At the same time, I see why it was done. Should someone who happened to go to prison have limited prospects for the rest of their life? Should someone who happened to get arrested for drugs need to work hard labor for the rest of their life to survive?

There is nothing wrong with choosing to put chemicals in your body as long as you aren't hurting anybody else in the process.

There is something horribly wrong with torture and murder of a 4 year old.

How many good and decent people work hard labor most of their lives simply because they were born on the wrong side of some arbitrarily drawn border? Because they happen to be born into a world where their intellectual capabilities are relatively low?

I have no sympathy for this child murderer for not getting into Harvard.

At what point will she simply be referred to as Michelle Jones as opposed to "this child murderer"? It's just not right to blatantly disregard all her twenty years of transformation

You do realize others may think that several decades is long enough for a full and thorough reformation to potentially occur? Especially in case like this, when the crime was committed at a young age in a fairly severe context.

Obviously, we must perform a careful evaluation to ensure that this is the case. But to deny any possibility of reformation seems wrong, and not reflective of the reality in which people sometimes change significantly over time.

If I understand correctly, the problem was that she herself minimized her actions when she applied for the programs. I believe the problem was not rehabilitation, the problem was they seem to have felt she was deceptive from the beginning.

If that were true then it would have come as a surprise to the history department that did want to hire her. She earned her undergraduate degree and published from within prison, so it wasn't a secret. The history department had to assist her with the submission of her application because she was unable to use the online application system from within prison.

The professors' whose memo questioned whether she had minimized her crime “to the point of misrepresentation” are complaining that her application focused on her academic achievements and not enough on her crime. In doing so, they are setting themselves up as better assessors of her rehabilitation than the parole board which specializes in that task and has her whole legal and custodial history.

Professor Stauffer's subsequent comments about how it would play on fox News suggest that he's more concerned with appearances than academic rigor. His fear of criticism undermines his academic mission.

It's just not right to blatantly disregard her child murder. "Hello students, I am your professor, and this is your graduate instructor Michelle. She'll be helping you prepare for your midterm exams, and also she murdered a 4-year-old."

"There is nothing wrong with choosing to put chemicals in your body as long as you aren't hurting anybody else in the process.

"There is something horribly wrong with torture and murder of a 4 year old."

I know plenty of people who disagree and feel there is no great difference between the two. Why are you right and they wrong?

I think those people must be choosing to put chemicals into their bodies.

Someone arrested for drug possession shouldn't have limited prospects for the rest of their lives, and child murderers shouldn't be invited to the country's most respected intellectual institutions. I don't find that self-contradictory.