Cancel Culture

Harvard University Cancels Kyle Kashuv

A social media mob successfully persuades Harvard to rescind the admission of a conservative Parkland survivor.

|

Harvard University has rescinded its offer of admission to Kyle Kashuv, a Parkland survivor and conservative teen activist due to racist comments he made several years ago in group chats with other Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School students.

Screenshots of the offensive statements surfaced about a month ago when Kashuv's critics in both lefty media and far-right circles teamed up to destroy him. Kashuv acknowledged responsibility for having once been a "petty, flippant kid" but explained that subsequent events—including the mass shooting that killed many of his teachers and classmates—forced him "to mature and grow in an incredibly drastic way." The comments were all made before the shooting, and before Kashuv became a nationally-recognized conservative figure, Second Amendment advocate, and coordinator for Turning Point USA. (He has since left the group.)

Kashuv had planned to attend Harvard in fall 2020 after completing a gap year, but shortly after his past racist comments became public, administrators advised him that his acceptance could be withdrawn "if you engage or have engaged in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character." He was asked to provide a full explanation for his behavior, which he did. He also emailed Harvard's Office of Diversity Education and Support, vowing to make amends. This office told him "we appreciate your thoughtful reflections and look forward to connecting with you upon your matriculation in the fall of 2020."

Alas, it was not to be: The dean of admissions decided to rescind Kashuv's admission.

A spokesperson for Harvard told Reason that the university does not comment on the admissions status of individual applicants. Harvard is a private institution, and is within its rights, of course, to change its mind about admitting a specific student in light of new information.

Nonetheless, this decision is troubling. For one thing, it represents a major victory for the online mobs of cancel culture. One way to discourage Twitter trolls from dredging up old dirt on their enemies would be to ignore them. By giving the bullies exactly what they wanted, Harvard has only emboldened them. Indeed, gun control activist David Hogg—a fellow Parkland survivor—is currently a trending topic on Twitter, in part because some on the right would like to find a basis on which to argue that Harvard should de-admit him as well. (Inappropriate and conspiratorial claims that Hogg isn't smart enough have occasionally flooded social media.)

Harvard's decision here is also an endorsement of the position that people should be shamed and punished for their worst mistakes as kids. But moving forward, as technology gives everyone the ability to record every moment of our lives, this will be an untenable position—all embarrassing moments will be preserved forever, available for re-litigation. This is excessively punitive, and counterproductive to the healthy socialization of young people. Kids are not perfect: They must be given the opportunity to fail, and to learn and grow from their errors.

"As personally painful as this is right now, I'm concerned about the impacts this has on the broader conversation," Kashuv told Reason. "It makes it a lot less probable that people will apologize for past wrongdoings. Even more so, it's about whether the core educational principles that one can grow, can change, can mature are still intact or if past mistakes brand you as irredeemable."

No one is entitled to placement at Harvard, and if you say racist things to people, you should not be surprised when someone calls you out. But, as with the efforts to cancel James Gunn, Kevin Hart, Sarah Jeong, Kyler Murray, and so many others, we should be concerned about where this corrosive impulse to seek and destroy is leading us.

NEXT: New York's Progressive-Backed Rental Regulations Are a Huge Gift to Wealthy Tenants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

282 responses to “Harvard University Cancels Kyle Kashuv

    1. Twitter is a shitshow.

      1. You are giving Twitter far too much credit.

      2. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??.

        VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.Employment10.com

    2. “It’s not racist when you do it to Whitey”

      1. Absolutely correct Sir!

    3. Harvard targeted Kashuv because of his political ideology. Requital can be had in kind.
      If private conversations are fair game to ruin someone, then there won’t be any more private conversations. People will be afraid to be honest with each other and will censor themselves at all times. There will be less community and more secrecy.

      1. That’s the goal. Once family and friends are suspect, Big Brother is all you have left.

      2. Don’t worry too much about private conversations. But learn to distinguish them from published remarks.

        Follow this rule: never, ever, publish anything you wouldn’t be okay seeing on the front page of the NYT—whether or not you are publishing under a pseudonym. Teach that rule to your children. And please, explain to them that it is not an oppressive rule, but a wise one, which protects both the speaker and free speech generally.

        1. 1984 in 2019 is up ending the whole of our Enlightenment freedoms to speak, to think, to do and you’re counseling submission?

          More, it won’t work. Where will you have the seclusion for any private communications when we live in “smart homes”?

          “We” have already received two reports from your refrigerator and one from the blue suit hanging in the closet and “we” are not amused.

        2. Not only don’t publish. Don’t say out loud anything that could be recorded by a friend with a cellphone, or Alexa, or security camera at the the quickimart. Don’t ever wear clothes that could could be racist (appropriation). Don’t ever attend any event at which a speaker or performer may later be found to have been offensive.

          Best just to stay home in a medically induced coma, lest you think improper thoughts.

      3. Reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution (and it was not pretty). If these (Lib) communists get in we will lose every freedom we have. We MUST vote them ALL out! There will be a ‘social’ rating system like they have in China. Big Brother will tell us what to think, what to eat, how to dress, how long we can live. George Orwell was incredibly prescient.

        1. Your ardent defense of stale bigotry is noted and disdained, especially by your betters.

          1. Shut the fuck up, racist sexist asshole. The only person you’re ‘better’ here than is Tony, and that’s on his bad days.

          2. You should be beaten to death with a brick and your corpse thrown onto a highway, you useless retarded cunt.

  1. I have no problem with Harvard choosing to not admit a prospective student who posted racist comments.

    1. I’m sure no other students at Harvard ever posted anything dumb online as teenagers.
      The main problem is that he was clearly targeted for having the wrong political views and ruining the narrative around gun control and school shootings.
      The secondary problem is that people say dumb shit as teenagers and it’s insane to judge people by things they said when they were stupid kids.

