Harvard University rescinded its offer of admission to Kyle Kashuv, a prominent conservative activist and survivor of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, in June 2019. The decision stemmed from racist and anti-Semitic comments Kashuv made in private online chats approximately two years prior to his admission, when he was 16 years old. This development ignited a national debate regarding accountability for past actions and the potential for personal growth. Kashuv, who had been accepted into Harvard's Class of 2023, publicly announced the rescission on Twitter, detailing the university's decision. He acknowledged making "egregious and callous comments" in leaked screenshots from texts, Skype messages, and a shared Google document. The content reportedly included repeated use of racial slurs and anti-Semitic remarks. Despite Kashuv's apologies for the offensive language, stating he was "embarrassed by it" and that the comments were "not indicative of who I am or who I've become," Harvard proceeded with the withdrawal. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons cited "maturity and moral character" in the university's decision letter. Harvard maintains a policy allowing it to withdraw admission offers if a student's behavior "brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character." The case drew significant attention, particularly from conservative commentators who criticized Harvard for not recognizing Kashuv's apology and apparent growth. Kashuv himself questioned the university's stance, stating, "If Harvard is suggesting that growth isn’t possible and that our past defines our future, then Harvard is an inherently racist institution." The university, however, declined to comment publicly on individual admissions cases, adhering to its established policies. This incident highlighted the ongoing complexities universities face in evaluating applicants' past conduct, especially concerning social media activity and private communications. It underscored the tension between holding individuals accountable for past offensive remarks and acknowledging potential for personal development and redemption. The controversy fueled discussions about free speech on college campuses and the expectations placed on prospective students.