<p>Agree with cobrat. More sheep for the fold.</p>
<p>I agree with Cobrat, a kindness pledge could be used to inhibit those who express dissenting opinions. I wonder if Harvard is reacting to the ongoing and very public repudiation of Wall Street for its ethical lapses. We know many Wall Street firms are populated with Harvard graduates, which may be a source of embarrassment to some of Harvard’s liberal administrators. Of course, a kindness pledge is a feeble attempt to correct the public’s perception of Harvard’s Wall Street alumni, but it may be a politically correct, feel good attempt by Harvard to align themselves with the enlightened cognescenti.</p>
<p>How ridiculous! If I were ever admitted to Harvard I would proudly refuse to sign. Universities are grounds of free thought, not police states.</p>
<p>I like the concept, I think kindness is terribly underrated, and I cannot see how it would affect free speech. One can certainly express beliefs or raise questions without vitriol toward others. Put me down for this being a quasi-revolutionary move by Harvard!</p>
<p>Hanaviolet–look at Bigbanks reply.
Anyone who refused to sign would be suspect immediately (who could POSSIBLY be against kindness?) Of course no one is AGAINST kindness–must be a bad guy right?</p>
<p>I am quite certain that if I were to question the top 10 people I have met in my life on the scale of kindness, none of them had ever signed a pledge. And I doubt that it would ever have occurred to any of them to suggest that anyone should sign such a pledge. Its a little like being asked to sign your marriage vows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, sometimes it is actually not kind to pretend a classmate’s absurd or ill-informed comment/rant by pretending it is the most insightful comment out of the fear of being labeled “unkind” by others…especially those who tend to subscribe to the “self-esteem over everything else” school of educational thought. </p>
<p>Secondly, one oversensitive person’s perceived “vitriol” may actually be a passionate systematic response which rips apart an ignorant or poorly thought out/argued comment by another classmate. Actions I would think is considered commonplace among highly intelligent students who aren’t afraid of bucking popular opinion/conventional wisdom for the sake of false civility. </p>
<p>Then again, I have been witness and party to many in-class debates in high school and college that would certainly not meet the vague standards of Harvard’s “kindness pledge”…but ended up being some of the most insightful and educational class sessions I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing. Unfortunately, such a pledge does have a potential to have a chilling stifling effect on those very debates which I and most classmates found to be educational and more importantly, interesting. :)</p>
<p>And another interesting point-new ideas are rarely considered kind. I’m not sure whether any of you read Ray Bradbury’s Farenheit 451 but I think that the theme of that book is very related to this topic. Everyone’s opinion–from someone who thinks monarchies weren’t such a bad idea all the way to some one who thinks bunnies should be exterminated because they damage vegetable gardens–is valuable and contributes to our world in a way that is really too complex and awe-inspiring for any one individual to understand. But if the people in charge at Harvard decide that monarchies are bad and bunnies deserve to live, and thus that the person expressing those opinions is “unkind” and therefore undeserving of a Harvard education…well anyway, it’s a very slippery slope, though Harvard is of course a private institution entitled to do as it pleases.</p>
<p>“Harvard can do as it pleases”</p>
<p>Just don’t drag the rest us into it.</p>
<p>Completely agree with cobrat, in part because too often I’ve witnessed well-supported ideas and well-defended arguments silenced as “too critical” when they run counter to the interests of the group or person in charge of an organization, or when they threaten those benefitting from the status quo. Furthermore, much of what is labeled “political correctness” is imposed upon us in the name of kindness and a lot of it is silly at best, and harmfully deceptive at worst.</p>
<p>In fact, I’ve personally been called “mean” for exposing to the principal some pretty egregious examples of grade inflation at my daughter’s school (gasp–the teachers are well-intentioned, good people!) Is it really a kindness to protect kids, or anyone else for that matter, from seeing their deficiencies, failures, laziness, and incompetence? One can and certainly should speak with respect and tact, but sometimes the truth hurts and the injured one wants to scream "You’re mean!'</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I and many other high school classmates at various colleges/universities…including Harvard have encountered plenty of college classmates who were overly sheltered as your described above. They tend to be overconfident incoming freshmen who receive a rude awakening when they receive they get placed on academic probation, academically suspended/expelled, flounder to graduation with an impressive 2.x* or less GPA, and/or get fired from their first job or two**. </p>