      1. Yes. We need a statute of limitations on writings, and it should be short for youngsters, but longer for adults.

      2. As teenagers? Kyle is 18. He was 16 when he made that comment. It wasn’t that long ago.

        1. I don’t know about you, but most people grow exponentially during that time period. You go from being a little kid who relies on parents and others to take you places, to driving, going on dates, and having a lot more freedom. You begin to start thinking about your future more concretely versus it just being some future point that takes forever to get to. It’s the time where you start to become independent. If it was like 18-20 or something, I’d get it. But 16-18 is a huge leap.

    2. Yes it makes perfect sense for a school to avoid an opportunity to teach a child.

      1. Elite colleges aren’t good at teaching, they’re good at selecting. It’s a useful skill but way overvalued by people like you who don’t understand the product colleges sell.

    3. I have no problem with Harvard choosing to not admit a prospective student who posted racist comments.

      Only as long as it was a white guy, amirite?

        1. Bigots gonna bigot. And stick together.

          And continue to get stomped by good Americans in the culture war

          Carry on, clingers.

          1. Fuck off, slaver.

          2. Shove a shotgun down your throat and pull the trigger, you worthless cunt.

    4. They had accepted him. He now is past the deadline for other college admissions and turned down many scholarships to go to Harvard. I hope he sues the shit out of Harvard.

      1. I’ve been told that he has no case. Of course that person threw a tantrum when asked why soooo…..

      2. He wasn’t planning on attending till Fall of 2020. He has time.

        1. That’s Hogg. Kashuv was admitted for the class of 23. Try not to mislead people. it almost seems like you do it in purpose.

    5. “nicmart” is the type of libertarian who prunes his hedges while the Soviet army positions tank all around his house and points a thousand rifles at him, insisting that no NAP violations have yet occurred!

      1. Not to worry; I no longer usually refer to myself as a libertarian since the movement became hospitable to racists and their apologists. Starting with Ron Paul. That you still think of American homes surrounded by Soviet tanks is amusing, though.

        1. I no longer usually refer to myself as a libertarian since the movement became hospitable to racists and their apologists. Starting with Ron Paul.

          If you think it started with Ron Paul, you’re dumber than Mr. JD has portrayed you as being.

          1. The delight of the Reason discussion section is its utter absence of civility. We are far removed from the quality of Inquiry magazine. The great libertarian intellectuals are gone and the movement, if it can be called that, is a dump.

            1. Why did you change from “Normandy?”

            2. You care about politeness no matter how stupid the substance. Some of us prefer reality and reasoned thought and are tired of dating with the Jeffs of the world.

              1. Dealing with not dating. Fucking gay autocorrect.

                1. That’s homophobic. Or are you using the traditional definition of gay? Because my autocorrect sure seems happy to fuck things up…

    6. Stop calling insensitive or offensive comments racist. There is no implication of perceived superiority or ideology.

      1. at this point, ‘racist’ has lost all meaning.

      2. Anti racism is slowly but surely making a racist of me.

        1. Then you have no character.

          1. To be honest, I doubt anyone cares why you stopped lying about being a libertarian.

      3. A legitimate journalist would have informed the reader with respect to the relevant statements rather than offering whitewash by euphemism. A decent reader would recognize this fledgling bigot’s statements as racist and bigoted

        Carry on, clingers.

    7. You don’t seem to understand the libertarian position here.

      A private entity can make its own admittance standards, period, unless the person is a racist, then they must be given affirmative action. Because racists are in danger of being oppressed by society.

      1. Proof tony is too intellectually lazy to read the comments before saying something stupid.

      2. A private entity can make its own admittance standards, period,

        Harvard receives massive amounts of federal dollars for its educational functions; if it gives those up, then it can make its own admittance standards. As long as it wants to keep receiving them, it has to conform to the conditions the US government attaches to those dollars.

        Furthermore, even fully private entities are required to honor the contracts and promises they make. They admitted him, he fully and honestly complied with their admission procedures, he did not deceive or defraud them, and that means that they ought to keep up their side of the contract they entered into with him.

        Because racists are in danger of being oppressed by society.

        He’s not a racist; he just used insulting language. You, Tony, on the other hand are a racist through-and-through.

  2. If social media had been around when I was a kid, no one in my generation would have gotten into Harvard.

    Sucks to be young and stupid–like we all were–in the Panopticon Era

    1. The thing is, it isn’t that you can’t get into Harvard if you ever made some racist joke as a teen. It’s that you can’t get into Harvard if the mob decides you are the wrong kind of person. Doesn’t matter what you have done, they will find some way to smear you.

      1. “you are the wrong kind of person”

        He’s Asian?

        1. The other kind of wrong kind of person.

            1. Warmer.
              White male cis who refuses to get with the right narrative.

          1. The other kind of wrong kind of person.

            That was very nicely played, Zeb(ulon), sir.

    2. So it’s really just a difference between Tony’s informed stupid comments and his uninformed stupid comments.

  3. “Harvard deplatforms Parkland gun violence survivor”

    1. “When we said listen to the children, this isn’t what we meant!”

      It’s pathetic. The kids who build the right narrative are brave heroes with wisdom beyond their years. But this kid must be expunged.

    2. Remember when we wren’t allowed to call David Hogg a cunt because he was outside when a shooting happened?

      1. I don’t remember that. Must not have got the message. Woops.

      2. You can put lipstick on a Hogg, but it is still a Hogg!

      3. Didn’t know that. And here I’ve been calling Hogg a stupid weaselly slimy gutless cunt all this time.

  4. Fuck Harvard. They’re a bunch of incestuous cunts anyway.

    Enjoy your fucking echo chamber, cunts.

