MIT Values

As a long-time non-student-but-affiliate MIT person, initially as "some person who volunteered to work on some SIPB project[1]", I've been continuously amazed by the degree of openness of the MIT community. I could just walk in and visit the computer club, or go to an event with friends.

Sure, administration doesn't care, but members of the faculty are regularly willing to help out non-students. (I got a temporary account by asking a staff member nicely, to help me work a project that furthered the goals of computing at MIT)

So, thank you, MIT faculty, for clearly stating that people from all backgrounds are still welcome here[2].

[1]: http://sipb.mit.edu/ [2]: http://yawh.mit.edu/

That's why they define community as "students, facility, staff, postdoctoral researchers and administrators" - not just people nearby.

> Now, these things sound nice on paper, but they run completely contrary to my experience in dealing with universities in my community. If you aren't pay tuition, they won't tell you the time of day.

Are you talking about faculty or administration people?

I always try to reply to everyone who contacts me even if they aren't a student. I even respond to the people that email me theories that rely on P=NP.

You can't be serious

No. Hint: it's "fake news" (i.e. propaganda).

The term "political correctness" generally means excessive policies to avoid offending or disadvantaging particular groups.

Nothing in the MIT message qualifies.

> SJW posturing you see at second- and third-tier

It's been difficult to take anyone seriously that has a problem with people they label as "Social Justice Warriors". Also, this isn't the sort of rhetoric I enjoy seeing on HN.

It's important to note that they also specifically called out the President-Elect for his Climate-Denying statements.

Him being racist – and a denier – make this incredibly important.

Why is this important? They are in a position of scientific authority, and they are opposing a position of government authority. He is incorrect, he is ascending to power, and this sets their authority against his authority.

This is about who you trust for your information and who will help shape your opinion. An esteemed educational institution, or a racist demagogue? Sounds to me like you've already made your choice.

People like to express their opinions and be heard. If each of these faculty went on HN or reddit or the streets and said "I don't like Donald Trump" nobody would care. However as a collective force people will care enough to open the link and skim through the text. Maybe if they get enough people they'll get a small segment on CNN's morning show.

Calling out virtue signaling is itself virtue signaling. Do you have something meaningful to add?

If we start to see stifling of legitimate, civil speech, then I think we have cause for concern. I'm encouraged that the statement specifically includes

We uphold the principles of the scientific method, of fact- and reason-based objective inquiry. Science is not a special interest; it is not optional. Science is a foundational ingredient in how we as a society analyze, understand, and solve the most difficult challenges that we face.

Looking (albeit briefly) online, I found one indication that free speech might be under threat at MIT:

http://projects.wgbhnews.org/muzzle-awards-2015/mit/

This describes a broadening of the MIT anti-hazing policy as including "mental discomfort", which, according to the author's commentary is part of "the gradual yet radical transformation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from one of the most robust academic centers of free speech and free thought in the world, to just another politically correct wannabe gulag."

That said, the text doesn't include any actual incidence of complaints of these restrictions being applied. If there were, I'd think they'd be included. Of course, that doesn't mean there haven't been such occurrences. Such data would add weight to such allegations.