Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by roenxi 1606 days ago
At some point there has to be trust in people to be reasonable in their interpretation. If that trust isn't possible, the only available strategy is to try and purge the entire administrative apparatus and replace it rather than attempting to play word games. Word games are there to be lost.

This statement is pretty clear that the intent is to allow speech that some people find offensive.
1 comments
fallingknife 1606 days ago
Problem is that there can be no trust since this statement is coming from a group that disinvited a lecturer on climate science because he opposed DEI initiatives https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/06/mit-controver.... Actions speak louder than words.

Purging and rebuilding the entire administrative apparatus of the US university system is actually a great idea, and for more reasons than just freedom of expression.

link
MatteoFrigo 1606 days ago
With all due respect, I think you are misreading the situation. Some people at MIT disinvited Prof. Abbot. The authors of the article are those who opposed this action and are trying to establish rules to prevent the situation from happening again.

You are free to trust whomever you want, of course. FWIW, I am on your side, I know some of the people who signed the doc, and I don't see anything nefarious going on.

link
SamoyedFurFluff 1606 days ago
I see here a climate scientist advocating for public education policy without seeming educated himself on the subject (advocating for trial runs of charter schools and voucher programs as if they haven’t already been tested and studies borne out). I don’t really see the canceling here, it sounds like his talk are moved from one audience to another audience still at MIT, his public advocacy in a field he doesn’t study was published in a national paper, and somehow he’s “cancelled”?
link
modo_mario 1606 days ago
>The sponsoring department chair at MIT “called to tell me that they would be cancelling the Carlson lecture this year in order to avoid controversy.”

I think this is what's being referred to. Surely he wasn't made to retract his statements or fired but it does seem weird. After all said statements have little to do with his lecture. Also whilst i also disagree with the bits you mentioned i don't think they're what started this controversy or made up most of his standpoint to begin with.

link