a side note: If all private individuals/institutions impose additional hardships on ex-cons, then it's highly hypocritical for any of those individuals/institutions to complain about the recidivism rates. You may as well just send them all away for life in prison for any crime and be done with it if your plan is to hamper their efforts to move on after prison.]

Nothing I said could be reasonably interpreted to mean that you're not allowed to disagree with Harvard's decision. Stop trying to be argumentative.

Nobody's disputing the rights of private institutions but everybody has a right to express their distaste over their actions, especially when it is arrived at in a manner which runs against what such institutions claim to stand for.

Claiming that private institutions aren't under any obligations for reasonable conduct seems to be a very uniquely American ideation; that somehow only the government is bound by higher ideals, and businesses can do what they please with whoever they please as long as someone signs a contract

Harvard is a private institution that receives funding from the Government in the form of Pell Grants. This is not just a small business in Wisconsin. If Harvard wants to be able to extend the punishment of someone who has served their time, they should no longer receive Government funding.

You don't get to have it both ways.

She committed a crime, did her time, and is allowed to not be incarcerated by the state anymore. That doesn't mean she's entitled to any number of additional things such as admission to Harvard doctoral programs, employment at any given employer, etc.

I think they were trying to say that if this person was not a minority there would have been no way they would even be considered.

Not to get into an argument about affirmative action, but if the problem is that minorities are often perceived as having a lower bar for entry, one of the few ways to ameliorate that perception is to actually hire minority candidates who do meet the "normal" bar for entry. Yes, skeptics will still be skeptics, but if an institution as renowned as Harvard is too scared by Fox News to take that action, than who isn't? (besides NYU and the other schools that accepted the Ph.D. candidate)

Along these lines, I think it was an attempt to not piss off potential donors.

"I donate a quarter million a year and you give it to a black who killed her own son? Guess Yale could use a new building with my name on it"

Still though, the US needs to have a good hard look at de-monetizing the prison industrial complex, humanizing post-incarcerated people, and disassembling the economic incentives to use the 13th amendment for disenfranchisement.

But there are potential donors who deeply care about reforming criminal justice. The Koch brothers and the Deasons, for instance: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-wit...

I realize the op-ed linked to above mentions legislation to end harsh punishment/disclosure rules for first-time non-violent offenders, but that's a reasonable initial milestone in reforming the justice system to be more rehabilitative.

You can read more about their stances as advocated by Freedom Partners, the nonprofit that they founded and fund: https://freedompartners.org/issues/

Including this statement of support for VA governor candidate Ed Gillespie's criminal justice reform plan: https://freedompartners.org/press/holden-keeping-virginia-sa...

https://edforvirginia.com/criminaljustice/

> “Virginia’s criminal justice system should be just, fair and redeeming. Law enforcement and justice should be administered fairly, and when Virginians exit the criminal justice system they should leave more prepared to live a full and contributing life in society. “ – Ed Gillespie

Reply on news.ycombinator.com