newly discoverd, DUMB antics by HARVARD's male soccer team results in cancellation of season

Parent Cafe
81

Some things you’re forgetting to mention are:

Other players knew about this practice and when questioned by university authorities, were not forthcoming about its existence.

This practice wasn’t limited to 2012, but continued into this current academic year. This means current players on Harvard’s male soccer team participated and/or knew about this book’s existence and when questioned by university officials, were found to not be forthcoming about the book’s existence and behaviors surrounding it.

Considering some current players on the male Harvard soccer team did participate and the team as a whole were found to not be forthcoming, some could plausibly argue that there were no real innocent players.

If they did not participate, they were complicit by not being forthcoming about the book’s existence when questioned by university officials.

This reminds me of a ESPN movie about the early '50s academic cheating scandal at West Point by members of its football team. One outcome of the investigation by West Point authorities was that many West Point cadets were EXPELLED outright and not only those who cheated or knowingly facilitated the cheating.

Some of the expelled students who were “innocent” in the sense of not actively participating in the cheating were expelled for being found to know about it and FAILING TO REPORT IT IMMEDIATELY TO West Point authorities as required under the honor code they pledged to uphold.

Considering the West Point case, Harvard’s male soccer team got off much more lightly.

82

Re: post 32
“The first thing I thought when I heard this was that Owen Labrie, the prep school guy who attacked a freshman girl as part of a “senior salute”, was headed to Harvard on a full soccer scholarship. He would have fit right in.”

Just catching up on this fast moving discussion but want to clarify that in addition to the fact that Harvard does not give out athletic scholarships as @intparent pointed out, Labrie’s aid was purely need based and his soccer skills were not at a caliber where he was recruited by Harvard nor did he have a spot on the roster.

83

“Further, as a private university Harvard certainly has the right to set standards of behavior for those that have the privilege of representing their school on the playing field. They are not stopping these men from their free speech, but they won’t let them represent Harvard if they want to behave this way.”

EXACTLY!
IF a student wants the PRIVILEGE of going to Harvard or representing Harvard on the athletic field, then they will have to play by Harvard’s rules of behavior.
Harvard is PRIVATE college. Students dont have a RIGHT to go to a private college and Harvard [and other private colleges] CAN impose rules of behavior on students who do decide to go there.
Just as colleges CAN impose Honor code system rules on students, and eject them if they are found to break those rules, Harvard has the right to impose sanctions on students. or cancel games, in order to alert any and all students- both current and future- of what is and is NOT considered acceptable behavior.

I applaud Harvard for the action it has taken.
Students who want the freedom to engage in what Harvard deems offensive behavior to other students can go elsewhere.

84

Again, this was NOT limited to the 2012 team. The initial NYT article only mentioned that but here is an updated article:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/4/soccer-suspended-scouting-report-harvard/

It appears Harvard would not have cancelled this season if it only happened in 2012. It continues to happen and was “widespread across the team” which is why the season was stopped.

85

I refer you again to the swimsuit edition, the sexiest man alive edition, 50 Shades, Magic Mike…and on and on and on. Men objectify women and women objectify men. If anything there is more male objectifying going on than female. It’s not OK to be lewd and crude and it sounds like it went beyond ranking them for “cuteness”…and I guarantee you the girls at some point where checking out the men’s soccer team and commenting among themselves unless they are all lesbians which I doubt. So it’s wrong when men objectify women, but OK when women objectify men? So we want parents to crack down on the boys, but girls gone wild is OK? You know, it might happen again, might be a group of women or it mighit be a group of men…but it sure as heck won’t be a Google Doc and I still think the university could have done something alitle more private and alittle less grandstanding.

86

This sort of thing happened at Duke a few years ago, but the sexes were reversed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/karen-owen-duke-sex-rati_n_754186.html

Not sure if CC will allow the link, but the complete power point presentation is at Deadspin.

MODERATOR’S NOTE: The link had an inappropriate word in it that was replaced by asterisks. If you see asterisks your post, you need to edit it immediately.

87

re post 84
Oh puleeeze…

try and find me a “scouting report” written by harvard women…
then you might have a point…

88

^and any woman stupid enough to write up something like what is detailed in post 85 deserves the consequences of reactions to her “report”.
There ARE and will be consequences to stupid decisions, regardless of the sex of the person who make the decision in the first place…

IMHO.

89

I find the “faux thesis” by Owens equally as objectionable as the report which is the subject of this thread. This is not a male vs. female issue to me – neither sex should be treating the other with such blatant disrespect.

The difference with Owen is that by the time the document came to light she had graduated. Little Duke could do.

90

@cobrat You make some great points but I do have a problem with someone being punished for being unable to prove a negative. It seems some on the team could be blamed for not knowing. A sort of “you knew or should have known” thing. I understand that in cases of professional fraud from executives or auditors and the like but these are people on a sports team. One cannot expect them to be charged with the responsibility of overseeing conduct of fellow teammates. How were they supposed to know that Johnny and Jimmy were at the end of the field giggling about a girl? It implies that since they were on a team that each member knew or should have know what each other team knew. Brings to mind of Star Trek and the Borg.

I guess it just gets back to what we all learned in first grade. Stay away from the bad kids because you are guilty by association.

91

No quibble with what is said here, but we do need to accept that the sentiment is totally at odds with the culture, and I do not see how this will be mitigated.

The most popular apps such as Tinder and other dating apps where one swipes left and right based on a picture is doing what exactly? Well, users (both male and female) are rating a potential date based on looks and some personal mental rating system totally based on physical appearance. No user goes beyond the pictures to read anything about a profile unless the profile pic passes that user’s “personal” physical rating.

