I would love to understand some of the rationale behind MIT not reversing it's stance. Is there any public/anon writing from someone inside MIT at the time? Wa

I would love to understand some of the rationale behind MIT not reversing it's stance. Is there any public/anon writing from someone inside MIT at the time? Was there some pressure being employed by scientific publishers to make an example out of Swartz? It just seems so strange, but then again as we've seen institutions can be easily hijacked and corrupted when populated with the wrong actors.