<p>Quite a contrast to the parental/K-12 environment my high school classmates where parents, teachers, and even our fellow classmates will point out someone’s mistakes…sometimes quite harshly…especially at my public urban magnet high school where most teachers and certainly most students do not tend to suffer fools gladly!</p>
<ul>
<li>Actually saw an online resume of a job applicant who actually listed having graduated with a 2.0 GPA from an elite university and putting “impressive” right next to it in brackets.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** If one cannot stand a little “meanness” or “vitriol” in an undergrad classroom where Profs tend to tone down the worst aspects, I would hate to see how they’d handle being criticized or even yelled at by colleagues, supervisors, or most importantly…clients when their actions/nonactions caused a product/service to go south. I’d also be concerned about how they’d handle grad school as from what I’ve seen firsthand and heard from friends…grad school classmates and Profs can be just as vicious about ripping apart ignorant or poorly thought out comments as what I experienced from the most sadistic teachers/Profs/classmates I’ve had in high school/college.</p>
<p>Too many kids are coddled in K-12 and undergo a very rude awakening via SAT scores, college admissions results, college grades, and job search success. You can’t just think you’re special because mommy and daddy and all your teachers told you you were–you have to prove it to the people who matter. Being too “kind” is not helpful.</p>
<p>I posted this in the “say it here” thread, but would like to repeat it. D’s cross country coach told the team that there is no such thing as a bad time in cross country. Really? How did he choose his varsity runners, then? How are points scored in meets? Races won? Athletes recruited to college teams? How ludicrous. So at the first meet, parents were repeating that mantra to each other when their kids came in at the very back of the pack with a time so slow that even us old folks could have walked the course faster: it’s ok because in xc you are really only competing against yourself, they said. So who are the kids with the different colored uniforms I wonder? I can get past a no-cut sport policy and very slow people being allowed on the school xc team as long as they actually do the prescribed training unless injured. Telling kids to actually try to run at practice is mean, apparently.</p>
<p>I think why many people objected to the pledge was this:</p>
<p>*…Now to articulate why the Freshman Dean’s Kindness Pledge is both hilariously inappropriate and offensively coercive is a formidable intellectual challenge. As a character in famous novel said, “If you don’t understand it without an explanation, you won’t understand it with one.” It is like trying to explain a joke. It’s certainly not that the decanal heart isn’t in the right place, nor that kindness is not a surpassing value. After all, Dean (now Justice) Elena Kagan is justly celebrated for—among other things—making Harvard Law School a kinder, more agreeable as well as intellectually more thrilling place. But she would no more have thought of proposing that students (and faculty—why not?) sign a kindness pledge than she would have prescribed a dress code or banned pizzas as too salty and fatty. Ah, but that’s a law school and these are college freshman, the Taliban of 6 Prescott Street might reply. And they would have a point. It’s a matter of time and place. There is a place for the Kindness Pledge: Harvard’s six excellent day care centers. But the pledge does serve an educational function. It teaches incoming undergraduates that administrators can be as silly as the rest of us. And don’t forget that other pledge that is making the rounds: the Tea Party’s no new taxes pledge.</p>
<p>Charles Fried*</p>
<p>[Another</a> Take on the Freshman Values Pledge | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2011/9/8/pledge-kindness-law-place/]Another”>http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2011/9/8/pledge-kindness-law-place/)</p>
<p>The pledge was therefore taken down from where it can be viewed publicly: <a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/7/freshmen-pledge-dingman-signatures/[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/7/freshmen-pledge-dingman-signatures/</a>
I don’t think most students even knew about the whole “kindness pledge” thing, which I admit was a cute idea, but a little silly.</p>
<p>In my opinion, there are some misconceptions of the definition of kindness. It does not mean that people don’t disagree, that mistakes are not challenged or corrected, that shutting out a unique or unpopular point of view is acceptable. That people can’t express dissenting points of view with passion, that lazy or unskilled athletes make the varsity team.</p>
<p>It is impossible to believe that one of the top educational institutions, where typically free speech and debate are held in the highest value, would try to stifle ideas.</p>
