Harvard affirmed the long-standing belief that topics like the Holocaust, sexual assault, and the deaths of children should probably not be joked about. At least ten students lost their acceptances to the Ivy League school in mid-April after university officials discovered that members of the incoming freshman class were posting memes related to these topics in a Facebook messaging group titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens,” according to the Harvard Crimson.

The chat originated from members of the official Harvard Class of 2021 Facebook group in December who all shared the common interest of sharing memes with one another. While the 100-member group chat started out as “lighthearted,” according to one student, some members felt that the content did not meet the standards of humor they were accustomed to.

As a result, a “dark” meme chat was formed. Of course, not just any student could join. The founders of the new chat required that prospective members post provocative memes in the larger messaging group before they could be allowed in, according to Cassandra Luca, a member of the original meme group.

“They were like, ‘Oh, you have to send a meme to the original group to prove that you could get into the new one,'” Luca said. “This was a just-because-we-got-into-Harvard-doesn’t-mean-we-can’t-have-fun kind of thing.”

The “fun” included racist and sexist memes and messages that joked about child abuse and rape. One group of messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while another referred to the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child as “piñata time.”

Depending on your moral compass, the supposed “fun” thankfully, or unfortunately, came to an abrupt halt mid-April when employees in Harvard’s admissions office emailed those suspected of posting offensive memes to disclose their involvement. A copy of the Admissions Office’s email, obtained by the Crimson, reads:

The Admissions Committee was disappointed to learn that several students in a private group chat for the Class of 2021 were sending messages that contained offensive messages and graphics…As we understand you were among the members contributing such material to this chat, we are asking that you submit a statement by tomorrow at noon to explain your contributions and actions for discussion with the Admissions Committee.

Administrators told the students who received the email that their admissions status was being reviewed and were also told not to attend Visitas, a weekend event for incoming freshman Harvard holds annually at the end of April. About a week later, at least ten members of the group chat were told that they were no longer going to attend Harvard.

Harvard has the right to rescind applications of any incoming student who “engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

This is the second consecutive year that Harvard has dealt with incoming freshman exchanging offensive messages online. Members of the class of 2020 sent racially-charged messages to one another in an unofficial class GroupMe. However, these students were not disciplined by the university because they were “not matriculated students at this point,” according to then-Interim Dean of Student Life Thomas A. Dingman.

Many will inevitably claim that the students’ right to free speech was violated in the school’s decision, but even fellow members of the incoming freshman class agree it was the right call.

“I appreciate humor, but there are so many topics that just should not be joked about,” said Jessica Zhang, a member of the class of 2021. “I respect the decision of the admissions officers to rescind the offers because those actions really spoke about the students’ true characters.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Students Lose Harvard Acceptances for Obscene Memes appeared first on Law Street.

The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) has long been the seemingly make-it-or-break-it test that prospective law school students take. For years, it’s been a simple rule: if you want to go to law school, you take the LSAT. But the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law is breaking away from that mold–the school is accepting students who submit the Graduate Records Examinations (GRE) as well.

Arizona made its announcement about the GRE in February, and immediately saw backlash. The Law School Admission Council, which is in charge of the LSAT test, allegedly considering ousting Arizona from its membership–although the Council now states that its actions in regards to Arizona were “misinterpreted.” In addition to administering the LSAT, the Council offers a number of other admissions-related services, so it’s not really a membership that Arizona would have wanted to lose. The Council did decide to let Arizona retain its membership. Other law schools backed Arizona’s attempt to break from the norm–approximately 150 deans signed a letter supporting Arizona’s “effort to broaden its applicant pool.”

So why does Arizona want to let in applicants that don’t take the LSAT? There are a few reasons, including the fact that the American Bar Association (ABA) has never been clear that the LSAT is the only test that prospective law school students should or can take. According to Carrie Jung of NPR:

The American Bar Association says law schools must require a standardized test that’s valid and reliably predicts student performance, ‘but it doesn’t say that standardized test must be the LSAT,’ says Marc Miller, the Arizona law school dean.

Arizona commissioned a study which came to the conclusion that the GRE is a reliable way to measure applicants. And Arizona’s administration makes some good points about the accessibility benefits of the GRE–there are a lot more opportunities to take the GRE than the LSAT, and Arizona is hoping that increased accessibility leads to more a diverse pool of applicants.

Arizona’s admissions website now clearly states that submitting a GRE score instead of an LSAT score is allowed, and while it’s the first school to make this move, there may be others following suit. According to NPR, the University of Hawaii and Wake Forest are also considering opening admissions to GRE-takers as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No LSAT, No Problem: University of Arizona’s Law School Begins Accepting GRE appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, some Stanford Law students realized that they could request access to their admissions records in accordance with the 1974 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. Students around the country, including some at Yale Law, caught wind of this and requested to see their records as well. So, how did Yale respond? By deleting all of its admissions data, of course.

Now Yale Law School will continue to delete all of its admissions evaluation data after each annual admissions cycle. Included in this data are numerical evaluations made by Yale Law School officials and faculty and the identities of the deciding individuals. This decision was made by law school administrators without any sort of announcement, and the school had already received multiple FERPA requests before the records were deleted.

This practice is not completely new for Yale–before they had electronic applications starting in 2001, applications were submitted on paper and were discarded after each year.  In an email, Yale Law School Associate Dean Asha Rangappa said: “recent FERPA requests prompted us to look at our record-keeping practices, and the decision was made to revert to our previous practice, which was to discard evaluation records after they had fulfilled their intended purpose.”

