
MIT Values - _pius
http://www.mitvalues.org
======
maxxxxx
This is fine but I think people should put more emphasis on acting on these
values instead of declaring them. People will notice things quickly, there is
no need to tell them all the time.

It reminds me of companies sending e-mails about innovation and agility while
often acting exactly the opposite way. Just do it and people will notice soon.

~~~
wheelerwj
While its hard to accuse MIT of being unscientific, actions do speak louder
than words.

what did you have in mind? i agree?

------
unethical_ban
Now all they have to do is label a dissenting opinion as one of those forms of
discrimination or hate speech, and it's an instant win!

~~~
eadlam
Their legitimacy and power as a group is based on their reputation for
intellectual honesty. If they label a dissenting opinion as discrimination or
hate speech, they would need to pair it with a reasonable argument otherwise
their reputation would decrease. This is a good thing. This is how groups
should engage in politics.

~~~
jedwards1211
Exactly. It would be helpful if that document went into detail about what can
be classified as discrimination, hate speech, etc. so as to make those terms
less malleable and abusable. I also wish that it emphasized the intent of
someone's speech and actions rather than the content or other's reactions to
speech.

------
jedwards1211
To the people who are complaining about this sort of thing: where do you draw
the line on free speech on college campuses? For instance would you want
universities to allow students to use racial slurs, _with malice_ , in
classroom discussions or paper, without any disciplinary consequences?

~~~
rvern
The burden of the proof is on the people asking for a line to be drawn to
prove that drawing a line is necessary, at all. Until I see proof that
students using racial slurs with malice causes significant harm, and this
specifically because of the racial slurs, I do want universities to allow it.

------
beefman
The 'science isn't optional' part is a nice addition to the usual fare, but
this is ultimately still the usual fare. And I think what bothers me about
this stuff is that it sets such a low bar for human society. We reject hate.
That should go without saying.

If you _are_ going to say it, there's a lot more you should say too: What
precisely "hate" is, how to identify it, how big of a problem you think it is,
and how it should be handled when it's found. _Not_ saying these things
implies that hate is a much bigger problem than it actually is.[1]

What we really have here is quasi-religious rhetoric. Evil, hate, demons, and
so forth. Who doesn't believe? Simply omit your name below so we all know who
you are.

[1] Some (still quite limited) discussion on this point:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-
wo...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/)

------
1_2__3
Eventually activists are going to run out of categories in desperate and
urgent need of stalwart defense. At some point it becomes simply a laundry
list of fashionable trends in sociology.

------
totalZero
Is it too much to ask that universities allow a free market of ideas, without
drawing subjective lines categorizing them as "good" and "bad"?

~~~
CalChris
> Is it too much to ask that universities allow a free market of ideas,
> without drawing subjective lines categorizing them as "good" and "bad"?

I love relativists.

~~~
rvern
I love dogmatists.

------
cdubzzz
What is the background for this? What is the call to action? This website
doesn't seem to say much of anything at all...

~~~
imode
agreed. what exactly is the message here?

~~~
wheelerwj
the message is, "go to these people if you need help."

did you read it?

------
angersock
This is stupid college drama, an online petition so lazy it doesn't even
bother to link to announcements it is complaining about.

Seriously, what the fuck HN? This wouldn't have been tolerated even a couple
of years ago.

