MIT Aaron Swartz report to be released “in a few weeks”
tech.mit.edu
tech.mit.edu
In short I want to understand MIT's role in pushing for punishments that were out of line with community expectations.
"We don’t know what we’ll find as the answers unfold, but I expect to find that every person acted in accordance with MIT policy. More than that: they acted in the belief that their actions were legally and ethically proper."
I'm a little concerned with Mr. Abelson's comment here. Given that he expects to find everything was done correctly and states as near fact that they were before starting, is he really impartial enough to be in charge of such an internal investigation.
I don't think that stating expectations is necessarily indicative of partiality, he may just be expressing his current thinking. As an engineer, I go into nearly every project with certain expectations, the issue is whether or not I accept the data that challenges those expectations. MIT culture does instill in its students and staff the need to "go where the data take you," so I think folks should give him a chance.
Also "acted in accordance with MIT policy" doesn't mean "did the right thing," the conclusion may be that policy changes are needed.
In an aircraft mishap investigation, they regularly conclude that it was a series of minor issues/deficiencies causes a crash, not a single pilot/crew/person making a single huge error.
Abelson may have tainted his report already if it finds no wrongdoing, that was a very poor choice of words.
Lots of people were skeptical about his nomination (I certainly was not one of those) but this really makes me wonder.
I don't think he has tainted anything for anybody, with the possible exception of tainting it for those who are currently wielding torches and pitchforks, but nothing will appease then.
I was initially pleased with his choice, then subsequently surprised to learn of these ostensible ties in a sentence or two within some reporting or commentary that I don't have at hand, at the moment.
(So... if such ties don't exist, I am fully open to being corrected on this point. But, my recollection is fairly strong, if not specific -- in part due to the reinforcing nature of my surprise.)
P.S. I'll have a look for that bit of reporting that caught my attention, when I have a chance...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/22/0219224/mit-warned-of...
theodp continues " MIT's Wolpert, who was recently named to an advisory board for JSTOR parent Ithaka, also chairs the Management Board of the MIT Press, where her reports from 2008-2010 included JSTOR Managing Director Laura Brown and MIT's Hal Abelson, adding another twist to Abelson's analysis of MIT's involvement in the Swartz tragedy."
This is not an impartial investigation... Whether he has connections with JSTOR makes no difference to that fact.
I suspect his main goal is to not turn the initial fact-finding phase of the report into an adversarial, witch hunt.
It's an interesting question whether MIT should have been the equivalent of a hostile witness in a courtroom, refusing to turn over any bit of evidence without a court order or a search warrant, because of a concern (which they might or might not have been able to forsee at the time) of prosecutorial overreach. But that's really a phase 2 question. The first thing that needs to happen is that Hal's effort (I assume he will be convening some kind of committee) will need to establish the facts and the timeline. And in order to do that, he needs to make sure that he gets cooperation from the various parts of the MIT administration who participated in this Greek Tragedy. His words about having an expectation that people behaved properly I think needs to be made in that light. A parent always has the expectation that their children has behaved properly. And it's only fair that a parent use that as a presumption of innocence. If it turns out that the child really did misbehave, at that point the expectation can of course turn into a profound sense of disappointment.
I am not cynical about individual people, though. Hal Abelson seems like a good choice, though I for one hope he does not convene a committee on this subject, because in that direction lies a soulless, unenlightening report.
Please remember that Prof. Abelson is one of the founders of Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation. He was undoubtedly chosen because of his credentials in the area of free culture. It is fairly insulting to suggest he will simply ignore the truth out of some unknown motive.
1) "I'm sure none of us did anything wrong."
2) "If any of us were wrong, then that's NOT OK."
The report may well end up being a condemnation of the system, which is just as well. Abelson is perhaps preparing people (particularly the witchhunt crowd) for the possibility that there was not a malicious actor on MIT's side, yet the system is still broken enough to allow such tragedies to occur.
Any current MIT folks reading? Please submit: "Who exactly rejected a plea bargain with no jail time?"
I believe it would speak volumes, knowing many of the cast.
It's a shame, and I know who I blame, but I am 100% certain that my assumptions about the inner workings of the MIT corporation are incomplete.
Besides, Hockfield is gone, and I largely blame her and Vest for the new liability-sensitive administrative culture that's so antithetical to the MIT tradition of supporting students, unconventional exploration, and if not being helpful at least not being actively hurtful when things go wrong.
So if they're both long gone, what is going on? Leftover poor policy? Deans who were hired under a bad paradigm of operating their department? Faculty pressure (I sure hope not on that one)?
Disappointment is almost too weak of a word when it comes to my opinion of most of the administration. Hopefully Reif will stir things up, but I'm doubtful.
(looks like not...)
Also, did MIT feel any pressure from the Justice Department to carry on with the case? Perhaps MIT was reluctant to take action against Aaron but was convinced by the DoJ that something had to be done?