MIT President Rafael Reif's Statement on Freedom of Expression
president.mit.eduWhy is the url http://inj9.mjt.lu/nl2/inj9/mjl1s.html?m=AUcAAEFQgSwAAcrrRL4...?
This looks like its been run through that utility that makes links look sketchy
I'm an MIT student and received the letter as an email. This was the URL linked in the email for the 'online version'.
I had the URL updated to the Office of the President's page linked by a poster below as it is certainly clearer / more immediately credible. Thanks for raising the issue and thanks to that poster for the link.
Interesting, it must be a analytics service they use to track clicks, it certainly makes the links look sketchy
.lu is Luxembourg. Why would the president of MIT's statement be on a server in Luxembourg? And "mjt"? Yeah, I'm not clicking on that to see what's there. No way.
Here's a real link: https://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/reflections-and-p...
Here is the first link in your linked page (“I encourage you to read his letter”):
http://inj9.mjt.lu/lnk/AVwAAAxBzpsAAcrrRL4AAAA8ttQAAAAAGqoAJ...
Which resolves to this: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa...
I don't generally believe in morals (as opposed to utility) in ethics, but the MIT students who opposed this speaker are now morally obliged to listen to his criticism, because it's in good faith, rationally argued, and entirely within the context of the original lecture. Unless they can explain why it was necessary to force the cancellation of a speech that is in good faith and rational, I don't think the administration owes anything to people who want to censor views they don't believe in.
(note: the tide already turned, what this guy has to say about DEI and careers has already returned to being the normal, default position, after a decade of overreach by social progressives)
> I don't generally believe in morals (as opposed to utility) in ethics,
That's...exactly where this should end, if you wanted to make an honest ethical argument instead of one grounded in a foundation you admit that you reject as valid.
> the MIT students who opposed this speaker are now morally obliged to listen to his criticism, because it's in good faith, rationally argued, and entirely within the context of the original lecture.
the MIT students are not morally obligated to accept your conclusion as to whether the talk is in good faith or any of those other things, much less to take any particular action based on your belief about those things.
The president of MIT said the same thing as me, if you read what he said closely.