    1. Have fun relying on Liberty, Grove City, Regent, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, and the rest of the conservative-controlled campuses.

      And enjoy the rest of the culture war, clingers.

      1. Isn’t there something you can do to get cancer quicker? Sniff asbestos, eat moldy peanut butter, look at naked Lena Dunham pics, take steroids?

        Anything? ’cause I’m getting tired of waiting.

        1. I’m enjoying watching him ineffectually rage against a world run by people he hates.

          He’s losing more often every day, and his increasing level of frustration with that comes across in his posts.

        2. How about crossing his heroes, the Clintons?….That should put him 6 feet under!!!!

      2. Will you finally do the world a favor and fucking kill yourself, you retarded inbred gimp?

        1. NOOO!! I don’t want him dead, I want to keep hearing his inane comments as he is The Poster Boy for the Lefty Propagandized Sheeple!….He supplies much needed levity in these intense times!

        2. Arty should be tortured endlessly.

      3. Enjoy Detroit.

      4. Yeah, pigfucker, I luckily don’t teach at any of those campuses. Mine ain’t great, but at least we beat fucking Harvard at crew.

        Color-thieving bastards the bunch of fucktards at Harvard. Don’t trust those ass-munchers for a minute.

      5. Enjoy having Trump as YOUR President for another five years, dickless.

  5. Yet somehow Northram is still governor of Virginia.

    1. Impeaching a governor is a lot harder than coercing an admissions board to reject a qualified student.

      And it’s not about the “racist” comments or behavior. It’s about being the wrong kind of person.

      1. Right. Northram isn’t the “wrong kind of person.” So he can keep his job.

        1. At least until there’s a candidate with a higher intersectional score.

        2. Not quite. They were calling for his resignation until it surfaced that his Lt Governor had run afoul of #metoo, and might have to resign as well, which would then cause the governorship to fall to the speaker of the house, a Republican. Can’t have that! Much better to have a racist or a misogynist in power.

  6. Did they find out he’s secretly Asian?

    1. Oh you beat me by a minute.

  7. “Inappropriate and conspiratorial claims that Hogg isn’t smart enough have occasionally flooded social media.”

    Well said Robby. It’s outrageous that haters pounced on Hogg’s 1270 SAT score as if it “wasn’t good enough.” In fact, when considered in light of his activism for common sense gun safety legislation, 1270 is more than adequate for the Ivy League.

    #LibertariansForHogg
    #StopSAT-ShamingHim

    1. That activism is viewed/evaluated very asymmetrically, which, of course is Harvard’s right.

      1. Is it? They take federal money.

        1. I take your point and agree with the sentiment, however, I doubt there’s a legal case that can be made. Maybe Prof. Volokh can give his legal opinion here.

          1. ” I doubt there’s a legal case that can be made”

            I appreciate that you acknowledge you are not informed enough on the subject to be an expert and render an expert opinion. I am in the same boat.

            But, accepting federal money = respecting free speech rights is a fairly well established standard, no?

            Accepting that there is a wide gulf between our knowledge and relevant caselaw, please explain why you doubt a case can be made. It seems fairly straightforward to me.

            They SAID it was because of his speech. That in my mind ( if I were on a jury) is retaliation, and so the only hurdle is that they are private. Accepting federal money makes that a verry muddy proposition I think.

            “Maybe Prof. Volokh can give his legal opinion here.”

            I’d prefer someone who knows what they are talkimg about and doesn’t let their peraonal ideology cloud their opinions.

            1. “I’d prefer someone who knows what they are talkimg about and doesn’t let their peraonal ideology cloud their opinions.”

              I know, I know, we’re really scraping the bottom of the legal barrel with Prof. Volokh but we’ll just have to make the best of it I suppose…

              1. He’s wrong and often as right. I stand by my assessment.

                Weren’t you going to nap?

                1. You’re devastating reposte and saber-like wit has cut me to the quick…

                  1. Only because you’re tired.

                    1. Dude, whatever…

                    2. Protest more milady.

            2. “But, accepting federal money = respecting free speech rights is a fairly well established standard, no?”

              That explains the Planned Parenthood chapter at Liberty University . . . but how did they manage to kick the College Democrats off campus?

              1. Planned Parenthood would never open a clinic at Liberty University, there aren’t enough black babies to kill there.

              2. Liberty does not take federal money!

                1. Without federal funds, Liberty would be a much smaller but no less shoddy school.

                  1. Asshole that can’t read says what?

            3. But, accepting federal money = respecting free speech rights is a fairly well established standard, no?

              No.

              1. Weird how you’re utterly wrong about that, being an unrepentant liberal trool and all.

          2. Kashuv has direct harm caused by this rescission as the other college admission deadlines have now passed. He has a hell of a case and will probably win.

      2. Precisely.

        I wouldn’t object if Harvard accepted a privileged white male with an 1100 SAT score, if he also was the leading teen voice for impeaching Drumpf.

    2. Don’t forget he co-wrote a book to co-opt the Never Forget saying we use to remember the Holocaust, all for fame and money. Hogg should be your hero OBL.

    3. 1270 is waaaaaaay below Ivy League standards, unless you have a great skill like being a great athlete or violinist, etc…Becoming a great SJW/Cultural Marxist after surviving a mass shooting?…..Nah, not so great a skill!!!

      1. Shit, how not a great skill? He’s been on TV way more than me, is going to Harvard more times than me, and is probably already making more money than me. Seems like a great skill to have.

    4. SAT scores are racist anyway. And ableist.

    5. I scored higher than 1270 at age 12.

  8. Harvard: Yet another university whose graduates I will not hire or recommend for hiring.

    The way we fight this bullshit is to let it be known that attending such milquetoast universities is a Black Spot on the resume.

