3 ms·

I read it as President Reif trying to make this process completely transparent, even when it doesn't reflect well on him. This is something we need more of in o

by 323454 7y ago

I read it as President Reif trying to make this process completely transparent, even when it doesn't reflect well on him. This is something we need more of in our leaders, though I agree that it reads weirdly (partly because it's so unusual). I've actually met him personally a number of times and this letter concurs with my assessment of him as being earnest and sincere to a fault. You can generally take what he says at face value without needing to deconvolve layers of Machiavellian intrigue. He's a caring and decent person and though he clearly made a huge mistake here, I don't think he would have accepted the money if he'd known more about Epstein. This is my opinion.

lonelappde 7y ago
Transparency would mean not making repeated sidelong denials of each facts that the investigation raised, trying to spin them down. No one cares whether he "remembers" doing what he did, since it's absolutely trivial to lie about. Better to remain quiet than to telegraph dishonesty.
- prepend 7y ago
  It’s funny that the president thinks incompetence is better to display than sex offender affinity (or whatever the flaw is). Signing letters without understanding them is incompetent. Being mentally absent from staff meetings, or presiding over meetings with inaccurate minutes, is incompetent. I wonder if this means he thinks his risk of firing is less from being incompetent in minor matters than from supporting sex offenders.
woofie11 7y ago
When you meet him, he literally radiates integrity. It's a false integrity. Many senior executives do that.
prepend 7y ago
> This is something we need more of in our leaders, though I agree that it reads weirdly (partly because it's so unusual). I think we need more transparency if it comes with accountability. There was much transparency in the Aaron Swartz debacle and that just frustrated me because there were no changes made by MIT and the same leadership is in place and, I think, would make the same decisions today as then. As a big fan of transparency and it’s usefulness for collaboration, it annoys me when it’s used as some strange salve for fuckups. The annoyance is that it works.

by 323454 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago

Transparency would mean not making repeated sidelong denials of each facts that the investigation raised, trying to spin them down. No one cares whether he "remembers" doing what he did, since it's absolutely trivial to lie about. Better to remain quiet than to telegraph dishonesty.

prepend 7y ago
It’s funny that the president thinks incompetence is better to display than sex offender affinity (or whatever the flaw is). Signing letters without understanding them is incompetent. Being mentally absent from staff meetings, or presiding over meetings with inaccurate minutes, is incompetent. I wonder if this means he thinks his risk of firing is less from being incompetent in minor matters than from supporting sex offenders.

woofie11 7y ago

When you meet him, he literally radiates integrity. It's a false integrity. Many senior executives do that.

prepend 7y ago

> This is something we need more of in our leaders, though I agree that it reads weirdly (partly because it's so unusual). I think we need more transparency if it comes with accountability. There was much transparency in the Aaron Swartz debacle and that just frustrated me because there were no changes made by MIT and the same leadership is in place and, I think, would make the same decisions today as then. As a big fan of transparency and it’s usefulness for collaboration, it annoys me when it’s used as some strange salve for fuckups. The annoyance is that it works.