OT: This Would Be Funny Were It Not Predictably Pathetic

[RockyMTblue2]

Harvard men’s soccer season canceled over continued rating of women - The Boston Globe

“I was deeply distressed to learn that the appalling actions of the 2012 men’s soccer team were not isolated to one year or the actions of a few individuals, but appear to have been more wide-spread across the team and have continued beyond 2012, including in the current season,” said Harvard President Drew Faust in a statement issued Thursday night."

So, nobody kept an eye on the silly boys after 2012 until Mid-fall 2016!!! Nobody said they were smart, just Well Endowed!

 

[BroadwayVa]

Harvard men’s soccer season canceled over continued rating of women - The Boston Globe

“I was deeply distressed to learn that the appalling actions of the 2012 men’s soccer team were not isolated to one year or the actions of a few individuals, but appear to have been more wide-spread across the team and have continued beyond 2012, including in the current season,” said Harvard President Drew Faust in a statement issued Thursday night."

So, nobody kept an eye on the silly boys after 2012 until Mid-fall 2016!!! Nobody said they were smart, just Well Endowed!

You tickle me! But not all who attended/graduated from Hav--ard were endowed/ You'd think with all those lawyers--someone would sue someone for something--then bill the government.

 

[drweo]

Harvard men’s soccer season canceled over continued rating of women - The Boston Globe

“I was deeply distressed to learn that the appalling actions of the 2012 men’s soccer team were not isolated to one year or the actions of a few individuals, but appear to have been more wide-spread across the team and have continued beyond 2012, including in the current season,” said Harvard President Drew Faust in a statement issued Thursday night."

So, nobody kept an eye on the silly boys after 2012 until Mid-fall 2016!!! Nobody said they were smart, just Well Endowed!

So finally a serious response from a university administration to seriously bad behavior!

 

[HoopsFan21]

Good for Harvard for putting a stop to this "boys will be boys" locker room garbage.

 

[jimazee]

...politicians in training?

 

[McFly]

Apparently the politically correct response to some 18-20 year old man-child with an excess of testosterone saying something inappropriate is the nuclear option.

 

[bags27]

This is interesting:
A female sophomore, who asked not to be named, said Harvard is scapegoating the soccer team. Harvard announced a new policy this year to discourage participation in so-called finals clubs and other single-sex organizations on campus.

“What the soccer team did was not isolated,” she said. “The college used them as an example. It’s not fair.”

Of course, Harvard is the original home of Facebook, which was started there precisely in order to "rate" undergraduate women. And because of that, I am completely confident that Harvard has refused and will continue to refuse to take any donations from the founders of Facebook.

 

[UcMiami]

While I agree that this is pretty crude and disgusting, I do get worried that we overlook some basic facts of life - true in the animal kingdom and throughout human existence. We all make thousands of judgements every day about everyone else we interact with and the majority of those judgements have to do with reactions to visual stimuli while many of the others are superficial evaluations as well. And if we are with friends, or discuss our day with friends or partners at night we likely pass on some of those superficial judgements. It is how we are wired.
We react differently to people based on perceived attractiveness, dress, grooming, status, wealth or the symbols thereof, how others react to them, etc. We like facial hair or find it disgusting, find a well fit suit attractive or prefer jeans and a T-shirt, etc.
There is something in all animals that pushes them to consider procreation an imperative, and to evaluate other animals of the same species in those fundamental terms. We can become as civilized as we want, but I doubt that will ever leave us.

To bring it back to sports teams, are we to believe that the women's soccer team locker room chatter (or our Uconn WCBB locker room) does not include discussions about potential partners based on purely superficial attributes? That they are more tasteful than to create a log of potential partners and distribute it is I hope true, but ...

And how many people have not discussed some star athlete or actor/actress in a group setting be it Angelina or Brad, Tiger or Lindsey. The issue to me is not that these kinds of things occur, but where they cross the line from normal to abnormal and reprehensible. And that seems to be when thoughts are put into action, or are publicly expressed to a wider audience. That a teenage guy/girl discusses with a friend a fellow student in terms of potential mating is normal to me. That is very different from the 'locker room' talk in the news which is about non-consensual interactions both committed and to be committed, something that based on the reporting in this story was not actually contained in the Harvard document.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Apparently the politically correct response to some 18-20 year old man-child with an excess of testosterone saying something inappropriate is the nuclear option.

There's nothing "politically correct" (please learn the actual meaning of the phrase) about calling out rampant sexism. Unless you're excusing these "man-children" because they "don't know better" 'cause they're "so young."

 

[Vowelguy]

Apparently the politically correct response to some 18-20 year old man-child with an excess of testosterone saying something inappropriate is the nuclear option.

They didn't *say* something inappropriate. They put together an entire booklet.

 

[PhillyCoach]

There's nothing "politically correct" (please learn the actual meaning of the phrase) about calling out rampant sexism. Unless you're excusing these "man-children" because they "don't know better" 'cause they're "so young."

Did the leadership just "call out" the rampant sexism or was there an over-reaction? Was there due process? Did 5 players run the show or 10 or just one? So everyone was punished for a few? I don't know the answers. Do you? Since there was no trial how do we know if they are guilty and to what extent? Are we in America where one is innocent until proven guilty? Is there a first amendment?
Since there was no due process and everyone was considered guilty without facing their accusers----I would call it "Political Correctness."

 

[RockyMTblue2]

They didn't *say* something inappropriate. They put together an entire booklet.