    1. That, and defying the elites’ fancy standard English, particularly with respect to capitalization.

      1. Here’s the running joke… most of the people at Harvard aren’t elite. They come from wealthy, mostly white rich families. They aren’t elite in thought or education.

        1. Elite in power.

        2. A country boy comes to Harvard to visit his cousin. He runs into a professor and asks “Hey, where is the MU at?”
          The professor looks down at the boy with obvious disdain and tells him “Here at Hahvahd, we don’t end our sentences with a preposition.”
          The country boy thinks for a second and replies “OK. Where is the MU at ASSHOLE?!”

      2. So you’re insisting on perpetuating racist power structures and white privilege, huh? You’ll be up against the wall when the Revolution comes, too.

      3. Paraphrased Kirkland: “I never read *Treasure Island* as a kid because I was too busy jacking off to pictures of Gloria Steinem.”

      4. English is racist, hermano. You should stop that.

  9. I think a lawyer could make a pretty compelling case that this facility which accepts federal money retaliated against him for exercising his right to free speech.

    (I mean, it’s bullshit, but that hasn’t stopped the Roundup debacle…)

    1. I doubt there’s a legal case that can be made.

      Kyle Kashuv is obviously an extremely bright kid and has a very bright future, success and high achievement will be his best revenge.

      1. “I doubt there’s a legal case that can be made.”

        I laid out why I disagree. You didn’t. Would you mind trying?

        1. Because I’m not a legal expert and am not familiar with any of the relevant case law.

          1. Oh ok so you don’t have a reason for your opinion, unlike how I had one for mine.

            Fair enough.

            1. Yep, big pat on the back for you and here’s some milk and cookies…now off you go and remember to be good…

              1. I’m sorry that upset you, but twice you’ve said you doubt a case could be made without giving anything like a reason why. Don’t get snotty because you got called.

              2. And by the way, I was being sincere. You gave no reason. That you took it personally is kind of silly.

                1. I think someone’s feeling a little cranky and needs a nap…

                    1. Now settle down, don’t make me come up there…

                    2. I thought you said you were going to nap?

        2. I agree that there is no case to be made, and that I’m not an expert on the subject, or even a lawyer. I will justify my opinion though.

          The admissions agreement is a contract, and I think it probably has language that alllows Harvard to rescind the admission for reasons like this.

          It MIGHT be unenforceable, because of the reasons you gave, but that’s a total guess.

          1. I suppose that makes sense. I still think there is a potential case, but I bristle against intervening in a voluntary contract between two parties.

            1. ‘bristle against intervening in a voluntary contract between two parties’ . . . but if there’s to be an exception to your principle, might as well be one that benefits a young man who uses racial slurs?

              1. Past tense, asshole.

      2. I would agree if Harvard had never accepted him, but once accepted the contractual obligation between the student and college commences. Unless the Harvard by laws state no student should ever have stated anything in the past, Kashuv has a case. It is a contract violation as well as direct harm as he now has to sit out at least a semester due to the lateness of this rescission. This won’t even be about free speech, it’s going to rest on contract law.

  10. Harvard has now made my list of schools where my kids will not be attending unless they have a very specific and valid reason why it’s the right place for them, and everything is covered by scholarships. I will not send one thin dime to that neo-Soviet clown show.

    1. Thank goodness for Franciscan, Oral Roberts, and Ouachita Baptist!

      1. Or Hillsdale, Chicago, even Yale hasn’t gone traipsing this far down the road of forthright and completely unreflective political correctness. I guess you could say that Harvard is teaching kids a lesson though — one they may return with heavy interest someday, when the first generation that’s been subjected to Twitter mobs its entire life gains political power.

        1. You might wish to take another look at Yale on this.

          1. Princeton was formed many years ago because Harvard and Yale were too corrupt.

            Little has changed since then,

    2. I work at one of the top engineering firms in the world. The only ivy league school I know we have hired from in the time I’ve been there is a few from Johns Hopkins since we have an agreement with them for some other stuff. Technically JHU isn’t even an ivy league, but falls in the catch all of other programs such as MIT.

      I’ve talked to hiring managers before and they all basically flatly state that Ivy Leaguers are Millennial children on steroids and not worth the time.

      1. They get hired into the Federal Bureaucracy; so that they are virtually guaranteed to eventually earn $150k per year with a nice pension and generous benefits. All that and they get to meddle in the lives of normal people, which is what the educrats want anyway.

  11. This is the world virtue signalling progs have built for themselves, can’t take credit for everything without also taking responsibility for everything. No SJW points are awarded for letting people stand or fall on their own merits.

    1. What a world — virtue signaling progs and bigotry signaling clingers.

      1. Poe’s law is a bitch in Reason’s comments section.

        1. You mean you can’t tell the diff between the real RALK and a parody account?
          Join the growing club.

          1. Rev. Asshole is a self-parody.

  12. I would have thought that Harvard would have seen Kashuv’s attendance as a golden opportunity to turn him to the Dark Side. After all, don’t they regard themselves as the intellectual superiors of those hick conservative types?

    Hell, if they’re scared of one conservative kid what does that say about them?

  13. Why does the Left flap their gums about racism if, as it appears here, someone who sees the light and changes their views is still going to be punished (for rest of life?) for what he or she believed before their thinking matured?

    1. Because it feels so good to see them squirm. It’s not about making the world a better place, it’s about exacting revenge and feeling superior.

    2. The fact that he supports the Second Amendment proves he is still racist and is only pretending to have reformed himself. Duh.

