[1519] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: ["Robert M. Randolph" ] Re: What we may have missed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy H. Brown)
Fri Oct 17 10:37:59 2003
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:16:48 -0400
From: "Jeremy H. Brown" <jhbrown@ai.mit.edu>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031016184307.02e82140@po14.mit.edu>
Just to be clear, the quotes Prez has below are from Dean Randolph,
not from me.
Jeremy
"Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@mit.edu> writes:
> At 09:33 AM 10/16/03, Jeremy H. Brown wrote
>
> >The response may determine that there is not action to be taken.
> >There are issues around matters relating to an unregistered party
> >with alcohol.
>
> Yeah, and there are issues regarding postering rules involved with the
> Sidney Pacific flag incident. The political subtext is nevertheless
> painfully clear, and President Vest himself raised political
> correctness to the forefront by official sanction. I wouldn't debate
> MIT's right to restrict conduct as a private entity without a lawyer,
> but to put it in terms of engendering social civility is just
> insulting the intelligence of those holding differing views.
>
> >Investigation may determine that it was dry, etc.
>
> Yippee.
>
> >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.
>
> If other interested parties were to bring charges against those who
> supposedly took offense (in the case of a few, I'm almost certain
> mean-spiritedness exclusively drove them to lodging complaints), would
> the hearing panel take those up seriously? Ray Jones makes an
> interesting abstract point, but considering how leftist academia's
> grown in the past half century I doubt a counter-complaint would go
> anywhere but into a circular file.
>
>
> >Good question.I doubt that we would try to develop a code.
>
> You don't have to, just like universities don't necessary have to
> openly "count" minorities to sustain racial preferences in admissions.
> And once again, I wouldn't challenge you on this without a lawyer.
>
> >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.
>
> I doubt it. Nothing came of the whole ATO thing except a rally and
> bruised feelings. For my own part, I don't think anything should come
> of it. The fact we keep repeating these episodes suggests that MIT's
> wishy-washy, politically correct way of addressing social issues on
> campus isn't working. Hell, I'd have more respect for the process
> if Administration treated these issues the way the private sector
> does. But then again, I don't pay my boss for the privilege to work.
>
>
> >I think free speech is only free when the reigning orthodoxy that
> >anything goes can be challenged.
>
> "Challenge" is a far cry from "sanction."
>
>
> >You cannot shout fire....
>
>
> Sure I can. Fire.
>
> > and I don't think that you can by words create a hostile environment
> > for people
> >of color, sexual orientation , etc.
>
> So why not refer such matters to the state? I said before you don't
> need a speech code. All you need is a sufficient number of vindictive
> lefties in the right place to interpret "hostile environment" as they
> see fit.
>
> >As many as there were who were
> >not offended, there were many who were.
>
> I thought we were talking about "hostile environments."
>
> >And the system/discipline/response must be able to demonstrate that its
> >charges can stand scrutiny.
>
> Please elaborate. I've seen nothing that suggests the process is
> accountable to anything but itself.
>
> >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.
>
> Are you talking about the party organizers or the offended individuals?
>
> >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.
>
> I didn't buy into a community. I have a community back in New york.
> I temporarily reside in a community governed by laws constituted by
> the city of Cambridge and Massachusetts state. Between family,
> friends and country, I don't need any more community.
>
> Rev Prez
>
> P.H. Cannady
> revprez@mit.edu
> (617) 452 4470
> Sidney Pacific Dorm
> 70 Pacific St
> Cambridge 02139
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
