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.

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.]

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.

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