8 ms·

The Views That Made Me Persona Non Grata at MIT

59 points by bryan0 5y ago

manwe150 5y ago
He isn't even that unwelcome. Here was MIT’s response for context: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa...
- rp1 5y ago
  Not picking sides here, but surely you must admit actions speak louder than words. Imagine you were invited by an institution to give a talk who then canceled your talk due to unrelated views you held. How likely would you be to accept another offer to speak at the institution?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - manwe150 5y ago
    I agree, I don’t want to pick sides either. It sounds like he did agree to the other offer though, which feels like a nuance missing from this oped which could have been mentioned without undermining his rant.
- jollybean 5y ago
  That's helpful context, but if they didn't think he should speak at an event, they shouldn't have invited him. His rhetoric is well within bounds, let him speak.
- civilized 5y ago
  We hear this kind of minimization a lot when we want to talk about bad decisions made in the name of DEI. If he was disinvited, it doesn't matter because he wasn't censured. If he was censured, it doesn't matter because he wasn't fired. If he was fired, it doesn't matter because he'll get another job. If no one will give him another job, it doesn't matter because he deserved it.
  - md8z 5y ago
    The way you've phrased this comment without any context makes it really hard to respond. If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What value are you really gaining from being stubborn about social issues if nobody else agrees with you?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Bostonian 5y ago
      Not that long ago, people who supported same-sex marriage were a small minority. Should they have been banned from giving technical talks and expelled from research groups?
      - md8z 5y ago
        No, of course not. If you consider all other possible opinions on social matters to be morally equivalent to a random person's stance on same-sex marriage then I don't know what to tell you, that seems to be a very difficult way to have a conversation about anything.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Is it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?
      - md8z 5y ago
        Sorry but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, can you please be more specific?
        civilized 5y ago
        > If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What point did you intend to make here? Who are these zero people? Who is the person who should consider if the problem is themselves?
Veliladon 5y ago
[flagged]
- civilized 5y ago
  Abbot made an analogy because of limited similarities relevant to his argument and did not suggest a moral equivalence. The offense-taking is disingenuous and histrionic. As is your insinuation that Abbot has concealed racist opinions -- a baseless slander which is frankly more objectively morally offensive than what Abbot said.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Meanwhile, actual censorship in Florida: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article255409716.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-p...
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  The correct comparison is to Harvard's discrimination against Jews during the early 20th century, using "personal traits" to label them as less competitive applicants than they otherwise were. Oh, would you look at that, Harvard is doing the same today to certain races under the guise of DEI.
- tomp 5y ago
  Nazis didn't start at holocaust.
- busymom0 5y ago
  What exactly is the point of your last statement about conservatives?
  - ratww 5y ago
    The funny thing is that this professor doesn't even seem to be conservative. He might as well be a left-wing guy who doesn't believe in DEI.
    - 5y ago
oblib 5y ago
This looks like something the WSJ published to keep Rupert Murdoch happy.
1cvmask 5y ago
He was uninvited. They fire professors who criticize American militarism and Israel. He got off light. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/14/mill-o14.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/14/mill-o14.html https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211012-david-millers-sacking-is-just-the-start/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211012-david-millers-sac... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/30/if-we-endorse-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-we-put-at-risk-australias-academic-freedom https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/30/if-we-...
- jollybean 5y ago
  Miller has a long history of criticizing Israeli foreign policy and he was gainfully employed during that time. Obviously, he wasn't fired for 'criticizing Israel'. He was fired for accusing Israel of 'ethnic cleansing' and indicated that Jewish students in the UK were 'pawns of Israel'. Of his own investigation, he said: "Israel’s assets in the UK have been emboldened by the university collaborating with them to shut down teaching about Islamophobia." Literally referring to Jewish UK citizens as 'Israeli Assets ' - while gaslighting at the same time, indicating they were after him for stopping his support of Palestinians, as opposed to his problematic rhetoric about Jews. This is antisemetic ... and I have a higher bar for that kind of indictment frankly. I would probably just make him apologize, but when you make inflammatory statements like that which are bigoted against a minority group, it's going to be a problem. If he were to have made serious contemplation about Israel, and chosen his words, and provided evidence that somehow the Jewish community wasn't respectful of the material issues in Israel, then, he'd have a case. He wasn't fired for something academic, or saying something uncomfortable to some i.e. 'I disagree with Israeli policy and think it's deeply problematic' - he was fired for much uglier language. Any University professor would be fired for using that kind of language against Black or Latino students. The 'comparable' issue is that US profs. are being disinvited/fired merely for indicating that they believe grades and awards should be based on merit, not race. Which is is not a racist or insensitive statement, even if some want to claim that it is. As for 'Criticizing American Militarism' - that's just something that you made up. Miller is not 'cancelled', he has a lot of support, he'll have a nice career somewhere else.
  - 5y ago
lukifer 5y ago
https://archive.md/Z5Mil https://archive.md/Z5Mil
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Without clicking, if MIT disinvited you and then the WSJ let you whine about it in their pages, I'd suggest that you're probably doing something bad. Obviously, that's not a hard and fast rule, more a probability but do none of these people ever think "are we the baddies" as they check who is on board with them? You're fighting for truth and justice and yet the climate change denying WSJ has got your back? That's a little awkward at least right?
- tmule 5y ago
  It’s how things should be. I don’t bucket people into good and evil. They’re right about A,B,C and wrong about D,E,F. It’s terrible that people’s views on morality tie so closely to the policy platforms of the two major political parties in the west. As if either of them has it totally right/totally wrong.
bobobob420 5y ago
[flagged]