I will paraphrase my DS here, a senior: “If people are upset about these guys rating women, then these people have never seen women using Tinder and hearing what these females say about guys pictures as they swipe. Even more, females put up their best pictures to be rated as high as possible by a potential date.”

Now, if people are upset these ratings were written down, I get it as some things are better left unsaid. However, to think given that dating technology encourages and its functionality depends on “physical ratings,” I just think this is sort of whistling by graveyard to think young people are going to be taught and shamed out of this behavior when it is now part of their daily lives.

Even more important though is everyone is beautiful to someone else, so I think what it is causing the raucous here is these guys made their personal preferences available in a Google group. Yep, some things are better left unsaid.

92

But woman on tinder or other such apps CHOOSE to use them. The women soccer players rated by the guys did not choose to be subjected to that. The sportsmanship requirements are to treat other athletes with respect, which these guys clearly did not.

It is not possible to field a decent soccer team without most players, especially in key positions. If there were a few that did not know about this, they are not going to be able to form a team that will win.

93

“Further, as a private university Harvard certainly has the right to set standards of behavior for those that have the privilege of representing their school on the playing field. They are not stopping these men from their free speech, but they won’t let them represent Harvard if they want to behave this way.
It’s like an ethics clause when celebs/athletes do product endorsements. They are free to say whatever they want, but if it reflects poorly on the brand, then they are out. As for punishing all for the sins of a few - time to be mature and if you see something say something! Wasn’t that Billy Bush’s problem. He went along with the whole thing and paid the price. I don’t see these soccer comments as much different from the Trump/Bush tape really. Demeaning to women. Such an outcry on Trump (deservedly so), but why the love for these Harvard guys? I’m not saying lock 'em up, or throw them out, but missing a few soccer games and making them an example is not too harsh”"

The FIRE.ORG has taken the position that institutions like Harvard contractually are bound to provide full free speech rights (based on what they say about their own institution to prospective students). It’s a very interesting argument that has yet to be determined in the courts.

Here is their argument: "private colleges and universities should be held to the standard that they themselves establish. If a private college advertises itself as a place where free speech is esteemed and protected—as most of them do—then it should be held to the same standard as a public institution.

Furthermore, private colleges and universities are contractually bound to respect the promises they make to students. Many institutions [including Harvard] promise freedom of expression in university promotional materials , but then deliver selective censorship once the first tuition check is cashed. They may not be bound by the First Amendment, but private institutions are still legally obligated to provide what they promise. Private institutions may not engage in fraud or breach of contract."

Let’s assume for a moment they are right and that Harvard is contractually bound to provide free speech rights. OR let’s say for a moment with was Berkley.

The issue then is if this would be a free speech issue. To me, it is clearly yes.

Most people just don’t understand what free speech is.

You show a complete lack of understanding when you say this: “They are free to say whatever they want, but if it reflects poorly on the brand, then they are out.” or “They are not stopping these men from their free speech, but they won’t let them represent Harvard if they want to behave this way.”

NO, they are out because the are NOT free to say whatever they want. Pro Athletes and actors sign contracts which LIMIT their right to say “whatever they want.” They do NOT have free speech rights vis a vis the companies they represent.

Being “free to say whatever you want”, that is to say “free speech” means that THERE CANNOT BE ANY CONSEQUENCE FROM OFFICIALS FOR YOUR SPEECH. If there are OFFICIAL consequences then they are “being stopped from their free speech.”

The only issue here is whether Harvard, which does not have to grant free speech rights, did so via the type of contractual obligation that The FIRE.ORG has posited.

It’s a fascinating question. I don’t know the answer.

94

It was a team Google Group. If you were on the team you were in the Google Group. In one of the links one of the team members did appear to take issue with the whole thing when a more senior member directed that someone get on this for the new freshman women’s recruits. Wasn’t clear but he saud something like “WTF? Where are you going with this?”.

I feel bad for that player.

95

It’s not a free speech violation without state action. You make & disseminate those sort of comments at your job. You will get fired. No violation of free speech. Same with the Harvard students.

96

@Zinhead Never knew about that Duke woman with the list. That sure puts a different spin on things happening on campuses. It seems colleges make men out to be these predators. To me this woman seemed like a predator.

97

@AboutTheSame . It’s not a FIRST AMENDMENT issue without state action. This issue is whether Harvard has contractually agreed to provide Free Speech to students. As noted in my post (#92) The FIRE.ORG has posited an interesting argument that Harvard has contractually promised free speech.

No employer that I know of promises any sort of free speech environment, thus there is no analogy.

98

We aren’t privy to all that Scalise and the powers that be at Harvard have seen. I’m going to guess that it went beyond 1, 2, or 3 individuals on the team, enough that sanctioning individuals would affect the ability to field a team.

99

Better to sanction the players guilty and not be able to field a team and forfeit than punish every kid on the team. Seems easy to me. I’d feel a whole lot better if I were a soccer player who did not participate in the process and had to forfeit or lose because the team was too small or lost their good players, than to be “part” of the “bad guys” and punished for the sins of others. I’m not too into “group punishments.” It just makes the innocent bitter and makes the guilty feel better. Never, ever does what the intent was…to teach a lesson in my opinion.

MassDad68 I totally believe there is bad behavior on college campuses in both sexes. Groups of women calling an individual a rapist (a’la the women of Yale and Columbia etc.) is as equally as bad as the college boys who participated in the Google doc. at Harvard.

100

Ironically, wasn’t the origin of Facebook a ‘hot or not’ rating of girls in the printed version of the Harvard Facebook? Perhaps Harvard will condemn Mark Zuckerberg albeit significantly belatedly.