That's not what that statement says, and indeed it's sort of strange to think that's a plausible occurrence.
His lecture and notes didn't do any harassing. He did, through interaction on the online platform. That's not the same thing.
Still, a statement as vague as this allows imaginations to run wild. If they are going to publicly humiliate a respected professor like this, you would think they would be at least a little more specific as to the allegations. They couldn't do any more damage to him than they did here anyway, and the term "sexual harassment" covers a vast spectrum of conduct. This statement paints him as the worst kind of sexual predator, who was so dangerous that he could only be stopped through public humiliation and immediate disassociation from MIT. Since no crime has been alleged, the impression they have created is probably not aligned with the facts.
Why is is not relevant that a bunch of smart people who were friends of the accused looked over the evidence and concluded that the university should no longer be associated with him? I get the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but it feels like a lot of people here are bending over backward to deny that sexual harassment might have happened.
And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it? MIT is under no obligation to reserve punishment for illegal conduct. If they have established community standards for their online spaces that go beyond "no illegal behavior" and they want that community to trust that those standards count for something, this seems like a perfectly reasonable action to take.
No. But I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would find it appropriate to send out a press release announcing the firing of someone based upon an internal sexual harassment claim. I would fully expect to be sued if I did such a thing. Unless the conduct would also meet a jury's definition of sexual harassment, and not just violate the internal policy, it's a perfect libel case.
>And as for "the worst kind of sexual predator", that seems more than a little extreme based on what's been said, doesn't it?
In word: no. That is the impression I was left with based upon the actions they took. If it was worth destroying his reputation, as they did here, then in the absence of additional information we are left to assume the worst.
They could have easily not made this statement and just removed his classes from the site, or kept his lectures up and had another professor handle interactions. They instead chose to publicly tar and feather him. That may or may not be justified, but we don't have enough information to make that judgment. If his conduct was on the lower end of the sexual harassment spectrum (an "online learner" thought it was inappropriate that he asked her out, for example) then making this statement was uncalled for. They just ruined this man's career.
Assuming that the accusations were substantiated and did violate the MIT harassment policy (which, just to emphasize this, was the conclusion of a committee led by his own colleagues in the Physics department that did see all the evidence), I think it's clear that Lewin ruined his own career.
As it happens, I'm a physics professor myself. And let me tell you, I know good and well that my tenure wouldn't be worth squat if I asked a current student for a date. It's not like this is complicated. Why does the blame so easily get assigned to the university ("They ruined his career") or to the victim ("She got him fired")?
The man had some of the most popular lectures ever put online. Wikipedia claims over 12 million views. You don't just take down those videos without giving a reason. With celebrity comes a loss of privacy.
Also, they did not just ruin his career. He is 78 and spent over 40 years in the classroom at MIT. He already had a more than successful career. They ruined his ability to continue to have one-on-one interactions with students, and rightly so if he was sexually harassing them.
I doubt they looked at the evidence and made this decision lightly.
To be fair, and to your point, we don't have enough information to speak intelligently about this.
I'll agree that his video lectures themselves probably didn't have him acting inappropriately. His website says his video lectures are coming soon, so I suspect he may release the content there. But MIT is, in my view at least, not obligated to promote or host his content on EdX, and if I were them I wouldn't want to be associated with the guy. And that's assuming that they weren't worried about further people contacting him and being harassed.
Taking down existing video content, which is only incidentally connected to the problematic behaviour (Lewin seems to have his role as the course instructor rather than the videos as an excuse to make contact with course participants), to me would be more akin to burning the books written by an unliked person than to any act legitimately defending MITs or the course participants' interests.
Every time I delete a file, am I a book burner?
I think taking down a video is directly analogous to stopping providing a course. Hosting those videos could reasonably be construed as endorsement of that person as an educator, something MIT clearly doesn't want to do.
In the end it's their site and their reputation on the line.
If you are the official source and don't provide a mirror, arguably.
OCW is not that. It's just videos and notes posted online for people to work through on their own. Very different situation.