<p>Here is the germ of the kindness pledge, according to the first post:
“…students are expected to act with integrity, respect, and industry, and to sustain a community characterized by inclusiveness and civility.”</p>
<p>The quoted Harvard dissenter says:</p>
<p>“…the right to be annoying is precious, as is the right to think unkind thoughts. Harvard should not condone the sacrifice of rights to speech and thought simply because they can be inconvenient in a residential college.” </p>
<p>Acting with integrity, respect, industry, inclusiveness and civility does not directly relate to being annoying, and certainly not to free speech.</p>
<p>It would make me slightly uncomfortable to be asked to sign a pledge - one fears groupthink - but I don’t think there is any consequence of not signing it, and I am sure that many Harvard students won’t do so, and will be happy to argue the matter respectfully and passionately (but not “ripping apart”!) with those who disagree.</p>
<p>But my sense is that this pledge is meant to nudge students toward a sense of social responsibility, starting with their immediate college surroundings. To me, that is a good thing overall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But GFG, there are ways of getting a point across in a constructive way without resorting to personal attacks of, for example, the kind that we sometimes see on CC. Besides, constructive criticism of the nature you and cobrat described is not at all inherently “unkind”, as hanaviolet puts it. </p>
<p>The kindness pledge idea might’ve been implemented in response to a survey sent out to us freshmen of last year: [Harvard</a> Most Values Success, 2014 Says | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/2/harvard-values-ranked-survey/]Harvard”>Harvard Most Values Success, 2014 Says | News | The Harvard Crimson), where we apparently collectively ranked “compassion” last and “success” first as the values Harvard stands for. If that’s the case, I think the administration totally missed the meaning behind the low “compassion” rating.</p>
<p>Many of us ranked compassion last, IMO, not at all because the people we interact with each day are “unkind”- in fact, my classmates are so socially apt that you’ll very rarely hear someone say anything that’s beyond the realm of civility in a classroom discussion or casual setting. Some of students were also among the warmest, most genuine and kindhearted people I’ve ever met, hence the “kindness pledge” was a little silly. </p>
<p>The supposed lacking in compassion was not in terms of individuals but of the system as a whole, which I thought harbored too much of that competitive, competent-survive philosophy that TheGFG seemed to endorse. Like many other aspects of society, this is a school/system that can use a little “compassion” in how it tends to make one all too aware that he has to “run at practice”, that’s all.</p>
<p>What are you suggesting, xrCalico? That Harvard dumb down curriculum for the sake of those who cannot keep up? In the upper echelons of education there is no room for incompetence, and I don’t see why Harvard should inject kindness when everyone should have known going in that they were going to face a challenging college experience.</p>
<p>I completely disagree with the idea behind the pledge; being kind should not be imposed on anyone. Conversely, being unkind, mean and cantankerous is a right Harvard should not be shaming its students into relinquishing.</p>
<p>It all sounds a bit too infantile and vaguely dictatorial to me.</p>
<p>Good point Ghostt. What right does Harvard have to tell its students they can’t be in a bad mood? Maybe the student’s coffee machine was broken and they get set off extra easy thanks to that. Contrary to Harvard’s apparent believe, ***** happens.</p>
<p>How cute that Harvard has to remind these high achieving kids of things they should have learned in kindergarten.</p>
<p>“being unkind, mean and cantankerous is a right Harvard should not be shaming its students into relinquishing.”</p>
<p>It’s a molehill to me either way, and I don’t care whether they use a pledge or not. But why should the college be neutral on the question on nice vs. mean within the community?</p>
<p>It’s a residential college, not an apartment complex. If you’re being unkind and mean to the students you live with, IMHO you ought to be ashamed. I think it’s a good thing for the school to communicate to the students upon arrival that it wants them to think about consideration for others. The admissions office tries to weed out the jerks in the first place. Do you think they should stop rejecting applicants on the basis of unkindness?</p>
<p>At some colleges, I’d be very sympathetic to the idea that signing isn’t voluntary if it’s public, etc. But this is Harvard. If you can’t shrug and explain that you disagree with the idea of a pledge for whatever reason, it’s the wrong school for you. And unless the admitted students have changed a lot since I was there, no one is going to give a crap who signed and who didn’t.</p>