It has been a real education for me to see what some people consider acceptable, when I find the same things appalling. Ratings on looks or “hotness” objectify women, but fall within the range that doesn’t surprise me. The vulgar position characterization is way out in left field, as far as I am concerned–it is way outside the range of speech that I find acceptable. The fact that it was apparently in a publicly accessible Google document makes it worse.
The practice evidently started in 2012 but did not stop then. From the material that Harvard has made public, it apparently continued in 2016. It may not have happened in every intervening year.
I think it has been given a lot of press because there are a lot of people who would be shocked by the behavior of the Harvard boys in question.
I don’t find the comments to be trivial. The idea that we live in a “rape culture,” especially at universities, has been questioned by quite a few CC posters. I think that the comments by the Harvard boys are illustrative of the culture.
I fully support free speech. I’m completely appalled by the content of the speech of some of the boys on the Harvard soccer team. I agree that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, opposing it. So count my words among the “more speech.”
"Omg it’s four years later I would hope these young women have better things to do then ponder this nonsense. "
@Dungareedoll I am going to repeat my same message to you from yesterday again. Are you not reading the posts here and articles? This is NOT just a problem from four years ago. This has been ongoing. The men’s team has continued to rank and comment every year including 2016. This has been repeatedly stated.
Doschicos@ I have read the articles. No need to be rude. As a matter of fact u preach tolerance and respect yet ur words are disrespectful to me now. So practice what u preach. In my opinion this is not a big deal I would hope that u can respect that instead of throw insults at me. But no worries I’m strong and confident enough to not feel harassed nor assaulted by ur statement. I won’t ask the moderator to remove u from the thread because I’m threatened by mere words. At the end of the day it’s all sticks and stones and doesn’t warrant any further attention.
The real issue is that the poster has been corrected numerous times in reference to his/her claims that it is a 4 year old matter confined to 2012. Links to the Crimson were provided, again by numerous posters. The problem with not reading the thread and keeping current is that it puts the onus on other posters to continually correct the bad information. It makes the whole thread repetitive. Further, it is tedious for other posters to continually have to post the same information and links.
This thread has over 6,000 views, so yeah the misinformation matters.
While has only been applied in public secondary schools – not college environment (as far as I know), public schools can limit lewd and vulgar speech as contrary to the mission of education – Fraser v. Bethel.
Freedom of speech in school setting (secondary) is limited – while political speech is protected (Supreme Court in Tinker, pro-drug speech can be prohibited (Morse) as can lewd and vulgar speech (Fraser).
Momof3: The team has written an apology as a team and taken responsibility as a team. They are not pointing fingers at some of the players and arguing it is only some of them. It is not true that public schools cannot discipline lewd and vulgar speech. Public schools have the right to do so for K-12 kids and private schools have even more latitude. Many schools do not allow kids to wear shirts with vulgar expressions for example.
The first amendment does not protect obscene speech and the intersection of free speech rights and the right to be free from harassment is not completely defined in the courts. However, as a private institution Harvard can set more stringent requirements for student conduct. Specifying sexual positions for each female player may well fall under unprotected obscene speech. There is clearly no artistic, literary, political or scientific value to the rankings.
I don’t see how this is such a terrible punishment. There were two games left in the season and it was not at all clear the team would make the playoffs.
Can somebody explain why maintaining some private spreadsheet on the Internet server that was not intended for public consumption is a form of speech and why Harvard can police private conversations between students?
Obviously Harvard is embarrassed that their athletic department recruits pigs and their admission department admits pigs. Or these departments recruit/admit only good guys but they become pigs in Harvard.
@momofthreeboys states: “. My beef for those that can’t or won’t read the entire thread is that the punishment (in my opinion) was heavy handed since it included the entire team and that benching the known participants would be more fair, even if it meant they couldn’t field a full team and had to forfeit the last two games or if they played without stronger players (who might have been benched)”
"Faust wrote she “was deeply distressed to learn that the appalling actions of the 2012 men’s soccer team were not isolated to one year or the actions of a few individuals.”
@Dungareedoll Report away. I can take it being a “nasty woman” and all. I’m just clarifying factual, reported information from reputable sources rather than pulling misinformation out of thin air.
