Word: kirtley
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
According to Kirtley, a University employee from the Bureau of Study Council Ad Boarded him for the prank call to Room 13 a few days after the column ran. When the Ad Board met, Kirtley was placed on disciplinary probation. Kirtley's parents received a letter, and his transcript now proclaims that he was on probation during the first semester of his senior year...
...defense, Kirtley wrote an editorial for The Crimson's Oct. 21 opinion page, in which he argued that "everything I had done was legal, was in good fun and hurt no one." Kirtley claimed that the Ad Board punished him for engaging in "inappropriate social behavior," an ambiguous term which he argued could be interpreted to mean anything. I am most concerned, however, with Kirtley's accusing the Ad Board of violating the "freedom of the press...
...result of Kirtley's editorial, the Undergraduate Council is considering a proposal asking the Ad Board to reconsider the decision. Thomas J. Kelleher III '99 and Sozi T. Sozinho '97, two of the proposal's sponsors, also wrote to The Crimson. In his letter to the editors, Kelleher argued that "all members of the press at Harvard should take notice. They too could be punished for what they write." Along the same lines, Sozinho argued that the Ad Board had put in jeopardy the freedom of the press and "First Amendment rights...
Indeed, the hysteria that Kirtley, Kelleher and Sozinho are inciting about the adminstration's violation of the freedom of the press is largely specious. Kirtley was not Ad Boarded for writing a column. On the contrary, he was Ad Boarded for making a prank phone call. In other words, the Ad Board does not only consider prank phone calls made for publication a violation of University rules but all such phone calls. If I had been sitting around making prank phone calls for fun and someone reported me, I too would be punished although I never had any intent...
...real question, as far as Kirtley goes, is did he actually violate a University rule and if not, is the "inappropriate social behavior" clause too vague to legitimate punishment? Furthermore, did Kirtley have a previous record with the Ad Board that caused them to act more harshly than they would have normally? These are legitimate questions that should be discussed. What critics of the decision should be discussing is the legitimacy of the punishment, not the freedom of the press...