The comparison is straightforward.
Harvard does place restrictions on association and, by extension, speech. Now we know that your past speech may be subject to their review. This might open a floodgate (as this kid is very likely NOT the first Harvard-acceptee in recent years to have offensive communication of some type documented and available for public consumption). We also don’t know if H is being arbitrary in how they assess this sort of news - for instance, giving a pass to some and zinging others - but it would probably be within their right to do so, as a private institution. They can accept and rescind who they want to. An extreme frequency of doing so would not be wise, but the occasional booting of an offensive white boy simply won’t raise much ire. Everyone agrees this was an easy decision on Harvard’s part.
UChicago, on the other hand, does NOT seem to place restrictions on association or, by extension, speech, and doesn’t seem to rescind based on FB postings, Google Docs, or other “permanent” communication. Are all UChicago acceptees unoffensive little angels? Unlikely. Others on this thread have made the point that the two schools really aren’t all THAT different. So, why should the incoming class of either be all that different from one another? Both are going to have their share of high achievers, leaders, and a few with an online comment-cum-skeleton in the closet just waiting for vindictive exposure (or exposure for other reasons perhaps).
While we can’t know for sure what would happen in this case, we can make some calculated guesses based on actions (or lack of actions) of both schools in recent years (ie the years of social media and Google Docs). Zimmer might make a comment about it, but it’s unlikely this kid would get the boot. Whether he’d voluntarily withdraw out of shame or worries about being ostracized or other students making his life hell is another question. No doubt the current and incoming student body at Chicago would have something to say on the subject throughout the summer.