[geofft]

The only link between Aaron Swartz and the Media Lab is that they hosted his memorial service.

Step one of not whitewashing history is to be accurate about it. You can't say that the Media Lab is an embarrassment to the MIT name when one of your pieces of evidence is that the rest of MIT - not the Media Lab - did something unconscionable. You can't hold organizations to account if your account is wrong.

And that's the danger with unrelated controversies and tangents - all of a sudden we need to have a discussion about the substance of that controversy and tangent. The angrier you are about something, the more important - and harder - it is to target your anger appropriately. Anger is a great tool. Make sure it is hitting what you intend for it to hit.

(In the interest of disclosure: I am an MIT alum who has never been particularly proud of my alma mater in general; I have no tie to the Media Lab.)

[saeranv]

I could be wrong and am glad to be corrected if I am. It's not like I'm following MIT Media news all day. But did the Media Lab acknowledge and critique MIT for its actions? If so you're right, I shouldn't criticize the MIT Media Lab. But if not I consider them complicit.

Re: the Disobedience Award. I did a google search to find the speech they gave where they discuss why they didn't give it to him. https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/reflections-on-the-disobedie....

I'm glad they recognized his principled and disobedient activism, but there's no acknowledgement about MIT's role in his death, and ultimately they chose not to give him the award.

[geofft]

> I consider them complicit.

That's fine, but that's a different argument from the one being made, that the Media Lab is "absolute trash and an embarrassment to the MIT name."