  14. The teenager, in acknowledging his mistakes and seeking to learn from them, shows he better understands the purpose of a college education than do its guardians at the nation’s most prestigious university.

    And once again, Robbie, smart piece…. but we’ve come to expect that from you. (Indeed, as soon as I heard about the story, I toggled over to Reason to see if you had offered your observations.)

    1. I thought libertarians were on the “college is for job skills, not becoming a well-rounded person” train.

      Now suddenly college is back to being a fancier finishing school?

      1. I thought libertarians were on the “college is for job skills, not becoming a well-rounded person” train.

        I studied medieval literature in graduate school and now work in construction. Do I have to hand back my libertarian card? Or is it maybe the case that not everyone who isn’t you shares the exact same opinion on every single thing?

      2. “I thought libertarians”

        Stop right there Tones.

        No one cares what your sock puppet ass thinks.

      3. I thought libertarians were on the “college is for job skills, not becoming a well-rounded person” train.

        Now suddenly college is back to being a fancier finishing school?

        Were you not around for the decades of lecturing on is/ought fallacies?

  15. The progressive moral standard: judgement without mercy or absolution, with permanent internal exile pariah status.

    How did it come to this?

    1. Even medieval inquisitors let people off when they admitted the error of their ways and recanted their heresy.

    2. OSHA.
      It let the stupid ones live long enough to breed.

    3. Come to this? “Progressivism” started like this.

  16. For one thing, it represents a major victory for the online mobs of cancel culture.

    I’m pretty sure it only represents a victory for online mobs of a particular political orientation. I suspect Harvard would have more of a spine if conservatives started to troll through the youthful statements of people with more acceptable opinions. Shoot, I bet you could be hired as a Harvard professor if you bombed the right buildings.

    1. I suspect Harvard would have more of a spine if conservatives started to troll through the youthful statements of people with more acceptable opinions.

      A little Che Guevara, anyone?

      1. Homophobic. Does not qualify.

      2. Behind every fig (tree) is a great man.

  17. Karma’s a bitch.

    When abortion is made illegal I expect everyone who has ever had one or advocated it in any way any way receives the same treatment.

    Imagine all the new openings there will be.

    1. When abortion is made illegal

      You’re delusional.

      1. You’re delusional.

        Ask him about the Holocaust!

        1. You are referring to the narrative that is protected by censorship laws from any scientific or logical scrutiny.

          To protect your delusions and get Jews anything they want.

          1. You are referring to the narrative that is protected by censorship laws from any scientific or logical scrutiny.

            Not in this country, it ain’t. Have at it, baby – spill your truth out on us!

            You’ve done it before, and you’re still here, aren’t you?

            1. This website is a welcome anomaly, much to the chagrin of the delusional.

              I have shared the truth and watched it rape your delusions. You feel raped.

              I’ll do it again and again and again. I’ll be right every time and you’ll have the same feeling. Enjoy your post truth.

              1. “I’ll do it again and again and again”

                Then fire away, cause it seems like all you’re doing is running your dicksucker about having already done it.

          2. You are referring to the narrative that is protected by censorship laws from any scientific or logical scrutiny. To protect your delusions and get Jews anything they want.

            Who knew, Rob, that when you called yourself a “Christian”, you mean that you were an adherent of Positive Christianity and an admirer of Roehm.

            But, see, people don’t have to rely on narratives; your friends were excellent record keepers and proud of their handiwork. On top of that, you can see the camps, the gas chambers, the mass graves, the expropriated buildings and art yourself, and you can talk to survivors as well as the families of those who were killed.

            Of course, all of that would require reason and compassion, both qualities you are lacking.

            1. You’re regurgitating a soundly refuted narrative.

              Read it for yourself.

              http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23629458-breaking-the-spell

              1. You’re regurgitating a soundly refuted narrative.

                To you, it’s a “narrative”; to others, it is first hand experience.

      2. Logic and science prove that a new human life is created at conception and as such has the right to continue living.

        Who’s delusional?

        People valued slavery, but it wasn’t until they were forced by law to recognize their delusion and accept blacks as fellow humans that the concept of racism was understood.

        1. So you’re still working on accepting pregnant women as full humans.

          Logic and science don’t have anything to say about when an embryo or fetus or person receives personhood rights.

          1. So you’re still working on accepting pregnant women as full humans.

            FTFY, Tony. Don’t give Misek more credit than he deserves.

          2. Our rights are human rights and are not based on some nefarious idea of “personhood” designed to discriminate against the unborn.

            1. Personhood is not a concept in science, but law.

              The beauty of that indisputable fact is that intelligent humans get to decide for themselves what it means.

              Saying science requires us to imprison or execute women for getting abortions is to give yourself just a wee bit of extra credit.

              1. Wheres your line Tony? Can a mother let their 3 year old die of starvation because the child is a burden? That seems to be most pro abortion nuts standard, that the mother is inconvenienced. So what is the line?

                1. The nefarious line is wherever the murderer draws it.

                  To them your rights are only what the current government affords you. If it’s murder, so be it.

                  All dissent from their agenda, post truth be worshipped, to be censored.

                2. Not anywhere religious fundamentalist assholes can get at it, if I had my way.

                  We do have legal traditions about these things.

              2. Then in your effort to justifying denying moral status you leave open that anyone can decide that anyone else is not a person or that society can judge anyone or any demographic category are not persons. You have just thrown away human rights as an absolute standard. Congratulations, you have just thrown a couple millenia of the development of moral philosophy out to gain a victory in the one area, which is only supported by how society feels from moment to moment.

                Remember, that any argument you make that someone has rights is only based on your feelings since you have reasoned away personhood as a moral absolute.

                1. The idea that a fetus has full personhood rights is hardly millennia old.

                  In fact it’s a tacked-on post-hoc justification for banning abortion when the original “we want to control what women do with their vaginas” one started to become unpopular.

