The reason these threads start here is because UChicago thinks of itself as being different, in terms of the importance it gives to free expression. It considers that a core part of its identity, and viewed in that context, asking “What would UChicago do?” makes a lot of sense.
This support of free expression was a key reason why my D chose UChicago over its peer, Columbia. Columbia was my D’s first choice going into senior year, as her favorite city is New York. But the Mattress Girl incident and the rush to condemnation by the faculty suggested more of mob mentality than a search for the truth. To put it into a current context, Columbia came across as the Oberlin of elite colleges.
And from what I have heard, I think UChicago has set the right balance. A recent example is that graduate students were allowed to protest re wages, but they didn’t get to block all entrances to a building, or prevent students from crossing their picket line.
Now, just how much free expression should there be, and does it apply here to the point that Kyle should not be rescinded? I say no, meaning I think Harvard made the right call. And my view here is based upon asking the question: “If this information was available in a teacher reference, what would the application decision have been?” And the answer is a clear rejection, not a deferral or waitlist.