When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, [Harvard],

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,

That, in the course of justice, none of us

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy. ...

- Portia*

     In Harvard College Admissions’s defense, they have every right to accept and to reject whomever and yes their very job is sitting in judgment of applicants’ past acts and accomplishments. Such a defense, however, is not an answer to the concerning questions: was their decision fair and demonstratively, provably rational. Unlike the infamous Rescinded 10 a few years ago who committed egregious act after their acceptance into Harvard, this recent rescinding is based upon acts years prior to applicant Kyle Kashuv submitted his application to Harvard. 

     A cloud of politics surrounds the already black box admissions (and rescission) process. Some may call the decision to rescind a cowering to the SJW’s will, but such wills must include Kashuv’s political enemies among whom are demonstratively racist Alt-Right personalities who were actively instrumental in urging Harvard revoke their acceptance against a survivor with an exceptional political stance. ‘Exceptional’ because of his Conservative leaning pro-2nd Amendment position versus the usual Left leaning pro-gun control. I think an interpretation consistent with public facts is Harvard just wanted to wash their metaphorical hands of any controversy; better to take political flack that will blow over by summer’s end than a most certain news headline ‘Harvard Admits Racist’ that will both haunt and reinforce a perception that is the cause of Harvard’s current legal imbroglio concerning Admissions being guilty of the very same immorality activity as those they rescinded.

     Was Harvard’s decision fair? Any answer is indefinite, although let me disclose I lean towards ‘no’, because the calculus by which Admissions makes their decision is unknown to us. Their black box admissions process gives them a cloaking defense by which they may give any excuse for any decision. A lawsuit challenges the current process. Let us hope something will come to public light. Another reason for thinking their decision unfair is how new, external information that was neither necessary nor contradictory held sufficient sway to change their original decision. In this respects by all appearance, Harvard broke contract; Kashuv upheld his end of the bargain by supplying all that was required in the application process including satisfying the high academic threshold, but based upon information supplied by those antagonistic toward Kashuv offered unrequired, private information that was enough to reverse Harvard’s earlier decision. That is what seems unfair.

     Was their decision rational? Answer: No. Here we can give a substantive examination. In essence, privy access to a singular incident, a private performative exchange, was enough to countermand a decision made earlier. Either the calculus used to derive at their earlier decision was flawed or their recent decision is an error. The two decisions are incompatible thus one of the decisions must be in error, or at least, the process by which either decision was made is faulty. At time t, decision for X was made. Then at a later time t₁ > t, a decision for not-X was made. The obvious question is, which decision was incorrect? The expected rebuttal is mentioning new information. Such, however, new information (i) is not salient, (ii) is not required, and (iii) does not contradict existing knowledge, more specific does not contradict the applicant’s package. The irrationality is in how Harvard Admissions employed some means by which they arrived at a decision in accepting Kashuv but later with new information that does not invalidate pre-existing information or any information in the applicant’s application has Harvard reverse their decision in rescinding Kashuv.

     Kashuv and those who are sympathetic are asked to accepted some new information somehow has the strength at invalidating Harvard’s acceptance decision. Can such non-contradictory, external information exist? Let’s leave that speculative thought aside and address the specific information given. Is the private exchange, which being private raises a whole set of other questions, enough to rescind? Some agree, yes. 

     Going back to what Harvard College Admissions writes in reserving the right to withdraw offers of admissions under a ‘variety of circumstances [vague language], including “if an admitted student engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character.” 

Was Kashuv dishonest? — No. Thankfully that is not being debated.

Was Kashuv immature? — Here, I agree. He was immature but not to the extent or degree any different from any other teen. By legal definition, anyone under 18 years old, any and all acts are immature. Given Kashuv’s public persona and activities, he is not by nature an immature person. Such a single, private moment is not sufficient for warranting the label of immaturity onto Kashuv. Here, let me repeat an argument others have made, grant Kashuv was immature, why is accepting he has grown into a more mature person, especially in the wake of surviving a school school, impossible? 

     Kashuv was being a jerk then when he wrote what he did but he is not an asshole; the difference being, an asshole has bad intentions and knows what they are doing to be harmful whereas the jerk thinks what they are doing is harmless and even, more to the point, humorous. Kashuv then was like the 4 years old kid who keeps repeating the F-k-word because he knows he gets an irksome reaction from those in earshot. Why should such a single act of immaturity, which all Harvard undergrad applicants are guilty of being to some degree greater or lesser be enough to rescind?

Was what Kashuv wrote wrong?

Morally? — No. Without getting into a whole side discussion on ethics theory Rawls vs Nozick, Mills, Nietzsche, Aristotle, any utterances of a single word in any context verbal or written cannot in itself be immoral. A single use or repetition of a token does not define morality. The numerous times a proper Christian who has said ‘Satan’ does not make them immoral. Heck, anyone who likes and listens to Rap/Hip Hop music is guilty of uttering, or at least thinking, of the verboten N-word.

Was/is Kashuv evil or hold evil intent toward Blacks/African-Americans and Jews? — No. Besides being Jewish himself, both his behavior in public and private bare witness in how this singular incident is an outlier exception to his average, normative character. The explanation in Kashuv’s apology and his behavior before and since give no indication he had malicious intent when writing  what he did in the private exchange.

     Others have made the following argument I share here. Let us suppose Kashuv is in fact a racist, anti-Semite. As an academic institution, Harvard is in prime position to capitalize on a signature, teachable moment; not only can they transform the lives of their students but also alter their minds for the better. Harvard missed the chance to educate and change the mind of a racist, anti-Semite. What is the point of Harvard if not to educate? The response letter from the Office of Diversity and Inclusion professes an interest at educating Kashuv; too bad Admissions is not as enlightened.

     Is what Kashuv wrote bad in the sense being socially unacceptable? — No. What Kashuv wrote and when in the context of writing, he did not defy urbanity. He wrote something in private with the understanding and confidence that such would remain private. Like coitus, when engaged in private is an act unto itself but coitus in public is not socially accepted behavior. If Kashuv had gone on public stage and shouted racial epithets and anti-Semitic slurs, then that would have been socially unacceptable behavior. (If someone utters a forbidden word in an unobserved, empty room did they create offense? No. One cannot give offense but one may take offense but only if present to witness such offensive act.) Harvard is both passing judgment and punishing Kashuv for acts he had done in private and prior to his ever applying. This too rises the hackles of those who scream the decision to rescind was unfair. Using irrelevant, private information that falls outside to scope of a particular legerdemain in making their decision is problematic.

     When all is said and done, Harvard College rescinded admissions because some kid wrote some bad words in private.

*Line from Portia's speech on the quality of mercy from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Act 4, scene 1(Thanks to my 8th grade Reading teacher Miss Moone forcing us to memorize the speech)