They rated the women on a sexual appeal scale of 1 to 10, including explicit descriptions of their physical traits . . .

Yeah, as if that's an unusual thing for boys/men to do. The PC/SJW movement is insane.

Harvard could not care less about anyone's objections in this matter because their reputation is at stake and they are a FOR PROFIT organization dedicated to making money. The very idea that a for profit organization can support freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms in the US where republicans constantly complain that the mass media should be censored and are now complaining that facebook is censoring them. You get the justice you can afford in this country and words only mean whatever they tell you they mean.

I would not argue that women should be subjected to physical abuse, rape, domestic violence, and so forth. They should not. Everyone has a right to be safe in their persons, and not be subjected to assaults with impunity.

Speech is not assault [excepting slander, lying, and incitement--hate speech codes to the contrary]. Calling someone sexually attractive--or not attractive--is allowable, even if framed crudely. We regularly attack each other verbally for being stupid, moronic, imbecilic, jackasses, idiots, crooks, jerks, assholes, pricks, fairies, whores, old hags, and so on and so forth--and surprisingly, everyone survives. Maybe we don't like being called a cocksucking fairy, but it isn't a fatal wound.

The relationships of those with more power and less power is not going to be egalitarian, no matter how much social engineering is undertaken.

Unless they determined the rankings and comments were inaccurate, they should have withheld any sanctions. That is, only if an 8 (for example) were ranked a 6, I fully understand why there would be serious repercussions. However, if the rankings were accurate and those assessed manly were in fact manly, then truth should have served as a defense for those fine footballers.

The 1's did this! >:o

because the boys failed to restrain themselves, thus failing to meet the the virtue of character the school requires of its students. — Πετροκότσυφας

My guess is that the soccer teem is being punished for a failure of good manners and not for a failure of good character. The definition of manners has changed, certainly. Where once the 'scouting report' wouldn't have been worth mentioning, it is now punishable--not because the team displayed a quality of character that might make them unemployable by Fortune 500 companies. (F500 companies might be concerned about character and manners, too, but less strenuously than Harvard--just a guess.)

People with bed-rock sound character are usually not inconsiderate slobs, but they might be. And we know that lots of people who are charlatans have very nice manners.

Right. If a red and blue-blooded Harvard man can't tell the difference between an '8' and a '6' on the female fuckability scale, then something is obviously wrong with him. Probably doesn't like women to start with. Fag alert.

Right. If a red and blue-blooded Harvard man can't tell the difference between an '8' and a '6' on the female fuckability scale, then something is obviously wrong with him. Probably doesn't like women to start with. Fag alert. — Bitter Crank

The point is that rating someone on a fuckability scale is demeaning and only serves to further the sexualized states of mind many moderns have, which is detrimental to a more moral society. I'd like not to be judged by my looks, but by my character. I don't need to be a woman to think in such a way, either.

if people are free to speak their mind, harvard's likewise free to establish and enforce rules of conduct - it's not illegal to make a fuckability index of your coworkers and share it, but you'd be an idiot, when scandal broke, to try to save yourself by explaining the first amendment to HR.

Anyway, this isn't about Harvard or its students, its about grinding a boring old axe.

I would not argue that women should be subjected to physical abuse, rape, domestic violence, and so forth. They should not. Everyone has a right to be safe in their persons, and not be subjected to assaults with impunity.

Speech is not assault [excepting slander, lying, and incitement--hate speech codes to the contrary]. Calling someone sexually attractive--or not attractive--is allowable, even if framed crudely. We regularly attack each other verbally for being stupid, moronic, imbecilic, jackasses, idiots, crooks, jerks, assholes, pricks, fairies, whores, old hags, and so on and so forth--and surprisingly, everyone survives. Maybe we don't like being called a cocksucking fairy, but it isn't a fatal wound.

The relationships of those with more power and less power is not going to be egalitarian, no matter how much social engineering is undertaken. — Bitter Crank

I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I'm not in favor of ANY speech restrictions. I'm a "free speech absolutist."

Also, re physical abuse, etc., I think (more generally--I'm not just talking about male-female issues, but all physical abuse, assault etc. issues) both that (a) punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and (b) just as with speech, we've gotten carried away with thinking that the slighest nonconsensual actions should lead to arrest, etc. I think that if we're not talking about something that's going to leave observable physical effects on the victim at least 2-3 days later, it shouldn't be prosecutable. We shouldn't be arresting someone just because they poked someone on the arm or something like that.

