4 ms·

I don't think you even read half my comment. If you had, you would have seen that I already pointed out that there are big differences between the two cases, a

I don't think you even read half my comment. If you had, you would have seen that I already pointed out that there are big differences between the two cases, and that I noted two of the more significant differences, both of which you repeat in your list. Furthermore, the last sentence of my comment already recognizes that the difference in response may be attributable to differences between the cases, rather than other factors. So what are you criticizing? Nevertheless, I do think that the idea that these cases are completely unrelated is off the mark. The most significant PR challenge that Reif has faced in his tenure has been the Aaron Swartz case, and his response to that case has been roundly criticized in the national press (albeit most vociferously by people close to Aaron). Regardless of what you think of MIT's response in Aaron Swartz's case, you must recognize Reif would be remiss not to recognize the parallels between the two cases: parallels between the narratives, parallels in how MIT community members (and the hacker community generally) have reacted to the narratives, parallels in how the press will likely report on both cases. From a PR perspective, this story can easily become a continuation of the Aaron Swartz affair, if MIT is not careful. This letter may not be a cynically calculated PR response meant to deflect the kind of criticism MIT suffered after the Aaron Swartz tragedy, but it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students, and stand up for its community principals when they are under assault. Supporters of Aaron Swartz have been looking for precisely that from MIT for quite some time.

cynicalkane 13y ago
it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students You're still talking about Swartz as if he was part of the MIT community in some strongly meaningful sense. He was not.
- sitkack 13y ago
  To say that Aaron was not part of the MIT community is disingenuous at best. Perhaps your username gives you away.
  - hueving 13y ago
    Was Aaron a student at MIT?
  - qq66 13y ago
    MIT has a technical definition of "MIT Community," which I believe includes students, faculty, staff, and affiliates (not alumni, I believe). There is of course the more day-to-day meaning of community, but there are specific policies that apply to members of the MIT Community that don't apply elsewhere.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      Overly minced words turn to mush.
    - brians 13y ago
      Well, that could be true. But it's not. Check MIT's own definition, at the first Google hit for "MIT Community" and the shockingly predictable URL HTTP://web.mit.edu/community : MIT's diverse community — comprising students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and more — work together on more than research and education. Outside of the classroom, student clubs, staff organizations and religious life groups are just some of the ways community comes together at the Institute.
bruce511 13y ago
Is MIT being hypocritical? Clearly not since what they are saying and and what they are doing in this case do not appear to be at odds with each other. It would by hypocritical if they, for example, both supported the students verbally, but at the same time encouraged the prosecution in some way. I think you meant to suggest they were being inconsistent here. Or perhaps suggesting they were applying a double standard. If the former then (given the poor way they handled the Swartz affair) that is to be welcomed. If the latter then I suspect there are enough differences to suggest that a different approach is indeed warranted. You go on to suggest that the different reaction to this case on the part of MIT is perhaps a cynical PR exercise while at the same time berating them for the poor handling of the Swartz event. Is it not perhaps an alternative that they have taken the public reaction to heart and have changed in their outlook? Indeed, now that they take a more positive reaction you criticize them for changing. While their treatment of Swartz was appalling, that's no reason to insist they behave like that in all cases - and less reason for complaining when they improve.
- legutierr 13y ago
  Perhaps you are right that "hypocritical" was not the best choice of words. If it was not clear, I did intend to reject the idea that this was nothing more than a cynical PR move (although it is clearly good PR). I agree with you that it appears that they have taken the public reaction to heart and have changed in their outlook, as you put it. Nonetheless, I think all of these questions bear exploring (including the question as to whether this letter is in some manner cynical PR). An institution like MIT should be questioned skeptically, even (or perhaps especially) when it is attempting to reform itself and its practices.

cynicalkane 13y ago

it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students You're still talking about Swartz as if he was part of the MIT community in some strongly meaningful sense. He was not.

sitkack 13y ago
To say that Aaron was not part of the MIT community is disingenuous at best. Perhaps your username gives you away.
- hueving 13y ago
  Was Aaron a student at MIT?
- qq66 13y ago
  MIT has a technical definition of "MIT Community," which I believe includes students, faculty, staff, and affiliates (not alumni, I believe). There is of course the more day-to-day meaning of community, but there are specific policies that apply to members of the MIT Community that don't apply elsewhere.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    Overly minced words turn to mush.
  - brians 13y ago
    Well, that could be true. But it's not. Check MIT's own definition, at the first Google hit for "MIT Community" and the shockingly predictable URL HTTP://web.mit.edu/community : MIT's diverse community — comprising students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and more — work together on more than research and education. Outside of the classroom, student clubs, staff organizations and religious life groups are just some of the ways community comes together at the Institute.

bruce511 13y ago

Is MIT being hypocritical? Clearly not since what they are saying and and what they are doing in this case do not appear to be at odds with each other. It would by hypocritical if they, for example, both supported the students verbally, but at the same time encouraged the prosecution in some way. I think you meant to suggest they were being inconsistent here. Or perhaps suggesting they were applying a double standard. If the former then (given the poor way they handled the Swartz affair) that is to be welcomed. If the latter then I suspect there are enough differences to suggest that a different approach is indeed warranted. You go on to suggest that the different reaction to this case on the part of MIT is perhaps a cynical PR exercise while at the same time berating them for the poor handling of the Swartz event. Is it not perhaps an alternative that they have taken the public reaction to heart and have changed in their outlook? Indeed, now that they take a more positive reaction you criticize them for changing. While their treatment of Swartz was appalling, that's no reason to insist they behave like that in all cases - and less reason for complaining when they improve.

legutierr 13y ago
Perhaps you are right that "hypocritical" was not the best choice of words. If it was not clear, I did intend to reject the idea that this was nothing more than a cynical PR move (although it is clearly good PR). I agree with you that it appears that they have taken the public reaction to heart and have changed in their outlook, as you put it. Nonetheless, I think all of these questions bear exploring (including the question as to whether this letter is in some manner cynical PR). An institution like MIT should be questioned skeptically, even (or perhaps especially) when it is attempting to reform itself and its practices.