Think "bullying"; helps clarify things. Boys will be boys has been the norm at Harvard since the beginning of time. My point was it was called out in 2012 and then no one looked again until 2016 and found out it had not stopped or abated at all. Is that plausible. Not. It's the worst kind of hypocritical BS. Administration had only to check in the fall of 2013 and find out it was still going on. They didn't or knew and just think what had inspired their "discovery" in 2012 had gone away, so they could go back to their tacit acceptance of this "great Harvard tradition" . The real question is what tipped off El Presidente that the whistle was about to be blown again.

 

[McFly]

For the poor unenlightened souls like me who have yet to learn the actual meaning of the phrase:

Wikipedia:
The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC),[1] in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended primarily not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. In the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.

Harvard's response was not political correctness, but rather an attempt to punish the lack thereof. My abject apologies.

They didn't *say* something inappropriate. They put together an entire booklet.

An entire booklet? It must be encyclopedic in scope after 4 years. Forgive me for not feigning shock at the realization that not all college kids are choir boys.

 

[Vowelguy]

My point was it was called out in 2012 and then no one looked again until 2016 and found out it had not stopped or abated at all. Is that plausible. Not. It's the worst kind of hypocritical BS. Administration had only to check in the fall of 2013 and find out it was still going on. They didn't or knew and just think what had inspired their "discovery" in 2012 had gone away, so they could go back to their tacit acceptance of this "great Harvard tradition" . The real question is what tipped off El Presidente that the whistle was about to be blown again.

No that's not what happened at all, but why bother to take the time to learn the facts before jumping to conclusions?

The 2012 issue was discovered last week or so and made public. After some further investigation, the administration learned the practice was still ongoing with the 2016 team.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

No that's not what happened at all, but why bother to take the time to learn the facts before jumping to conclusions?

The 2012 issue was discovered last week or so and made public. After some further investigation, the administration learned the practice was still ongoing with the 2016 team.

Issue. You mean "the book". Do you really think it was not common knowledge? Are you that naïve? But thank you for trying to set me straight about this tradition "just uncovered." I can always count on you .

 

[UcMiami]

No that's not what happened at all, but why bother to take the time to learn the facts before jumping to conclusions?

The 2012 issue was discovered last week or so and made public. After some further investigation, the administration learned the practice was still ongoing with the 2016 team.

Not just that is was still going on, but in initial talks with players a number denied any knowledge of anything - which once it was established it was both still active any everyone was involved or at least in the know for Harvard is an offense against their 'honor code' which is taken very seriously.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

If you understand the structure of the undergrad college at Harvard, you understand that nothing like this happens without it traveling upstream in a heart beat. Harvard liked having "sister schools", not taking women in. If you went there, as I did, then you would know the absurdity of the current "I'm shocked" scenario.

 

[UcMiami]

If you understand the structure of the undergrad college at Harvard, you understand that nothing like this happens without it traveling upstream in a heart beat. Harvard liked having "sister schools", not taking women in. If you went there, as I did, then you would know the absurdity of the current "I'm shocked" scenario.

One of my sisters went to Radcliffe during the 'transition' period while another was in the first full class at Princeton - both experienced some issues but I think Princeton actually transitioned a little better than Harvard. There is a reason why the all women's schools still exist - while it may not be ideal it does deal with a reality that has been hard to root out in coeducational schools.

 

[BroadwayVa]

While I agree that this is pretty crude and disgusting, I do get worried that we overlook some basic facts of life - true in the animal kingdom and throughout human existence. We all make thousands of judgements every day about everyone else we interact with and the majority of those judgements have to do with reactions to visual stimuli while many of the others are superficial evaluations as well. And if we are with friends, or discuss our day with friends or partners at night we likely pass on some of those superficial judgements. It is how we are wired.
We react differently to people based on perceived attractiveness, dress, grooming, status, wealth or the symbols thereof, how others react to them, etc. We like facial hair or find it disgusting, find a well fit suit attractive or prefer jeans and a T-shirt, etc.
There is something in all animals that pushes them to consider procreation an imperative, and to evaluate other animals of the same species in those fundamental terms. We can become as civilized as we want, but I doubt that will ever leave us.

To bring it back to sports teams, are we to believe that the women's soccer team locker room chatter (or our Uconn WCBB locker room) does not include discussions about potential partners based on purely superficial attributes? That they are more tasteful than to create a log of potential partners and distribute it is I hope true, but ...

And how many people have not discussed some star athlete or actor/actress in a group setting be it Angelina or Brad, Tiger or Lindsey. The issue to me is not that these kinds of things occur, but where they cross the line from normal to abnormal and reprehensible. And that seems to be when thoughts are put into action, or are publicly expressed to a wider audience. That a teenage guy/girl discusses with a friend a fellow student in terms of potential mating is normal to me. That is very different from the 'locker room' talk in the news which is about non-consensual interactions both committed and to be committed, something that based on the reporting in this story was not actually contained in the Harvard document.

Finally a HUMANistic response. I say this 10 times a day: People are Humans-Humans make mistakes--Humans are of the Animal Kingdom--with all the base and basic instincts.
To expect people to evolve in someones perceived image after 10000 years of being an animal--is just Political Correctness .
But it so much fun to damn a group for doing what you do with your group. It make you so much better than they.
There is hope for intelligent thoughtful thinking.

 

[BroadwayVa]

One of my sisters went to Radcliffe during the 'transition' period while another was in the first full class at Princeton - both experienced some issues but I think Princeton actually transitioned a little better than Harvard. There is a reason why the all women's schools still exist - while it may not be ideal it does deal with a reality that has been hard to root out in coeducational schools.

My daughter went to Radcliffe/Harvard--her issues were the same as her sisters in more diverse Universities. I stayed a weekend in one of the Harvard C0-ed dorms/Co-ed bathrooms--interesting-- during the Radcliffe/Harvard days