            2. Tony is right on this (I know!) The word/concept “person” is liberally sprinkled throughout our law, constitution, common law, philosophical musings, and Church canon.

              1. Here is the actual definition of person.

                1. A living human.

                What was your point?

                1. So it should be illegal to pull the plug on brain dead grandma on a ventilator?

          3. Oh, get a room you two. You know you want to have sex with each other.

            1. The only thing that I’ve shoved up your ass and down your throat is the truth.

              You’re welcome.

              1. Your truth is as impotent as the rest of you, Rob.

        2. Now do more about the Joos.

  18. Wish I had a multibillion dollar company, so I could refuse to hire Harvard grads, due to their school’s pattern of bigotry.

  19. But, as with the efforts to cancel James Gunn, Kevin Hart, Sarah Jeong, Kyler Murray, and so many others, we should be concerned about where this corrosive impulse to seek and destroy is leading us.

    Weren’t these cancellations unsuccessful because these people are loved by “the left”? Are these types the only cancellation attempts that should make us concerned?

    1. Did any of those people actually get cancelled? I know Gunn is back on Guardians 3.

      1. Did any of those people actually get cancelled?

        In fact, no.

      2. No, they were unsuccessful attempts.

        1. Bigots hate it when bigotry has consequences.

          1. Yes you do, don’t you, bigoted fuckwit leftist.

  20. One day soon there will be a massive data dump made publicly available linking IP and MAC addresses to web searches and social media accounts. That’s going to be a horribly embarrassing day for most of us.

    1. That’d be the best thing that could happen.

      Exposing all the hypocrites would end the inquisition.

      1. You know full well that it wouldn’t. Leftism is the rationalization of self-interest. The thing about rationalization is, it doesn’t have to make sense!

        1. The definition of rationalization is corrupt.

          It describes the use of logic that is faulty. That isn’t logical and it isn’t rational.

          So it is a meaningless word. Unworthy of argument.

          I don’t dismiss your motive, just your method.

          1. So… uh… hmmm. Can I just ask if you’re high?

            1. Some people want to know when they’re repeating garbage.

              Not you apparently.

      1. I’m not Jeff dumbass.

        1. Sure Jeff. Now fuck off.

      2. I think jeff got caught in that mass pedo arrest last week. He hasnt graced us with his stupidity ad much lately.

        1. He was here today, both as jeff and with his “eric” sockpuppet

  21. What do you think would have happened to him at Harvard? His fellow students and faculty would have made his life a living hell. He should consider himself lucky to have gotten out just in time.

    1. He should consider himself lucky to have gotten out just in time.

      This. If he can detach some money off the Harvard Trust or whatever, good for him; but his main win is not getting into that toxic environment.

  22. administrators advised him that his acceptance could be withdrawn “if you engage or have engaged in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

    If that’s their standard, Harvard must have an incredibly boring campus.

    1. And not very populated.

    2. I’m pretty sure harvard has paid to host oscar rivera Lopez. They dont seem to be a good judge of any of those traits.

  23. It bears repeating:
    Never apologize, Mister. It’s a sign of weakness.

  24. “if you engage or have engaged in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

    So the whole faculty has resigned?

  25. >>>” … brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

    so which is it? did *words* define his “moral character”?

    1. It’s clearly his maturity. Because, of course, he can’t possibly have matured in the couple years since he wrote that.

  26. Harvard is not the government so it can do whatever it wants to whomever* it wants for any reason it concocts and if you don’t like it, go make your own university.

    *With exceptions for members of properly qualified aggrieved minority groups.

    1. Someone doesnt understand how contracts or law works.

    2. They may not do so for illegal reasons.

  27. Don’t worry about it, Mr. Kashuv.
    The dirty little secret the Ivy League assholes don’t want you to know is that you can get just a good an indoctrination in socialist ways in many other re-education camps across America with a much smaller price tag.

  28. Apparently Kashuv’s parents did not pay a big enough bribe.

  29. I didn’t get admitted to Harvard despite an outstanding academic record, and I never used the word “nigger,” so fuck that guy.

    1. Yeah, but did you ever get shot at at school?

      1. When I was in high school that sort of thing only happened in Colorado.

        1. Are you so angry since you cant claim victimhood to the levels kids do these days?

          1. I have no interest in being anyone’s victim. I’m not a Trump supporter for God’s sake.

      2. How much victim points do I get if the school shooting was a suicide in another classroom?

    2. “I didn’t get admitted to Harvard despite an outstanding academic record,”

      Grade inflation is such a tragedy.

    3. We’ve seen your posts. Harvard probably had similar evidence.

    4. I never used the word “nigger,”

      um

    5. Keep it going Tony. You don’t realize it but you’re the best speaker for how morally and intellectually bankrupt modern fake progressives like yourself really are.

      1. And you regularly emphasize your sympathy with white supremacists. You shouldn’t throw stones in glass gas chambers. Well, I guess maybe you should.

  30. By giving the bullies exactly what they wanted, Harvard has only emboldened them.

    I think Harvard is them.

  31. As to whether or not Kashuv has a case the more important issue is where the case is tried.

    If Kashuv can get to court, I think he has an very good chance of some extremely worthwhile damages.

    As the Oberlin case just demonstrated, private universities have been acting like asses for decades towards the general public. If Kashuv can get a jury out of Boston, Harvard is probably screwed. I cannot imagine the local population in and around Harvard is treated any better than Oberlin is. And the locals near Harvard have been putting up with the school’s crap for far longer.