I'm kind of not pro prosecution/punishment/incarceration/enforced control etc. in general--though I do agree that people who commit violent crimes, especially where there's reason to believe that they might recur, need to be separated from the rest of the population somehow, and I'm not against even one-off criminals having to make restitution to victims/victims' families somehow.

I'm willing to wager that college students will continue to evaluate women's sexuality regardless of the rules forbidding it. I suppose to some it's evidence of progress if these evaluations remain stored in the recesses of the mind instead of on paper.

One day I hope to look at my desk at work and to my life generally and find that the most significant question facing me is whether some college kids are numerically rating women's asses.

They might have ridiculed the men at meets. They might have organized a PR offensive. — Bitter Crank

I see no reason to make this about what women can or can't handle.

I know I wouldn't like a group of women describing me in that way. And I am aware it does happen- it's not as if women are faultless in that respect. I'd be more willing to accept a general rule like: both sexes have a responsibility to treat sex with respect. The behavior just shows a profound disrespect for people.

One day I hope to look at my desk at work and to my life generally and find that the most significant question facing me is whether some college kids are numerically rating women's asses. — Hanover

Nice!

Very quotable (so I did).

I know I wouldn't like a group of women describing me in that way. — anonymous66

Why wouldn't you like that?

On a scale of careability, I rate this a zero.

Why wouldn't you like that? — Terrapin Station

I just wouldn't.

Well, I'm back at Uni after all these years, there are more women students than men which is refreshing, and these bloke-ish remarks seem a bit last century to me. Blokes rate women; their criteria belittle the women; it looks like the blokes are going to go on doing it; their symbolic punishment is richly deserved.

Of course Facebook was founded only a decade ago on blokes rating women, so I still don't fel feminism is on a rising tide quite yet.

I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I'm not in favor of ANY speech restrictions. I'm a "free speech absolutist." — Terrapin Station

I think you need to explain this a little more. Are you just saying that there shouldn't be any laws against saying something? Are you saying that I should be able to insult my boss without fear of being fired?

It's not just about law in my view, but of course law is part of it.

I wouldn't have any laws against speech period.

And I'm not in favor of social sanctions on speech, either, such as being fired just because you insulted your boss.

On a scale of careability, I rate this a zero. — Baden

Anyway, this isn't about Harvard or its students, its about grinding a boring old axe. — csalisbury

Granted, men behaving badly has become an axe nearly ground down to the handle during the election campaign. But sex isn't the primary issue here. The issue is the control of speech -- which Terrapin Station identified.

True enough: the limits of free speech have been hashed over for a long time. But the issue is regularly refreshed by authorities who wish to suppress various kinds speech for a variety of reasons. Unregulated speech is generally very inconvenient for the establishment (however and in whoever the establishment is constituted). The powerless of yesterday gain some power today and immediately set about fencing in "inappropriate" expression.

For example, gay people were an oppressed minority into the 1970s. In the 1980s there were gay organizations serving gay people and run by gay people. It didn't take long at all for the leadership of the gay establishment to dictate limitations on expression. In a memorable instance, a gay executive (classic: always suited, well educated WASP) leveled the charge of undermining progress and causing trouble against "radical fairies", cross dressers, and various politically deviant homosexuals.

Why does this reversal happen? Because people with even a measly bit of power jealously protect their mole hill of high ground. If a lot of power is involved then the restrictions have wider application.

So restrictive speech codes arise again and again. Sometimes it is a minority group that is protected, sometimes it is a minority group that is targeted. Either way, even if vulnerable groups are discomfited, restrictions on free and open speech should be resisted.

And I'm not in favor of social sanctions on speech, either, such as being fired just because you insulted your boss. — Terrapin Station

that is a good point. There is virtually no free speech at all in the workplace, and no free speech way short of insulting the boss. As it happens, many bosses are richly deserving of insult, but...

that is a good point. There is virtually no free speech at all in the workplace, and no free speech way short of insulting the boss. As it happens, many bosses are richly deserving of insult, but... — Bitter Crank

Normally, I tend to favour workers rights, but I think when you sell your labour carrying dinners to diners, or whatever, you are selling your freedom of speech as well as your freedom of movement, so I support a bosses' right to dispense with potty-mouths and layabouts equally.

I think that it's hardly a big deal, and seems reminiscent of that straight outta campton thing, where they apparently for auditions were rating the women on darkness of complexion, and attractiveness. As they wanted uglier, darker complected women for the beginning of the movie when their life is shitty, and the hotter lighter complected women for later in the movie when their life is great now!