@Tanbiko : Intent that something not be public is never the issue. Richard Nixon never intended that his tapes be public. Oops. Nothing on the Internet is “private” in an absolute sense, and the minute you share something with another person you have relinquished control over how it might be used. [That’s an overstatement for those of you playing legal at home, but good enough for present purposes.] The circulation of the “private” spreadsheet was no different than two idiots having the same conversation in Commons where they were overheard by others. Oops.
I’ve read all the posts. I agree with QM and doschicos (and others) on how important it is to speak against words and actions we find offensive:
I find the actions of the team offensive and completely unacceptable in any circumstances. The fact they lied (though those details aren’t clear) leads me to believe they understood the actions were unacceptable. There is no way I can see to spin the lying into anything but bad character. I don’t find the punishment particularly severe. Harvard’s response impresses me.
I appreciate the team taking responsibility and apologizing. That is commendable.
Thanks to HarvestMoon for the links. I read them all.
I am a mother of (grown) boys. No girls. I don’t have time to stay on this thread, but just wanted to add my voice.
adding: and yes, I see a culture some of us want to eliminate. So we keep speaking up. Over and over and over…
"The circulation of the “private” spreadsheet was no different than two idiots having the same conversation in Commons where they were overheard by others. Oops. "
Ok, so some idiots from the 2012 team had some stupid conversations that were finally overheard by others. Now the Harvard administration started interrogating the 2016 team if they had the same stupid PRIVATE conversations and the players were not cooperative so they got punished. Are they supposed to be cooperative? (It seems some members of the current team did admit that the stupid conversations continued)
I can’t believe this is national news and some of the nonsense in this thread.
Student-Athletes aren’t celebs or professional athletes getting multi-million dollar endorsement deals. In the Ivy league, they’re not even getting athletic scholarships. Why anyone would think professional athletes, getting endorsement deals, could be a good analogy is beyond me?
Yale's Vann Woodward report supported free speech, not because he was worried about the university getting sued, but because free speech was supposed to be beneficial to the university. Much of the arm chair legal analysis is missing the point.
The slippery slope fallacy is strong in this thread: if you're rating girls on how hot they are, you're going to become a rapist or at least creating a "rape culture" where others feel free to do so.
On the flip side, less than 2% of college soccer players go pro. Since Harvard doesn't give out athletic scholarships, it is a hobby for the vast majority of the players. Having the season cancelled is a minor punishment.
roethlisburger, I think you are overlooking the actual content of the writings by the Harvard boys. If you think it was just a rating for “hotness,” it would be logical to take a more exculpatory view, even though that in itself is not so “hot.” But it wasn’t just a rating for hotness or attractiveness.
@momofthreeboys My beef for those that can’t or won’t read the entire thread is that the punishment (in my opinion) was heavy handed since it included the entire team and that benching the known participants would be more fair, even if it meant they couldn’t field a full team and had to forfeit the last two games or if they played without stronger players (who might have been benched) and with that I’m on to something else…
My take on this, is
that it wasn’t limited to just a few players - Harvard said it was 'widespread" across the team, implying many members
Since the current team was asked if it was still going on, and no one came forth with the true answer, they all either lied, or covered for each other, so that makes the entire team complicit
All of you can disagree. That’s perfect and exactly my point. What one person finds offensive someone else does not. I just think that that same thought process now needs to apply across the board. U don’t think doschicos was snarky and rude but I did
I don’t find what the soccer team did so egregious. It’s all a matter of opinion.
The GFG, this has nothing to do with volunteering information. The current men’s soccer team were asked whether they had written a report themselves. The men’s soccer team members lied and claimed they had not written one.
What details are you questioning, and what do you think should have been handled differently?
Regarding the 2012 scouting report vs continuation into 2016.
Am I mistaken that most of what is out there in the public domain is from the 2012 scouting report? If it has in fact been continued where current teammates for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were rated in such a manner, then why has there been no quotes from those years? Has anyone seen reporting which ties quotes to years? I find it hard to believe that nothing controversial was said during those subsequent years. The news media would be sure to print it up if it existed I would think. The juicier the better.
And likewise, I seem to recall that the response letter was primarily from the 2012 teammates. Was there no response from the 2013 to 2016 teams? None of them saw fit to respond? Not one of the these Harvard woman wished to respond?
I’m just clarifying factual, reported information from reputable sources rather than pulling misinformation out of thin air.