The fact that Harvard admitted this academically brilliant and policitical conservative kid was a testament to Harvard's notion of "diversity". Unfortuately the tolerance for different political viewpoints does not cover racial and sextual discrimination of any kind. You reap what you sow. This Jewish student only has himself to blame.
Remember: Hilter was a jew himself.
The silver lining is that he received a valuable lesson not taught in the classroom for free. Hopefully he could REALLY learn from his own mistakes and pull himself up by his bootstraps! Good luck!
做人还是低调点好，自己偷着乐就得了。For example, I am very happy about my kid's growth in college. However, I would not be so stupid as to stream his daily life online...
There was no NDA signed by both parties. Hence, the document was
There was no NDA signed by both parties. Hence, the document was free for all to see.
On the other hand, a legally signed NDA would have made the whole situation complicated. For example, the famous one signed by Trump under a different name.
Here, I would make a counter argument agains those who condemned the whistle-blower in the case. If Kyle Kashuv can cite his youth as an excuse for his racial slurs, certainly the whistle-blower can use his/her youth as an excuse to expose Kyle Kashuv. It's a two-way street!
Finally because both parties are underaged, no one can enforce contract law agains them. They can do whatever they want! In this case, a smart guy said something stupid; a stupid guy did something smart! Karma!
The difference is that he wrote a taboo word eleven times (with
The difference is that he wrote a taboo word eleven times (with a typo)! The joke is: that "tiny" typo (an extra letter N) caused his admission ticket to Harvard because it proves that Kyle could not even spell a taboo word correctly.
The other guy wrote a political slogan 100 times, and that political slogan is free speech, 100% protected under the law. The same cannot be said about the N-word. Bigly difference!
你不能以言论自由一定要求要进我的家门。抗议人流诊所的示威是另一个例子，在公共街道上是言论自由，到人家的私人产业上就是 trespass 了。
哈佛不是政府机构也不是公共产业，而是私人产业。
Parkland 那孩子没有被给予 second chance 令人同情。但这件事跟言论自由没有半点关系。哈佛归根到底是私人机构，他们有权不让讲了他们不喜欢的言论的人进入他们校园，就像我有权不让讲我不喜欢的话的人进入我家门一样。这和言论自由没有半点关系。
怎么融洽同子女的关系?
·不要监控孩子的电话，尊重其隐私权。
·对孩子的朋友要和蔼可亲，但不要同他们过于亲近。不要侵入他（她）的天地。
·不要在他人面前夸奖孩子，这样会使其尴尬。
·不要在他人面前批评或斥责孩子。如果必须要这样做的话，应该在无人的时候。
·母亲在他人面前要注意服饰。母亲的形象不整洁，孩子会感到羞耻。
·如果你的孩子参加学校的演出，他（她）在舞台上时你不要打手势，这样会令他（她）紧张，甚至出错。
·孩子和你一起坐自己家的车出门时，不要把汽车收音机调到你所喜爱的频道。让孩子挑选电台，但可要求他调低音量。
·在子女需要帮助时要给予帮助，但要注意方法。
·子女在一定的阶段就像需要食品一样需要爱抚，但是爱抚要适可而止，不要在公开场合这样做，更不要在朋友面前这样做。
·不要让你的孩子在外人面前表现他的“本事”，如朗诵、唱歌、跳舞或弹钢琴。如果你为他的本领自豪并希望让人家看到，那就对他提出请求。如果父母坚持让他们在外人面前表现本领，有的孩子会感觉自己像马戏团的猴子。
·不要向他的朋友和亲属讲他的怪癖，尤其不要当他的面前。任何孩子都不愿意别人知道自己的隐私。
·不要让他失去对你的信赖。他向你透露的秘密，你不要告诉别人。你一定要完全尊重他的意愿。
·在他面前不要说谎。他看到自己的父母说谎或弄虚作假，就会感觉不好。例如，父母在某人背后说坏话，而当面又装出热情的样子，孩子就会反感。
下页：父母教育是家庭教育成败的关键
The fact that Harvard admitted this academically brilliant and policitical conservative kid was a testament to Harvard's notion of "diversity". Unfortuately the tolerance for different political viewpoints does not cover racial and sextual discrimination of any kind. You reap what you sow. This Jewish student only has himself to blame.
Remember: Hilter was a jew himself.
The silver lining is that he received a valuable lesson not taught in the classroom for free. Hopefully he could REALLY learn from his own mistakes and pull himself up by his bootstraps! Good luck!
而且姓名照片被挂在全网上，以后的人际关系社会生活都会有很大的障碍。
成也萧何，败也萧何。他是靠赚眼球出名的，也因为太出名而被揭老底。karma。有句话说得好：出来混，终归还是要还的。比如他在社交网络公布自己被哈佛录取、被哈佛撤回录取，都属于＂高调＂行为，惟恐别人不知道。但同时也该想到，自己的那些丑事：若要人不知，除非己莫为。
做人还是低调点好，自己偷着乐就得了。For example, I am very happy about my kid's growth in college. However, I would not be so stupid as to stream his daily life online...
真有karma的话，我坐等某件事儿发生
（跟100遍那位完全没关系）
There was no NDA signed by both parties. Hence, the document was free for all to see.
On the other hand, a legally signed NDA would have made the whole situation complicated. For example, the famous one signed by Trump under a different name.
Here, I would make a counter argument agains those who condemned the whistle-blower in the case. If Kyle Kashuv can cite his youth as an excuse for his racial slurs, certainly the whistle-blower can use his/her youth as an excuse to expose Kyle Kashuv. It's a two-way street!
Finally because both parties are underaged, no one can enforce contract law agains them. They can do whatever they want! In this case, a smart guy said something stupid; a stupid guy did something smart! Karma!
The difference is that he wrote a taboo word eleven times (with a typo)! The joke is: that "tiny" typo (an extra letter N) caused his admission ticket to Harvard because it proves that Kyle could not even spell a taboo word correctly.
The other guy wrote a political slogan 100 times, and that political slogan is free speech, 100% protected under the law. The same cannot be said about the N-word. Bigly difference!
全是因为政治而不是其他，跟麦卡锡主义真也没啥区别了：）
不追着你打了。最后一贴。你还是把你的背景说清楚.不然你的话没有信服力.第一章：跨洋猎夫大van震。开讲！呵呵
I do no understand why people bring out the opponent's personal history during a debate.
public accommodation 的义务。但 public accommodation 的先决条件是付钱买服务。如果哈佛是学店谁交钱就可以进来那就适用这种 public accommodation argument。但哈佛并不是这样。