What's the difference here? Different, better-connected students? A campaign that better aligns with the broader zeitgeist in our society? Something administration _wanted_ to capitulate over?
By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about.
It's unclear to me that SH created more liability than frats and alcohol, but maybe, and it was certainly the perception.
Did they think about putting Senior House on probation or something like that?
I'm bitter about the whole thing, and also the upcoming [renovation of EC](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_...) (the next dorm over, physically and culturally). The building is realistically past due for some TLC, but it's hard not to feel like it's motivated from more than that.
I suggest you hit 'em where it hurts: Refuse all alumni donation requests, and give your money to impoverished people in Africa instead. https://www.givedirectly.org/
In the case of cancelling speakers, there’s a bit of outrage and annoyance on the part of free thinking folks and fascists (who are two separate groups with a bit of overlap on the Venn diagram on this issue). But those groups don’t tend to form effective mobs on campus and aren’t terribly litigious compared to the vocal cancellers on the left.