Post: #1

From the Harvard Crimson:

Quote:Jones was released from prison last August, where she served 20 years for the murder of her four-year old son. While incarcerated, Jones attained a bachelor’s degree, became a certified paralegal, audited graduate-level courses, and published and presented via videoconference her own scholarly research on American history.

We condemn the decision to rescind Jones’s acceptance. Though Michelle Jones perpetrated a lurid and reprehensible crime, she has served her time

[...]

It is not lost upon us that Jones is a black woman who spent part of her adolescence in group homes and foster care, thus lacking the privileges that some assume the stereotypical Harvard elite should have.

Get that guys? Microaggressions= bad. Child murder = good?

Post: #2

What privileges?! The privilege of not being a psycho infanticidal cunt?!

Post: #3

I'm going to go against the grain here. She's served her debt to society and made a valid effort to clean up her life. That's a better outcome than most excons. She should be allowed to attend law school.

However, I doubt her "grades" and LSAT scores were worthy enough of her to actually attend Harvard law. Some nitwit in admissions saw that she had a vagina and had served time for murder of a child and most likely accepted her on that basis alone. Thankfully a calmer head saw through the pussy pass and said no.

Another lesser school would be happy to take her... and her money.

Post: #4

I don't think past crimes should have any bearing on a student's application process. Give people extra points for evidence of integrity, but don't refuse them entry because they are a felon, especially if they've clearly made every effort to learn from and move past their mistakes.

Post: #5

Political football is political football.

If a man of any race was in this position nobody would give a solitary fuck.

It's testament to the stupidity of western civilisation that someone who was convicted of murdering a child hasn't been hanged.

But hey, the cunt has a cunt, so blow the horn of social justice and assemble the 1st alabaster cavalry division.

Post: #6

Quote:Harvard is not a member of the judiciary branch, and thus it is not Harvard’s place to determine whether Jones has rightfully expiated her past. Harvard should seek to be a bastion of redemptive justice, rather than overstep its boundaries as an academic institution by making paternalistic decisions.

Wonder if this same line of thinking applies to men accused or previously convicted of rape.

Post: #7

So its best to let in a convicted murderer but you are not allowed to have a president of Harvard indicate there is a difference between the sexes.

Lawrence Summers has no comment.

Post: #8

On on the fence on this one.

On one hand, I do believe in second chances, especially for people who have demonstrated they want to change, and she(google her at your own risk) has.

But other hand, like Leonard said, I know damn well that a male convict application would've got tossed in the trash. This school cancelled their soccer season because the team judging girls on their looks. They clearly care a lot about their reputation.

Smartest thing, like Beast said, would've been for Harvard to have rejected her outright instead of accepting her then reneging on it. It's 20 years later and she still hasn't told anyone where the body of son she murdered is.

Post: #9

(09-20-2017 09:17 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm going to go against the grain here. She's served her debt to society and made a valid effort to clean up her life. That's a better outcome than most excons. She should be allowed to attend law school.

However, I doubt her "grades" and LSAT scores were worthy enough of her to actually attend Harvard law. Some nitwit in admissions saw that she had a vagina and had served time for murder of a child and most likely accepted her on that basis alone. Thankfully a calmer head saw through the pussy pass and said no.

Another lesser school would be happy to take her... and her money.

It is likely she got very good LSAT scores because she had nothing to do but study the patterns for the test questions. The LSAT is not an IQ test it is a puzzle test and if you take 2-4 months and prepare you can do very well, if you have a high IQ you can probably prepare in a shorter period of time to get a high score-but anyone can get a high score if you put in the work, use a prep book, and do practice tests.

Post: #10

She's served her time. However, Harvard is a private university and they have the right to decide who is qualified, who will further their mission, and who the rest of their students will benefit from associating with, and to look at this one and say '...nah, sorry, not you...'.

Not because shes black or female, but because she went bananas, brutally beat her 4-year-old, and left the child for dead, then hid the body so nobody could find it.

There are state schools for this.

Post: #11

So, people are outraged that a murderer has her acceptance rescinded, but welcome Bradley Manning as a fellow with open arms...

Post: #12

She accomplished a lot in history research while (and despite) being behind bars. And this was for a history PhD, not Harvard law. I also like the idea of redemption and positive role models, but regardless of accepting or rejecting her, they would've faced backlash.

The problem is, by rescinding her acceptance, Harvard has shown itself to go as the wind blows when it comes to social [media] outrage. Their diversity deans and social justice czars look pretty much exactly as you'd think they do (plot spoiler, to quote AB: "hair above the chin, subversion from within"), and for the brand power of Harvard, this proves they don't spend much time on critical thinking.

Post: #13

Colleges rescinding applications on the basis of public opinion shows a lack of planning. Pick who you want and stand by it.

The irony is she might be able to get a degree but may be prohibited from practicing.

Post: #14

This bitch was sentenced for 40 years, and she is being freed after 20.
As always, women spend much less time than men for the same crime.

Post: #15

(09-21-2017 06:02 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  So its best to let in a convicted murderer but you are not allowed to have a president of Harvard indicate there is a difference between the sexes.

