[mitmatt]

> The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical.

The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done, as it states many times, such as in the last paragraph of the Introduction section:

> It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from this tragedy. Part V accordingly poses questions, not answers.

and again in the 4th paragraph of Section V:

> The Review Panel was not asked to make recommendations in our report, but rather to suggest how MIT might learn from this history.

Your comment misrepresents the report's purpose as well as its content. I think the report deserves a more careful reading.

EDIT: Personally, I recommend reading the Conclusion section (p. 100) and searching for the string "neutral" in that section.

[bguthrie]

I'm skimming quickly for the gist, and certainly didn't intend to misrepresent its contents. That being said, I'm not going to change what I wrote; that quote presents a value judgment, one that I'm skeptical of, and since the broader report doesn't appear to admit to any responsibility for subsequent events, I think it's disappointing.

I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity. But if judgement wasn't in their remit, then it was a poor remit.

Note also that MIT's president seems to believe that the report constitutes a free pass:

    From studying this review of MIT's role, I am 
    confident that MIT's decisions were reasonable,
    appropriate and made in good faith.

[whyme]

"I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity"

Respect and trust are lost much more easily than gained.

[chaostheory]

> The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done

Well then what's the point of the report other than allowing MIT to wash its hands? Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today.

[larrys]

"Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today."

What is your suggestion on a better time to release? Or what do you think they should have done exactly?

[chaostheory]

Simple. Delay it for a few days. I would imagine MIT's administration reads the news. Even if they publicly announced a deadline, which I don't think they did; it's not like they couldn't offer a good rationale for delaying the release of the findings. My opinion hasn't changed. Given the date of release and their objection to the FOIA requests, the only things MIT really wants is to have this event forgotten and to disavow any wrongdoing on their part.

[rdl]

The optimal thing for MIT would have been to release it after PFC Manning gets ~20 years (which is my prediction; not found guilty on aiding the enemy, but everything else). It's weird to do something slightly shifty (morning-of) but not optimally shifty.

[chaostheory]

I would argue that would make it too obvious. Besides while it may be more optimal to release it after the verdict, releasing it in the morning on the same day has essentially the same effect.

[ash]

> another big event today

What big event? Is it a holiday in US?