Seems worse with them, and they were the bosses. I do agree though, that you are pretty much contractually obligated to do certain things, and act certain ways or you'll be fired. I was fired from my parking booth job, because they were bought up by a bigger company, and they introduced terrible ridiculous uniforms, that I refused to wear for a couple of weeks. I wore the sweater, but not the pants or tie. They wouldn't give me an inch though, and finally gave me the ultimatum, so I left.

The basic problem in our times is that what are common sense "good manners" tend to then be overstretched or handled with oversensitivity when it comes to racial, ethnic, gender or sexual matters making them from correct manners to seem as "politically correct" manners.

This basically then gives room to hypocrisy that can then create resentment of a politically correct culture, hostility towards it.

The other thing is of course that especially in the US, sex scandals of any calibre sell. Especially when it's some elite establishment, be it an Ivy League university like Harvard or a military school like West Point. It tells something when for example the topic of this thread was picked up not only by New York Times and other US newspapers, but also British tabloids too.

Any institution, fearing it will be seen itself as being sexist (racist, misogynist etc.) in the media and in the public eye, will have to react basically quite dramatically to the issue.

Has the PC culture gone out of control? I doubt it. Yet sometimes you can notices how it all does have an effect. A good example I think can be seen in a funny clip of Triumph, the insult comic dog going to a campus and interviewing freshm... correction, first year students. The students do not know at all how to respond to the lewd insult comedy,if they should laugh or not.

Has the PC culture gone out of control? I doubt it. — ssu

I'd say the mere fact that there is a PC (and SJW) culture means that it's out of control.

Wanting people to exhibit better manners and even complaining about that are fine. But any draconian approach to that, including legislation, of course, as well as social ostracization, public shaming, etc., would be anything but good manners.

I suggest Harvard had no option but to do something. As Pete Townsend would say, or sing, it's a legal matter, baby. My experience with the law of sexual harassment/discrimination has been in the arena of employment, but I expect that Harvard would have exposed itself to loss or liability of some kind if it had done nothing. Silence is consent in the law (sometimes); or can be said to be consent, and Harvard can't be seen to consent, or at least cannot be said to have consented.

You may blame this on lawyers if it pleases you. I don't care, and neither does the law, my evil master! The law RULES!

I've been following this story the last few days and doing a lot of research into the freedom of speech aspect of this case. So far I've found Fire.org's analysis to be the one I most agree with. Essentially they propose that while Harvard is a private institution and does not NEED to protect freedom of speech, as it is within their rights to restrict the rights of those attending. They offer/imply that while attending Harvard you have the right to freely express yourself. Thus they are contractually obligated to protect freedom of speech.

That being said. If they are contractually obligated to protect the freedom of speech of their students than they cannot punish the team for what was said as a private conversation amongst the team. Because this "report" was never distributed to the womens team it is not harrasing speech. So it is also not unprotected speech.

I am perfectly ok with anyone expressing their sexual desire or thoughts in an manner that is allowed by the constitution. This isnt 1984 and we don't have thought police.

I could see a case being made for laws against screaming "ALLAHU ACKBAR I HAVE A BOMB IM GONNA KILL EVERYONE" in the middle of a crowded plane ride.

What if there's no laws against masking school shooter threats to a school? Wouldn't there be constant false alarms because tonnes of students would make them just to avoid a test?

What about if a policeman says he has a warrant to search your property? Or that if you leave an interrogation room you will be placed under arrest? Or he reads you your Miranda rights but alters it in some way such as "you do NOT have the right to remain silent". But he's just using his free speech.

What if you ask your doctor if the drug he is prescribing has any side effects, and he says no even if it does because he profits off it?

Shouldn't a judge be obligated to tell the truth? What if he just doesn't like you and says you're sentenced to death, even though you'll be released the next day?

Should there be no legal consequences for a mayor issuing a false hurricane warning just to watch the city evacuate?

Should a teacher be allowed to teach creationism as fact in a public school?

When people talk about free speech I think they generally that one should be able to express whatever *opinion or view* they have without facing legal repercussions. And not that you can literally say whatever you want in any situation without restriction.

I mean that's so open to abuse. What if you don't understand the law, ask a policeman and he lies to you so that you break the law and he arrests you?

but I expect that Harvard would have exposed itself to loss or liability of some kind if it had done nothing — Ciceronianus the White

Probably. The Tonight Show had a running joke making fun of football players. Apparently a number of the joked upon didn't take it well and developed a bit of hatred for Jimmy Fallon. And that with no mention of favorite sexual positions

Had the female soccer team been rating the men, what would the appropriate response have been?

I can already anticipate the answer to this - "Only the men should get suspended because patriarchy." But that old argument is slowly running out of juice, so-to-speak. Eventually, people will get tired of hearing it.