Lawrence Summers has no comment.

Actually, he was canned for saying it was even possible, and that an academic/research institution might want to do some studies to determine the facts.

Post: #16

(09-21-2017 09:40 AM)polar Wrote:  She accomplished a lot in history research while (and despite) being behind bars. And this was for a history PhD, not Harvard law. I also like the idea of redemption and positive role models, but regardless of accepting or rejecting her, they would've faced backlash.

While I agree we need better rehabilitation and redemption for people who make mistakes and get behind bars, I don't think this is one of those cases.

You're absolutely right, both sides of the coin would've been shit, they just took the road with less shit on it.

Post: #17

(09-20-2017 08:39 PM)Lucky Wrote:  Get that guys? Microaggressions= bad. Child murder = good?

You're trying a little too hard to jump on the bandwagon.

The point is that she came from a rough background and has served her time. I'm sure you knew that, though.

Post: #18

For a bit of perspective, no one is upset that ten or so dumb recent high school grads got their acceptance rescinded for inappropriate meming on a Facebook group.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6...ded-memes/

Quote:Harvard College rescinded admissions offers to at least ten prospective members of the Class of 2021 after the students traded sexually explicit memes and messages that sometimes targeted minority groups in a private Facebook group chat.
A handful of admitted students formed the messaging group—titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens”—on Facebook in late December, according to two incoming freshmen.

In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, according to screenshots of the chat obtained by The Crimson. Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups. One called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child “piñata time.”

Sounds like their Facebook group was pretty brutal. I think it is up to Harvard who they want in their school and who they don't want.

I just hate that reckless and wrong headed teen agers, in other words teen acting like teens, get bounced without a peep, and people are running to defend the murderer.

Post: #19

I say allow her to be admitted with the provision that a TA be hired to accompany her to all classes in order to point at her and scream "MURDERER!" continually.

Post: #20

Moral character determination is relevant to law school and is part of the bar exam.


https://www.sandiego.edu/law/student-aff...racter.php

Post: #21

(09-21-2017 11:51 AM)Kapanda Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 08:39 PM)Lucky Wrote:  Get that guys? Microaggressions= bad. Child murder = good?

You're trying a little too hard to jump on the bandwagon.

The point is that she came from a rough background and has served her time. I'm sure you knew that, though.

People who came from rough backgrounds and have children tend not to murder them.

Maybe that should be a factor too.

Post: #22

20 years is a sentence for a brick of yak for a man... and people are complaining she can't study law (which she won't be allowed to practice anyway) after a petty ass sentence (considering she murdered her own child?)

Post: #23

(09-21-2017 09:52 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  20 years is a sentence for a brick of yak for a man... and people are complaining she can't study law (which she won't be allowed to practice anyway) after a petty ass sentence (considering she murdered her own child?)

Imagine if a white guy did serve 20 years for murdering a child and then get accepted to elite Ph.D programs upon release. The first words out of every SJW's mouth would be "WHITE PRIVILEGE! IF IT WAS A BLACK PERSON THEY WOULDA THROWN AWAY THE KEY!"

Everything is a racial injustice to these people. Everything. Here the racial injustice is that Harvard rescinded her acceptance, but if the offender was white, the racial injustice would be Harvard accepting him/her in the first place. These people are delusional lunatics who spin every piece of anecdata they can get their hands on to fit their narrative.

It's not so bad that these people merely exist; there are lunatics out there in every corner of the political compass; but this particular brand of lunatic has infiltrated mainstream culture to such an alarming degree that people are ostracized for pointing out the flaws in their logic, or citing scientific studies that that they'd prefer to ignore. That's what gets me worked up about stories like this.

Post: #24

(09-21-2017 06:22 PM)Lucky Wrote:  People who came from rough backgrounds and have children tend not to murder them.

Maybe that should be a factor too.

Either way, whatever. A massive reach to suggest that murder is being implicitly condoned, though.

Post: #25

(09-21-2017 10:10 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:52 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  20 years is a sentence for a brick of yak for a man... and people are complaining she can't study law (which she won't be allowed to practice anyway) after a petty ass sentence (considering she murdered her own child?)

Imagine if a white guy did serve 20 years for murdering a child and then get accepted to elite Ph.D programs upon release. The first words out of every SJW's mouth would be "WHITE PRIVILEGE! IF IT WAS A BLACK PERSON THEY WOULDA THROWN AWAY THE KEY!"

Everything is a racial injustice to these people. Everything. Here the racial injustice is that Harvard rescinded her acceptance, but if the offender was white, the racial injustice would be Harvard accepting him/her in the first place. These people are delusional lunatics who spin every piece of anecdata they can get their hands on to fit their narrative.

It's not so bad that these people merely exist; there are lunatics out there in every corner of the political compass; but this particular brand of lunatic has infiltrated mainstream culture to such an alarming degree that people are ostracized for pointing out the flaws in their logic, or citing scientific studies that that they'd prefer to ignore. That's what gets me worked up about stories like this.

All they needed to do is make a decision, have a press release ready, and then stick to their guns and let the Harvard brand work for them as a shield. Once you show any weakness to the media, blood is in the water.