According to Rangappa, this decision was made to protect the professors at the school. Giving students access to their admissions records would mean giving them access to the notes and numerical evaluations made by the professors throughout the admissions process. These professors are the ones that go on to ultimately decide who get accepted into the prestigious law school, and allowing students to see those decisions may lead to tensions between students and faculty.

Rangappa also stressed that, “candid evaluations provided by faculty members and others are a critical part of the law school admissions process, and if faculty reviewers knew that this information could be shared with admitted students, they might be reluctant to participate in the process.”

Professors like Akhil Amar, who is also faculty chair of Yale Law School, understands this decision despite that fact that it was made without the law professors’ knowledge or input. He acknowledges that the maintenance of school records is the responsibility of the administration, and does not necessarily involve the faculty.

In fact, Amar not only understands, but also agrees with the decision. He told the Yale Daily News that it’s important to preserve the unique quality of the admissions process, and deleting these records will help do just that. If every student has access to their admissions records, then it wouldn’t be long before information about the admissions process were to spread. According to Amar, the faculty who have participated in the admissions process were doing so assuming confidentiality and protection.

Additionally, Amar argues that FERPA does not actually allow students to examine their admissions records. According to Amar, the purpose of FERPA is to ensure that future employers or other schools receive the correct student record.  Students are allowed to see their academic records to ensure that all of the information contained in them is correct. However, no one else will ever need to see the students’ admissions records. Amar stated:

As I understand the basic purpose of the law, it is to allow students to have access to files that perhaps might be visible to various outsiders — employers and judges and the like — to correct their records. When it comes to admissions decisions, that is not part of their academic record; that is not shared with anyone. FERPA is about giving the student privacy and a certain control of the information so that the student can correct any mistakes, and none of that applies to admissions information.

Students, however, had mixed reviews of the decision. Some students, like a 3L named Matt Kemp, understood it. According to Kemp, he understands the desire of the faculty to maintain privacy and protection throughout the admissions process, but also believes that the purpose of FERPA is to allow students to see their admissions records.

Others, like 3L Dennis Owrutsky, considered the decision to be “irresponsible.” He believes that in deleting the records, the school lost valuable insight into the admissions process. He said that “[The law school] now lacks the resources to evaluate itself objectively.”

While there were a range of responses to the decision, most students do agree that Yale Law School did not have a legal obligation to preserve the data. It will be interesting to see the response to increased awareness about FERPA. Will more students across the country start asking to see their admissions records? And if so, will other schools follow in Yale’s footsteps and take action in order  to preserve the integrity of their admission processes?

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yale Law School Deletes Admissions Records After Student Requests appeared first on Law Street.

From bizarre laws to college admissions strippers, Law Street has you covered on everything you might have missed last week. Our number one story of the week came from Marisa Mostek who added the Pacific Northwest states to her series of the Dumbest Laws in the United States. Hint: hope you don’t want to buy a new mattress on a Sunday, because that’s out of the question. Anneliese Mahoney wrote the #2 post on Columbia University’s policy allowing students who have experienced trauma to petition for delayed exams, which became a hot topic in the context of the recent Ferguson and New York grand jury decisions. And Ashley Shaw had the #3 post of the week with a report on now-defunct FastTrain College’s admissions practices that will have you scratching your head and wondering how this happened in real life. ICYMI: check out Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition

I was wrong a couple weeks ago when I said that California laws are crazy. Many of the Golden State’s laws that I mentioned now seem completely sane in comparison to those I’ve discovered in Washington and Oregon. For example, if you are trying to woo the opposite sex by saying your dad just won the lottery and drives a brand-new Lamborghini when in fact he doesn’t have a dime to his name, you better think again. In Washington state it is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich. Read full article here.

#2 Columbia Law takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health

In light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment. Read full article here.

#3 BS in Dancing: When Stripper Work Admissions, It Might be a Scam

With a name like FastTrain College, you probably expect a top-notch education system along the lines of Harvard or Yale; however, what you apparently get is a different type of top entirely. When FastTrain wants you (so basically if you are a man), it will send out its top admissions officer. And by top officer, I of course mean an exotic dancer dressed provocatively in an effort to lure you into the school. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for an affirmative action ban on April 22 that was enacted by a Michigan constitutional amendment. Sonia Sotomayor, one of the two Justices who voted against the amendment, delivered a scathing dissent – 58 pages long – criticizing her colleagues’ affirmative ruling.

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” – Justice Sotomayor

Seven other states have similar constitutional amendments that ban the use of affirmative action in the higher education enrollment process. This ruling is particularly pertinent as there is evidence that minorities as a percentage of the study body is dropping at n colleges that have executed these affirmative action bans.

Sotomayor’s dissent was not met kindly, however, as Chief Justice Roberts rebuked her on the bench.

“To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality … People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.” – Chief Justice Roberts

The main reason as to why the Court ruled in affirmation of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was based on a disagreement over whether the courts had the correct jurisdiction to decide matters regarding these cases, and not by voters themselves choosing directly.

Considering the earlier ruling striking down Sections Two and Three of the Voting Rights Act, people may start to wonder how this Court is taking up issues that are racially controversial. Critics of the ruling say that the Bench is attempting to skirt history by ignoring continuing trends of racism, while supporters of the rulings say that time has simply passed by when racism was at its peak in America. Watching the Supreme Court is important at this point in time, as the country changes demographically in the coming years.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Tony Esopi via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action Ban appeared first on Law Street.