  32. Good. Perhaps he will be able to get a decent education now

  33. Well I’ve reached the conclusion that social media is a malevolent force in the culture. But when I consider what was done to Kavanaugh when social media consisted of whatever you could scribble in your friend’s yearbook I think the problem is much deeper. As Kashuv notes ” it’s about whether the core educational principles that one can grow, can change, can mature are still intact or if past mistakes brand you as irredeemable.” The idea of redemption is an ancient part of western civilization. But leftists are happy to discard it because it interferes with the unbridled hatred that is the basis of their worldview.

    1. Redemption is possible…all you have to do is accept progressivism into your life.

      Are you a former Klansman? Former advocate of locking people up based solely on race? Did you drown a young woman? It’s OK – just seek sanctuary in the Temple of Progressivism, grasp the horns of the altar, and the pursuing Furies will be turned away and you will be able to redeem yourself. Just leave any wrongthinking tendencies behind. Hallelujah!

  34. […] In this view, the real threat aren’t the racist comments themselves — which can be overcome — but the impulse to punish people for them. If you penalize people for every past politically incorrect comment, the logic goes, then people will have no room to grow. You might even punish the innocent. […]

  35. Harvard’s decision here is also an endorsement of the position that people should be shamed and punished for their worst mistakes as kids.

    Huh, and that’s precisely what you advocated during the Kavanaugh confirmation. Of course that was even worse because there was literally no evidence to support any of the claims.

    Down the memory hole we go once again…

    1. But those were credible accusations.

  36. Since Kyle Kashuv is jewish, could harvard’s action be seen as anti-Semitic ?

  37. Don’t they accept federal money? “engaged in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.”, a lot of politicians who went to Harvard fit that description.

  38. Kyle Kashuv will be fine.

  39. Can Virginia cancel Gov. Northam and AG Herring for their blackface antics, or Lt. gov. Fairfax for his rapes?

  40. I feel sorry for the kid. All white parents need to have “the talk” with their kids—don’t ever let the n-word come out of your mouth or allow your white fingers to type the n-word.

  41. […] In this view, the real threat aren’t the racist comments themselves — which can be overcome — but the impulse to punish people for them. If you penalize people for every past politically incorrect comment, the logic goes, then people will have no room to grow. You might even punish the innocent. […]

  42. I am making a good salary online from home.I­’­v­e m­a­d­e $­97,­999 s­o f­o­r last 5 months w­or­k­i­n­g on­l­i­n­e a­n­d I­’­m a f­u­l­l t­i­m­e s­t­u­d­e­n­t­. I­’­m u­s­i­n­g a­n on­l­i­n­e b­u­s­i­n­e­s­s o­p­p­o­r­t­u­n­i­t­y I h­e­a­r­d a­b­o­u­t a­n­d I­’­v­e m­a­d­e s­u­c­h g­r­e­a­t m­o­n­e­y­.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, I­t­’s’ r­e­a­l­l­y u­s­e­r f­r­i­e­n­d­l­y a­n­d I­’­m j­u­s­t s­o h­a­p­p­y t­h­a­t I f­o­u­n­d o­u­t a­b­o­u­t i­t , …… payhd.com

  43. […] In this view, the real threat aren’t the racist comments themselves — which can be overcome — but the impulse to punish people for them. If you penalize people for every past politically incorrect comment, the logic goes, then people will have no room to grow. You might even punish the innocent. […]

    1. Oh, please. His punishment will be overcome too. He’ll get in at another college, just not one as prestigious as Harvard.

      I mean, people are denied jobs because of past criminal records and nobody complains about it, even if the crime happened decades ago. This kid said this stuff two years ago, but now he’s trying to tell us he’s a changed man? Gimme a break.

  44. […] the libertarian magazine Reason, Robby Soave wrote, “This decision is troubling. For one thing, it represents a major victory […]

  45. […] of the university’s position saw in its treatment of the teenager a “major victory for the online mobs of cancel culture” — evidence that elite institutions […]

  46. […] In this view, the real threat isn’t the racist comments themselves — which can be overcome — but the impulse to punish people for them. If you penalize people for every past politically incorrect comment, the logic goes, then people will have no room to grow. You might even punish the innocent. […]

  47. No link to the supposed racist stuff? No synopsis in the article if the links aren’t available?

  48. […] d'espionnage invasif de citoyen à citoyen que George Orwell nous avait mis en garde dans 1984. Un éditorial dans le journal libertaire Raison soutient: “"Cette décision est troublante. D'une part, cela représente une victoire majeure […]

  49. […] على المواطن الغازية حذرنا جورج أورويل في عام 1984. افتتاحية في المجلة التحررية السبب يجادل: ""هذا القرار مثير للقلق. لسبب واحد ، يمثل […]

  50. […] incoraggiante, il tipo di spionaggio invasivo di citizen-on-citizen che George Orwell ci ha 1984. Un editoriale nel giornale libertario Ragionare sostiene: "Questa decisione è preoccupante. Per prima cosa, rappresenta una grande vittoria per i mob […]

  51. […] aký druh invazívneho špionážneho občianstva na obzore nás George Orwell varoval. 1984. Redakcia v libertariánskom časopise Dôvod argumentuje„Toto rozhodnutie je znepokojujúce. Pre jednu vec predstavuje veľké víťazstvo pre online davy […]

  52. Kid. Believe me. You’re better off in the long run.

    If this is what’s Harvard has become, it’s about as worthless a place as they come.

  53. […] на грађанина Георге Орвелл нас је упозорио да је 1984. Уводник у либертаријанском дневнику Разлог аргуес: “Ова одлука је забрињавајућа. Као прво, она […]

  54. Boo-freaking-hoo. If this kid goes throwing the n-word around, he’s not prepared for the diverse world that he wants to get into. If he throws it around on social media, he’s too stupid and short-sighted to do well at a prestigious university.

