I have been mulling this issue in my mind. I am a believer in redemption and change and that we all say and do stupid things, especially in adolescence, but for me there also needs to be proof/evidence of change before trust. So, I look at the question this way, would Chicago (or Harvard) have admitted this kid if they knew about these statements before hand? I would say the answer would be no, not because of his stance on gun control or other conservative political viewpoints, but because of the blatant racism exhibited unless there were intervening acts (and not just talk) to show true reformation. Here I think Chicago may even be less inclined to distinguish between knowing about the racist rants before vs after admission. If Chicago is holding itself out to be different than Harvard or the other historical elites because of the rigor of its intellectual honesty and consistency, the person they are evaluating is the same person no matter when they found out about the racism. Unacceptable before = unacceptable after. So then the only question is if Chicago would have a different admissions standard than Harvard over these writings. I can’t imagine they would and agree with @JHS observations in post #8.