[carrionpigeon]

I, too, am suspicious of this statement. It brings to mind the context of the similar one issued by the University of Chicago a few years ago. While the administration was publicly affirming its commitment to free speech, individual departments and organizations within the university were unobstructed in contravening it. My sense is that, at the time, a number of wealthy private schools had made the national news for the nonsense in which their students were engaging. Rich parents started balking at sending their kids to them, so enrollment (and thus vast sums of tuition money) declined. The University of Chicago put out that statement to buttress its public reputation as an elite, exclusive private school without ever enforcing it.

My sense is that this MIT statement serves a similar purpose in that it panders to the sensibilities of parents paying the tuition bills. However, if their conviction is, in fact, sincere, I think there is one good way to demonstrate it --- officially sanction professors and students engaging in behavior contrary to the free expression of their peers. Has MIT ever done this? If not, I cannot think of this announcement as little more than an advertising stunt.

[ShredKazoo]

>While the administration was publicly affirming its commitment to free speech, individual departments and organizations within the university were unobstructed in contravening it.

This is really interesting, do you have a source for this?

[ModernMech]

> Rich parents started balking at sending their kids to them, so enrollment (and thus vast sums of tuition money) declined

This is almost certainly not correct. Top schools get far more applications than they have seats, and so can choose their enrollment. If some rich people don’t want to send their kid to school, there are other rich people to take their place. There’s really no shortage of them.