Harvard has come under a lot of criticism for having a lower standard for blacks and a higher standard for asians. He seems to imply that he felt or that others would feel (I can't exactly tell) that Harvard would not have accepted someone in the same situation who wasn't black. This is different than saying he didn't think she should be accepted because of her skin color.
I'm not arguing for or against their decision--just that within the context of current lawsuits against Harvard, his statement has a bit different meaning.
My guess is that the profs saw this as such a perfect shitstorm that, if it becomes a major story, DC would feel they have no choice but to do something about it.
Why do they care?
I mean, they have enough cash in the bank to never let another student in for 200 years, and still be just fine. They have more good-will built up than anything else out there. They make advances in human knowledge comparable to almost nothing else besides another University. They have it all. So what could they want then?
The only thing I can come up with is that they do think Fox would be correct in that assumption. They aren't worried about the money. Maybe they are worried about the woman herself and just are using the Fox stuff as cover? Nothing else really makes sense.
They're trying to avoid being part of Fox's whole anti-University arc this season.
No one is stating that Harvard had an obligation to accept her. People are expressing their dissatisfaction with Harvard's actions. That's still allowed, right?
[As a side note: If all private individuals/institutions impose additional hardships on ex-cons, then it's highly hypocritical for any of those individuals/institutions to complain about the recidivism rates. You may as well just send them all away for life in prison for any crime and be done with it if your plan is to hamper their efforts to move on after prison.]
You don't get to have it both ways.
"I donate a quarter million a year and you give it to a black who killed her own son? Guess Yale could use a new building with my name on it"
Still though, the US needs to have a good hard look at de-monetizing the prison industrial complex, humanizing post-incarcerated people, and disassembling the economic incentives to use the 13th amendment for disenfranchisement.
I realize the op-ed linked to above mentions legislation to end harsh punishment/disclosure rules for first-time non-violent offenders, but that's a reasonable initial milestone in reforming the justice system to be more rehabilitative.
You can read more about their stances as advocated by Freedom Partners, the nonprofit that they founded and fund: https://freedompartners.org/issues/
Including this statement of support for VA governor candidate Ed Gillespie's criminal justice reform plan: https://freedompartners.org/press/holden-keeping-virginia-sa...
https://edforvirginia.com/criminaljustice/
> “Virginia’s criminal justice system should be just, fair and redeeming. Law enforcement and justice should be administered fairly, and when Virginians exit the criminal justice system they should leave more prepared to live a full and contributing life in society. “ – Ed Gillespie
> "We didn’t have some preconceived idea about crucifying Michelle,” said John Stauffer, one of the two American studies professors. “But frankly, we knew that anyone could just punch her crime into Google, and Fox News would probably say that P.C. liberal Harvard gave 200 grand of funding to a child murderer, who also happened to be a minority. I mean, c’mon.”
This is so cowardly.