[pdonis]

It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner.

I don't think this is a fair description; it would be fairer to say that MIT failed to use its influence in a helpful manner. (Even then I'm not sure it would have made a difference; it seems to me that the prosecutors were intent on "getting" Swartz and weren't listening to reasonable arguments for backing off.)

[Jormundir]

Whether it would have made a difference or not, the institution had the chance to act for what was right, and they did not.

[pdonis]

True, but that's failing to use its influence helpfully; it's not the same as using influence hurtfully.

[atmosx]

No, in this case it's the same. MIT is not average Joe, it's one of the top Universities in the world. I believe people on the board understand repercussions of taking and not taking action and the responsibility that comes along and if they don't they are not suited for the position.

[simpleigh]

I've always thought it a nice feature of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (bear with me here...) that the general confession covers "those things which we ought to have done" before mentioning "those things which we ought not to have done".

All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

[pdonis]

All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

That still doesn't make doing nothing identical to doing something. You may consider them morally equivalent, but that doesn't make them identical.

My point was about how to correctly describe what MIT did. If we start muddying our language because, oh, well, it's all morally equivalent anyway so it doesn't matter how we describe it, we end up not being able to think clearly. And if we can't think clearly, we can't tell good from evil, so we end up doing even more evil.

[Ygg2]

If you see a drowning man and do nothing you are guilty of inaction. In this case they knew what was happening and before issuing an informal warning went for the nuclear option.

[pdonis]

No, in this case it's the same.

Saying that MIT didn't do something it should have done, is not the same as saying that MIT did something it should not have done. The fact that you appear to consider them morally equivalent does not make them identical.

[ajays]

"Evil triumphs when good people do nothing"

[pdonis]

See my response to simpleigh upthread.

[gress]

So you want to avoid muddy language. Fine. Do you think MIT have any moral responsibility for what happened?

[pdonis]

Yes, but the prosecutors have a lot more. Using muddy language obfuscates that.

[gress]

No more than pedantically shooting down slightly muddy comments about it does.