[428] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: due process
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Tue May 1 12:37:19 2001
To: Zhelinrentice L Scott <zlscott@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Paul D Elbourne <elbourne@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: Zhelinrentice L Scott's message of "Tue, 01 May 2001 11:45:38 -0400"
Date: 01 May 2001 12:36:52 -0400
Message-ID: <ppwy9shauvv.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Zhelinrentice L Scott <zlscott@MIT.EDU> writes:
> It's a trip that you are all up an arms about this ATO stuff when the
> leadership of ATO has been making the majority of the decisons.
Whether or not that's true seems to have no bearing on the gist of
Paul's message, which was that Vest seems to be shooting his mouth off
before the MIT investigation is complete. As the official
representative of MIT, he has a responsibility to keep himself in
check until MIT has finished its investigation.
Also, perhaps ATO is operating under the assumption that if they smack
their own down well enough, they won't be smacked down as a whole by
the institute. In which case, Vest's comments are likely to
inappropriately influence the decisions being made by ATO's
leadership.
> 2nd of all the administration has been doing thier own investigation,
> and the situation is more complicated than 1st amendment rights.
There was allegedly underage drinking, and a physical altercation.
But Vest's comment directly addresses what was said, not what was
drunk by whom, or who kicked who. That seems to be pretty solidly a
"free speech" issue.
> Again, I would like to reinterate that irrational, emotional outbursts
> about this issue is 1) not welcome, 2) inappropriate and should not be posted
> publicly. Email people individually if you care to speculate.
re 1) not by you, but certainly by me, and I assume others concerned with
the scope of the ongoing investigation and its eventual outcome.
re 2) I'm not sure how you plan to justify that statement. I agree
with Paul that Vest's comment was totally inappropriate, for the
reasons listed. I don't see how Paul's pointing this out could be
construed as in the wrong.
Finally, Paul's one of the most rational, carefully worded people I
know. His letter seemed in no way to be emotional or irrational, and
certainly not in the category of "outburst". I'm at a loss as to how
you came to that judgement about it.
Ray Jones
