[1520] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: ["Robert M. Randolph" ] Re: What we may have missed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Prez H. Cannady)
Fri Oct 17 11:40:35 2003
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:16:26 -0400
From: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <uv63cdtn7wx.fsf@tenebrae.ai.mit.edu>
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/
