Hacker News Reader

Comment by objclxt | Hacker News Reader

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.

Firstly, you're posting a Harvard FAS resolution, but Harvard isn't even mentioned in the NYT article. I don't know why you bring it up.

Secondly, I think it should be pretty obvious that there's a difference between being able to say what you want as a faculty member or enrolled student and being able to say what you want as an applicant.

There are lots of good arguments as to why college admissions officers shouldn't be using social media to weigh up an application, but I'm not sure the argument you're making is one of them.

View on HN

(1) Free speech is uniquely important to the university;

(2) We select out those who exercise their rights.

(3) We're f@_king hypocrites.

(4) Because of (3) You are only free to express our views (2) or no views.

_______________

Empirical example: Its worth doing some research on Elena Kagan. [In 2001, she was named a full professor and in 2003 was named Dean of the Law School by Harvard University President]. Now on SCOTUS.

"because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse"

Imagine a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has never taken a public stand on almost any policy issue. Imagine that her campaign consists of asking people for their support because, according to friends and colleagues, the candidate is smart, fair, and good to others. When her friends are asked what her views are on various political matters, they reply that they don't know-but that they're confident she'd make an excellent senator.

That worked, well.

_______________

Sounds like someone who really values free speech, huh?

________________

But this is not cherry picking, its common TCW:

Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions (NYT)

Solicitor General Holds Views Close To Her Chest (NPR)

The Lingering Mystery Around Elena Kagan (CBS)

Are you unfamiliar with the detail that "free speech" refers to governmental reaction to speech, or are you just ignoring it?

As adopted by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on February 13 and May 15, 1990.

I'm quoting the official position of the university. Their policy is not a government policy. It is a policy that governs speech in the university environment.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic847338.files/FS_G...

So, I would say about your comment: it might not be 'false', but to the extent its relevant it is only so narrowly (ie, its 'trivially' true).

I find it funny that you're complaining about relevance when you're trying to brandish as damning a document (from a completely unrelated school, no less) where you can see "the following guidelines are intended to apply to all gatherings under the auspices of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences" on the first page. It makes no claims as to the public forum--it makes no claims as to the classroom, even, let alone anything outside of their auspices!

You may find what I said trivially true. I find what you say somewhere much closer to 'dishonest'.

I find what you say somewhere much closer to 'dishonest'.

The great thing about irony, is that it makes no such pretense.

____________

i·ro·ny ˈīrənē,ˈiərnē/ noun noun: irony

1. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

The law school isn't part of FAS. And free speech includes the right to say nothing, even if for careerist advantage.

FAS policy, on the other hand reiterates the predicate: “Free speech is uniquely important to the <University>... (emphasis added). FAS is part of 'The University', and so is the law school. The actions of the latter thus implicate the umbrella organization.

Really not clear what point you're trying to make. Still not clear how Kagan violated free speech by not saying much. And definitley not clear what any of that has to do with social media and admissions at a sample of schools that does not include Harvard.

(1) Free speech is uniquely important to the university;

(2) We select out those who exercise their rights.

Kagan is an example of #2. Nobody is arguing that Harvard taught her to hate freedom of expression. They play it a bit more subtle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com