3 ms·
The report seems to be saying "MIT didnt interfere", "MIT didnt get involved", "MIT didnt do anything wrong". Who is this MIT? Why dont we just talk about human
by latj 13y ago
The report seems to be saying "MIT didnt interfere", "MIT didnt get involved", "MIT didnt do anything wrong". Who is this MIT? Why dont we just talk about human beings and address them by the names they are known by.
- pdonis 13y ago"MIT didnt do anything wrong". The report doesn't really say that. It says MIT did nothing illegal and acted prudently, but it doesn't say that MIT couldn't have done better. Item 4 in the introduction (p. 14) specifically says MIT could have done better. Why dont we just talk about human beings and address them by the names they are known by. The report explains why: to protect the privacy of the people involved. It's up to MIT to take whatever action might be warranted involving those people; the public doesn't need to know their names. (The report also points out that the names of key people at MIT who were involved are already matters of public record since they appear in court documents; but that there is no reason to further erode those people's privacy.)