59 points by bryan0 5y ago

He isn't even that unwelcome. Here was MIT’s response for context: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa...

rp1 5y ago
Not picking sides here, but surely you must admit actions speak louder than words. Imagine you were invited by an institution to give a talk who then canceled your talk due to unrelated views you held. How likely would you be to accept another offer to speak at the institution?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- manwe150 5y ago
  I agree, I don’t want to pick sides either. It sounds like he did agree to the other offer though, which feels like a nuance missing from this oped which could have been mentioned without undermining his rant.
jollybean 5y ago
That's helpful context, but if they didn't think he should speak at an event, they shouldn't have invited him. His rhetoric is well within bounds, let him speak.
civilized 5y ago
We hear this kind of minimization a lot when we want to talk about bad decisions made in the name of DEI. If he was disinvited, it doesn't matter because he wasn't censured. If he was censured, it doesn't matter because he wasn't fired. If he was fired, it doesn't matter because he'll get another job. If no one will give him another job, it doesn't matter because he deserved it.
- md8z 5y ago
  The way you've phrased this comment without any context makes it really hard to respond. If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What value are you really gaining from being stubborn about social issues if nobody else agrees with you?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bostonian 5y ago
    Not that long ago, people who supported same-sex marriage were a small minority. Should they have been banned from giving technical talks and expelled from research groups?
    - md8z 5y ago
      No, of course not. If you consider all other possible opinions on social matters to be morally equivalent to a random person's stance on same-sex marriage then I don't know what to tell you, that seems to be a very difficult way to have a conversation about anything.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Is it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?
    - md8z 5y ago
      Sorry but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, can you please be more specific?
      - civilized 5y ago
        > If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What point did you intend to make here? Who are these zero people? Who is the person who should consider if the problem is themselves?

Veliladon 5y ago

[flagged]

civilized 5y ago
Abbot made an analogy because of limited similarities relevant to his argument and did not suggest a moral equivalence. The offense-taking is disingenuous and histrionic. As is your insinuation that Abbot has concealed racist opinions -- a baseless slander which is frankly more objectively morally offensive than what Abbot said.
klyrs 5y ago
Meanwhile, actual censorship in Florida: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article255409716.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-p...
b9a2cab5 5y ago
The correct comparison is to Harvard's discrimination against Jews during the early 20th century, using "personal traits" to label them as less competitive applicants than they otherwise were. Oh, would you look at that, Harvard is doing the same today to certain races under the guise of DEI.
tomp 5y ago
Nazis didn't start at holocaust.
busymom0 5y ago
What exactly is the point of your last statement about conservatives?
- ratww 5y ago
  The funny thing is that this professor doesn't even seem to be conservative. He might as well be a left-wing guy who doesn't believe in DEI.
  - 5y ago

oblib 5y ago

This looks like something the WSJ published to keep Rupert Murdoch happy.

1cvmask 5y ago

He was uninvited. They fire professors who criticize American militarism and Israel. He got off light. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/14/mill-o14.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/14/mill-o14.html https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211012-david-millers-sacking-is-just-the-start/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211012-david-millers-sac... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/30/if-we-endorse-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-we-put-at-risk-australias-academic-freedom https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/30/if-we-...

jollybean 5y ago
Miller has a long history of criticizing Israeli foreign policy and he was gainfully employed during that time. Obviously, he wasn't fired for 'criticizing Israel'. He was fired for accusing Israel of 'ethnic cleansing' and indicated that Jewish students in the UK were 'pawns of Israel'. Of his own investigation, he said: "Israel’s assets in the UK have been emboldened by the university collaborating with them to shut down teaching about Islamophobia." Literally referring to Jewish UK citizens as 'Israeli Assets ' - while gaslighting at the same time, indicating they were after him for stopping his support of Palestinians, as opposed to his problematic rhetoric about Jews. This is antisemetic ... and I have a higher bar for that kind of indictment frankly. I would probably just make him apologize, but when you make inflammatory statements like that which are bigoted against a minority group, it's going to be a problem. If he were to have made serious contemplation about Israel, and chosen his words, and provided evidence that somehow the Jewish community wasn't respectful of the material issues in Israel, then, he'd have a case. He wasn't fired for something academic, or saying something uncomfortable to some i.e. 'I disagree with Israeli policy and think it's deeply problematic' - he was fired for much uglier language. Any University professor would be fired for using that kind of language against Black or Latino students. The 'comparable' issue is that US profs. are being disinvited/fired merely for indicating that they believe grades and awards should be based on merit, not race. Which is is not a racist or insensitive statement, even if some want to claim that it is. As for 'Criticizing American Militarism' - that's just something that you made up. Miller is not 'cancelled', he has a lot of support, he'll have a nice career somewhere else.
- 5y ago

lukifer 5y ago

https://archive.md/Z5Mil https://archive.md/Z5Mil

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Without clicking, if MIT disinvited you and then the WSJ let you whine about it in their pages, I'd suggest that you're probably doing something bad. Obviously, that's not a hard and fast rule, more a probability but do none of these people ever think "are we the baddies" as they check who is on board with them? You're fighting for truth and justice and yet the climate change denying WSJ has got your back? That's a little awkward at least right?

tmule 5y ago
It’s how things should be. I don’t bucket people into good and evil. They’re right about A,B,C and wrong about D,E,F. It’s terrible that people’s views on morality tie so closely to the policy platforms of the two major political parties in the west. As if either of them has it totally right/totally wrong.

bobobob420 5y ago

[flagged]