Kyle Kashuv, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting who became a national figure as a gun rights advocate, has had his admission offer from Harvard University rescinded after comments he made privately when he was 16 surfaced online.
My colleague Tom Rogan has criticized Harvard for the move, but I think there’s a broader issue here, which is how we as a society think we can fight bigotry if we set a standard that says that people cannot change once they have reached the age of 16.
To be clear, as a private institution, Harvard had every right to rescind the admission offer. And I’m sure they could find a candidate off the wait list just as qualified who never used racially offensive words. But the decision to hold Kashuv to language he used at 16, before going through an incredibly traumatic event, and to refuse to forgive him in the face of multiple public apologies is problematic and lays waste to efforts to create a more tolerant world.
That is, efforts to teach tolerance or racial sensitivity are all rooted in the idea that people’s attitudes can evolve based on more education. Learning about the history and experiences of groups that have suffered oppression, understanding why certain words and statements are offensive, and so on, is a big part of this mission.
In Kashuv’s case, he used racially offensive language in a Google doc shared privately among friends. When screenshots became public, he apologized. He not only wrote a letter apologizing and explaining that he has grown to the Harvard admission office, but also emailed Harvard’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion. He said he had planned on taking a gap year, but he wanted to meet with the office upon matriculating at Harvard in 2020.
“I am deeply sorry for my past comments, I know I am not the same person,” he wrote. “But I know there is always more I can do to understand and learn about the struggle and pain of minority communities in America and worldwide. During my gap year, I will supplement my activism to reaching out to minority communities. I am open to any advice or suggestions on activities I might pursue during my gap year in pursuit of that goal.”
The cynical view is that this contriteness was just a desperate ploy to secure his admission. But it seems to me that an education institution, of all places, should be giving the benefit of the doubt to somebody deemed otherwise qualified, and assume that he’s being earnest.
If we take the view that he cannot change, then what hope is there that a truly hateful adult could learn about tolerance?
