Harvard right to drop Jewish pro-gun Parklander?

Kyle Kashuv rose to prominence after surviving the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. While some of his classmates went on to become gun reform activists on the left, Kashuv took a different course. A self-described political conservative, the 18-year-old met with Trump, took a job at the right-wing Turning Point USA and spoke at a National Rifle Association conference.

But now Kashuv is in the spotlight for a different reason. He revealed on Twitter that Harvard had rescinded his acceptance, almost a month after the Huffington Post reported that as a 16-year-old, he had made racist, anti-Semitic and sexist comments. Among other things, Kashuv had repeatedly written the n-word in a shared class document.

Kashuv sent an apology to Harvard saying he regretted the “idiotic and hurtful things” he had written and was “determined to take whatever steps are necessary to rectify this past wrong and to reassure Harvard of my commitment to values of tolerance, diversity and inclusion.” Kashuv also wrote a letter to its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, but the school stood firm.

Kashuv told Vox that he at the time “was in a friend group where we were saying the most shocking things for the sake of shock value.”

“[I]n the same kind of messages, I said extremely anti-Semitic things, and it’s not representative of who I am because I go to synagogue every week, and my parents are Jewish,” he said.

The announcement drew debate: Some praised Harvard’s decision, others said Kashuv should not be harshly punished for comments made as a 16-year-old. Some conservatives said the decision was a pretext to punish a student with politically incorrect views on gun control.

To better understand the controversy, JTA spoke with Brian Taylor, managing director of Ivy Coach, a college admission consultant firm.

Is it unusual for Harvard to revoke admission?

If you’re caught using racist [or] homophobic hate speech, it’s the norm that your admission will be revoked. In this case he happened to be a pundit and his punditry shined a spotlight on his past work. Not every time will students get caught using this language, but in his case his activism led him to getting caught.

What about the fact that he apologized?

When a school’s admission rate is below 5 percent, there are plenty of students who haven’t used hate speech who are deserving of admission. Did he handle it right after Harvard’s dean of admissions [William] Fitzsimmons reached out to him to offer explanation on his comments? I would say yes. He didn’t justify his comments, he apologized profusely, he reached out to Harvard’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

I would say that Harvard, after they first reached out to him, should’ve just revoked his admission. It doesn’t seem like they had any intention of not revoking his admission. Why put him through the paces of explaining his comments?

There is irony in the fact that Harvard, which has a history of racism and a anti-Semitism, is now saying there is no room for forgiveness. His comments, make no mistake, were reprehensible, but Harvard is in many ways saying that there is no room for students to change and grow.

Is this becoming more common today with the increased prevalence of social media?

Just two years ago, Harvard revoked the admission of 10 students caught using racial and homophobic language on a Facebook page. So Harvard has set precedence for this; other schools have as well. 

Folks have suggested that Harvard re-examined his application because of his conservative stances, but his personal statement was all about supporting the Second Amendment. While its admission officers may be liberal, Harvard, like any highly selective school, wants diversity of thought. And that includes conservative kids, too. This kid was admitted because of his conservative views.

Would another school have acted differently?

I don’t think so. I understand completely why his admission was rescinded. I don’t support when Dean Fitzsimmons reached out to him. Why did they ask for his explanation when he did everything right once they threatened him? Why didn’t they just revoke it from the get-go?