  55. […] eräänlainen invasiivinen kansalaiskansalainen vakoilu George Orwell varoitti meitä 1984. Toimituksellinen julkaisu liberaalilehdessä Syy väittää: ”Tämä päätös on huolestuttava. Ensinnäkin se on suuri voitto peruskulttuurin […]

  56. […] opmuntrende, den slags invasive borger-til-borger spionage George Orwell advarede os om i 1984. En redaktionel i libertarian journal Grund argumenterer: "Denne beslutning er bekymrende. For en ting er det en stor sejr for online mobs of Cancel […]

  57. Harvard gets about half a billion dollars every year in research money from the federal government. Earlier today, I contacted my congresscritters urging them to do what they can to end that subsidy. I encourage all of you to make similar recommendations to your representatives in Congress.

    This country has had enough of the selective “education” of places like Harvard that presume to be the arbiters of what to teach and to whom to teach it.

  58. […] Reason, Robby Soave called Harvard’s decision a “major victory for the online mobs of cancel […]

  59. […] In this view, the real threat isn’t the racist comments themselves — which can be overcome — but the impulse to punish people for them. If you penalize people for every past politically incorrect comment, the logic goes, then people will have no room to grow. You might even punish the innocent. […]

  60. […] loại gián điệp công dân xâm lấn George Orwell đã cảnh báo chúng tôi về 1984. Một bài xã luận trong tạp chí tự do Lý do tranh luận: Quyết định này là rắc rối. Đối với một điều, nó đại diện cho một […]

  61. […] Reason, Robby Soave called Harvard’s decision a “major victory for the online mobs of cancel […]

  62. […] vrsta invazivnog špijuniranja građana na građanina Georgea Orwella upozorila nas je na 1984. Uvodnik u slobodarski časopis Razlog tvrdi: “Ova odluka je zabrinjavajuća. Kao prvo, to predstavlja veliku pobjedu za online rulju kulture […]

  63. My gosh, what a bunch of whining from those who could never get in.

  64. […] people should be shamed and punished for their worst mistakes as kids,” wrote Robby Soave, in Reason, a libertarian publication that he edits. Soave said it marked a victory for the “online mobs […]

  65. […] ng nagsasalakay na mamamayan sa mamamayan na si George Orwell ay nagbabala sa amin tungkol sa 1984. Isang editoryal sa libertarian journal Dahilan argues: "Ang desisyon na ito ay nakakatakot. Sa isang bagay, ito ay kumakatawan sa isang pangunahing […]

  66. […] 他们注意到Kashuv在私人聊天中写下了这些消息,最终被屏幕截图捕获。哈佛大学的批评者认为,通过私人谈话取消录取通知书,大学赋予了权力,因此鼓励,这种侵入性的公民公民间谍乔治·奥威尔警告我们 1984年。 自由主义期刊的一篇社论 原因 主张:“这个决定令人不安。首先,它代表了取消文化在线怪物的重大胜利。阻止Twitter巨魔掠夺敌人的旧污垢的一种方法是忽略它们。通过给予恶霸他们想要的东西,哈佛只会鼓励他们。" […]

  67. […] julgustav, seda tüüpi invasiivsed kodanikud, kes otsivad George Orwelli, hoiatasid meid 1984. Kirjalik ajakiri ajakirjas Põhjus väidab: „See otsus on murettekitav. Esiteks kujutab see endast suurepärast võitu tühistamiskultuuri […]

  68. […] biztató, hogy a fajta invazív állampolgár-kémkedő George Orwell figyelmeztetett minket 1984. A szerkesztőség a liberális folyóiratban Ok azt állítja,: „Ez a döntés zavaró. Egyrészt, ez egy nagy győzelmet jelent a törlési kultúra online […]

  69. […] vor dem George Orwell uns gewarnt hat, befähigt und daher ermutigt 1984. Ein Editorial im libertären Journal Grund argumentiert: „Diese Entscheidung ist beunruhigend. Zum einen bedeutet es einen großen Sieg für die […]

  70. Harvard is a private institution,

    Harvard receives massive amounts of public funding under the condition that they conform to the conditions attached to that funding. Furthermore, their tax privileges have even more conditions attached to them. If Harvard wants to give up all their public funding and give up their tax exempt status, then they can act like other private entities; as long as they receive government privileges that other private entities don’t receive, they need to act accordingly.

    and is within its rights, of course, to change its mind about admitting a specific student in light of new information.

    No, they are not. They have entered into a commitment, the other party did not commit fraud or deception, and that means that they are bound by their commitment.

    But hey, I get it: to the writers at Reason, “libertarianism” means that the government can forcibly extract half my money and then use it to finance “private” political indoctrination machines, just like they can use “private” spy agencies, “private” jailers, and “private” murder squads without violating Reason’s “libertarian” principles. That’s the New Libertarianism for you.

  71. And how many of their diversity admittance’s have publicly railed against white people 1,000 times? Yeah, that’s what I thought. And they still let them in? Who woulda guessed…

    The Progs strike again. The whole double standard/reverse racism thing is getting a bit out of control.

  72. […] before the shooting prompted Harvard’s action. Kashuv has publicly apologized and some conservative commentators complained that his case was another sign that institutions of higher education aren’t open to different […]

  73. […] Soave, associate editor for the libertarian site Reason, described Harvard’s response as excessively punitive and demonstrative of the “cancel culture” that has […]

  74. Harvard said “we do not comment publicly on the admissions status of individual applicants”. Harvard can do whatever it wants in a private institution. Greetings

  75. These once great learning institutions have turned into nothing more than overpriced, liberal indoctrination camps upholding everything thats PC and nothing thats factual.

Comments are closed.