They stopped being 'cool' and they won't get that image back by pretend stuff like this.
Having Aaron win the Disobedience Award would have been a fitting punishment, instead they took it to the max.
Aaron broke the academic status quo and generated bad press. That's pretty unacceptable in the quest to make the world a better place for an organization that is primarily about image.
Or risking anything. You want courageous disobedience? Let's talk James Damore.
Those disproportionate risks make it very difficult to do any kind of civil disobedience to protest these federal laws and the prosecutorial overreach associated with them.
Also, finding some way to protect the right to publish publicly funded research actually makes it possible for many people to read and redistribute the primary research related to Damore's memo. That is something most people can't currently do without risking criminal charges.
Given those difficulties and risks, I'd strongly suggest thinking a little more about the Schwartz object lesson rather than shifting to a different topic. (Esp. given we're also discussing MIT.)
Would you say they are constraining the window of acceptable discourse here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) by claiming "This is what disobedience looks like, don't disobey more than this or you'd be labeled a crazy fringe fanatic"?
I like what they are doing in general. All those are good awards and issues to talk about. Not sure MIT is necessarily the place that these ideas would seem controversial and require a "disobedience" label associated with them. I can think of other countries and places where creating a #MeToo movement would be very controversial.
If your breadth/etc contains higher than allowed testosterone you'll be fined and made to take medication in order to control those extremely toxic traits:
mas·cu·lin·i·ty
/ˌmaskyəˈlinədē/
noun
noun: masculinity; plural noun: masculinities
possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.
"handsome, muscled, and driven, he's a prime example of masculinity"
synonyms: virility, manliness, maleness, machismo, vigor, strength, muscularity, ruggedness, robustness; [informal] testosteroneBoth of those terms have definitions based in rational discourse, but they are often misunderstood. E.g. "toxic masculinity" does not mean that masculinity is toxic, it means there's a subset of masculine behaviors that can be toxic when over-represented.
If reading the term 'toxic masculinity' is enough to cause you to disengage, I'd encourage you to take a moment and understand why that just happened.
If we talk about toxic Muslims as the subset of terrorist behavior, then most people would still see it as an generalization that invoke a expression of racisms and hate. Lumping together all Muslims, only to then say "Its a misunderstanding, I only meant this small subset that is toxic among Muslims" don't work. Does not work for racism, and it does not work for sexism either. The term toxic masculinity will always seem like veiled hatred against men, and no amount of "that is only a misinterpretation ..." will change that.
But lets go to a political term that currently is seen in the news with wild disagreeing views: the illegal immigrant. The US administration defines this as only being about the subgroup of immigrant that has committed a crime. They see no problem talking about deport all those illegal immigrants, how the illegal immigrants are a drain on the country, and how many of the illegal immigrants are rapists and gang members. And yet when the opposition object they are all talking about immigrants and how immigrants are important for the country and economy. How among immigrants there are very few rapists and gang members, and how the administration are racist when they make general statements about immigrants. And in return the administration accuse the opposition for disengaging from rational discourse, thumping their chests, and grandstanding to defend all immigrants from the perceived slight of being called rapists and gang members.
If you want rational discourse then start by using language that do not dehumanize people. Second step is to avoid large generalization that is only veiled hatred. Only then is there even a possibility for rational discourse.
The MIT administration overall is incredibly lawsuit/risk averse after a bunch of heavy settlements, such as the Shin case, the sodium case, and the Wellesley girlfriend stabbing.
"It is as part of this PR campaign that Bin Salman’s visit should be viewed. In exchange for cash, elite universities offer the veneer of a progressive agenda. For instance, Bin Salman’s foundation, MiSK, was accepted as a “member company” to MIT’s Media Lab in 2017, which requires a minimum annual contribution of $250,000 (with a three-year commitment) to the lab. In return, MiSK receives access to the lab’s personnel, technology, and intellectual property." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/30/elite-...