[1512] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
["Robert M. Randolph" ] Re: What we may have missed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy H. Brown)
Thu Oct 16 09:55:28 2003
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:33:05 -0400
From: "Jeremy H. Brown" <jhbrown@ai.mit.edu>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
--=-=-=
I am forwarding this message here with Dean Randolph's kind
permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
--=-=-=
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
X-From-Line: randolph@mit.edu Fri Oct 10 06:57:47 2003
Received: from rozz.csail.mit.edu (rozz.csail.mit.edu [128.52.1.11])
by life.ai.mit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/BASENAME(ai.master.life-8.12.9.mc,.mc):RCS_REVISION(Revision: 1.23)) with ESMTP id h9AAvlbg025101
for <jhbrown@ai.mit.edu>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:57:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu ([18.7.21.83])
by rozz.csail.mit.edu with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.22)
id 1A7uxv-0000fk-ME
for jhbrown@ai.mit.edu; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:57:47 -0400
Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82])
by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h9AAvk1U000685
for <jhbrown@ai.mit.edu>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86])
by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h9AAvkke019742;
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [18.246.5.129] (BEXLEY-ONE-TWENTY-NINE.MIT.EDU [18.246.5.129])
(authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as randolph@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h9AAvijX019151;
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:57:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: randolph@hesiod
Message-Id: <p05230101bbac3a83982e@[18.246.5.129]>
In-Reply-To: <uv67k3dwy5e.fsf@tenebrae.ai.mit.edu>
References: <p05010407bba9d045a31a@[18.53.1.126]>
<uv67k3dwy5e.fsf@tenebrae.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:57:38 -0400
To: jhbrown@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
From: "Robert M. Randolph" <randolph@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What we may have missed
X-Content-Length: 3076
Lines: 73
Xref: tenebrae.ai.mit.edu misc:18670
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>My questions for you are simply these:
>
>* Is it really the case that MIT students may be subject to formal
> disciplinary action on the basis of sending email that is perceived
> as offensive by some portion of the MIT community, even though that
> email was intended humorously, did not target individuals for abuse,
> and was sent only to private mailing lists?
Jeremy, good to hear from you. To answer your questions:
The response may determine that there is not action to be taken.
There are issues around matters relating to an unregistered party
with alcohol. Investigation may determine that it was dry, etc.
Students themselves might bring charges, i.e. Pius and Jacob or
others who did find the e-mail offensive. The charges might involve
creating a hostile environment, etc. AND of course, the hearing panel
might determine that despite charges being filed there was no offense.
>
>* Since there are evidently a number of students who did not find the
> email offensive, does MIT have a plan to provide written guidelines
> clearly defining the scope of offensive speech? If not, how does
> MIT plan to make it possible for students to avoid accidentally
> stumbling into disciplinary trouble as have the senders of the
> Ghetto Party email?
Good question.I doubt that we would try to develop a code. It is more
likely that the conversation around the issues will serve to
establish/renew parameters. We have incidents like this every
two-three years and we talk about things and that may be a more
likely outcome. There is,however, an ongoing conversation about
developing a code of conduct within the community and I would expect
these matters to be addressed--and further that the conclusions would
be pretty broad.
>
>* How does MIT reconcile the need for open expression and discussion
> in the academy, with the institution and enforcement of a speech
> code on its students?
I think free speech is only free when the reigning orthodoxy that
anything goes can be challenged. You cannot shout fire....and I don't
think that you can by words create a hostile environment for people
of color, sexual orientation , etc. As many as there were who were
not offended, there were many who were. And the
system/discipline/response must be able to demonstrate that its
charges can stand scrutiny.
Fundamentally, for me, it seems that things have swung to such an
extreme that people believe that no one has a right to disagree with
what they say/do. In a community where groups buy into the values of
the community it is not unreasonable to think that there are
boundaries that cannot be crossed or the social contract is
shattered. When they are crossed the community (MIT) may respond. The
boundary markers may be as simple as ideas of civility, etc. and they
may change as conversation and social norms change. The movement is
not always toward greater freedom of expression.
RMR
>
--
Dr. Robert M. Randolph
Senior Associate Dean for Student Life
Housemaster, Bexley Hall
617-253-4052
617-225-8160
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
--=-=-=--
