Posted on 06/17/2019 6:42:14 PM PDT by blondiegoodbadugly
Parkland shooting survivor turned gun-rights activist Kyle Kashuv says 'he's exploring all options' after Harvard rescinded his admission over old online comments where he made n-word remarks.
Kashuv, currently 18 and a senior at Stoneman Douglas, posted a thread on Twitter on Monday showing letters from the Ivy League institution and announcing he was figuring out what to do next.
Screenshots showing Kashuv making anti-black racial slurs began circulating online at the end of May this year.
He apologized for the remarks after they surfaced and announced that he was stepping down as director of high school outreach for Turning Point USA, a national conservative student organization.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
My son when he was in High School (a know-it-all white kid) said “It’s okay if you use the word ‘niggah’ that’s pretty much like ‘bro’ - but not nigger.”
I told him he better watch himself if he thought saying that was okay! Or ‘bro’ for that matter to a stranger. (I was reminded of that scene in “Gran Torino” with the wannabe white boy talking to the black guys harassing the Asian gal.)
Perfect meme.
Yeah, the situaton of a half-century ago don’t apply now.
But ethics never change...
Considered yourself lucky. A Harvard degree is not worth what it used to be.
Do you have a link for that interview?
I tried to find it but was unsuccessful.
Earlier postings did not relate that Kashuv was a victim of the Promise policy enacted by the Parkland school district done at the urging of the Obama administration. In fact media coverage used the episode to fire away at the NRA. No pun intended. But what was going on because of that policy which gave certain students who may have been involved in thefts,drugs, and altercations up to 4 incidents many of which could be of a felonious nature before any disciplinary action would be taken. Students who were victims of that policy never got reported.http://www.theusmat.com/index.htm
Thanks for post.
Yes, I’ve read several articles regarding the “promise” policy.
He’s not a racist. He said something stupid.
You nailed it with that meme.
That was my first thought when I read the article.
If he were the legitimate academic high pointer Harvahd accepted, as opposed to their academic low baller Lefties, he FAILED at common sense. A moron would very well know better than to blab up the enemy’s MAIN talking point used against conservatives and then provide them with their best example for their proof, on the internet, no less. How dumb is that?
A critical lack of self awareness is in play here and he will need a long time-out to go grow up. If he’s smart, he won’t be making a bigger scene out of this. Just go, quietly, for a few years. Come back with a brain engaged.
It’s on the Fox News website
This is true!
Yep, as I expected. In retaliation for his views. I’ve been following the Parkland shooting from the beginning.
Thank you
Ivy league degrees don’t have the prestige they once did. These colleges don’t educate, they indoctrinate. Harvard is so not worth it in my opinion.
Social media certainly does help fascists bring out the consequences of one’s free speech. Harvard was wrong. Does Harvard check the social media of all applicants? To review during the application process is okay, they can decline him. In this case Harvard accepted him, then rescinded that acceptance is beyond petty. The SJW’s wanted to deliver a life blow.
Guess we will all see what Kyle is really made of now.
I agree with everything you say.
I wish the young man the best.
Hillsdale college is where he should be...where he will get a good education and not a social justice drama.
I think so too.
Let’s keep him in prayer!
May God reach his young soul ......
The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Under the specific terms of the Constitution, the federal government can not limit free speech. Although it can be argued that almost anything qualifies (or fails to qualify) as "free speech," the first clause is subject to no such argument. "Congress shall make no law" - period. If the nature of the speech is debatable (and I would suggest that it always is), then the clear limitation of federal power remains: "Congress shall make no law." The federal government consequently enjoys no authority to limit speech.
But what about "screaming 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater"? Unfortunately, most people have swallowed that argument, which is commonly deployed to justify federal legislation. Under the Constitution, however, any such authority (including statutory authority to address libel, slander, or shouted words in theaters, etc.) clearly resides with the States and the people of those States (where it rested prior to ratification). Again - "Congress shall make no law." If the States determine at some point that federal authority is necessary or helpful, then the Constitution contains provisions for its own amendment...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.