Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Similar to how everyone in the US is allowed to use the Whitehouse press secretary to announce things.
Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people, not an organization.
>Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz?
So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
>Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people, not an organization.
Organizations consist of people. There is some more stuff beyond that -- just some legal documents, buildings, and other assets, but the thing that actually has the agency to drive an organization is people.
>So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.
>They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.
So nobody has left or joined MIT since the Aaron Schwartz case?
Even ignoring that detail, I have a lot more respect for people that change an organization from within rather than quit immediately anytime something disagreeable happens. If everyone operated the way you are suggesting, we would essentially have institutions that would never change because nobody with different viewpoints could join.
Not much of a leap. At some point you either take a stand, even if it's against the official stance of the organization you work with, or you are branded with its decisions.
"I was just following orders" and/or "I disagreed, but I was in the minority" is not an excuse.