Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dr Craig Walton's avatar

Completely disagree. Things not allowed on University campuses are not solely restricted to criminal actions. I am not allowed to walk on the lawn at my college in Cambridge. Not because it is illegal, but because the institution has rules.

Students even vaguely plausibly inciting violence are obviously breaking rules that exist for good reason at an institution that is NOT about maximal freedom, as in society, but instead has an explicit duty of care for its staff and students. The left have weaponised that duty to institute authoritarianism over areas where the University has no plausible case to tell people what to do, but this is different.

There is NO valid case to be made that violent action should ever be organised against any member of the university. It is patently obvious that the University should not tolerate this and anybody trying to ferment such a thing should absolutely be immediately ejected from the course.

I mean, the example you give of the line being a detailed plan to kill someone should self-evidently NOT be where we draw the line. It's frankly unbelievable that you would draw the line so far into extremism - basically at the point where it would be too late to stop horrible violence from unfolding, and at a point where nobody wanting to initiate violence would ever logically cross because it would actually be counter-productive to their goal.

As someone working at a University, I wish we were far more stringent in application of common sense about prohibiting calls for violence and abuse of shared spaces on campus. These are centres of learning, as well as temporarily people's homes, and marxists trying to incite a bloody revolution should quite simply be removed from the premises never to return. Good riddance!

Expand full comment
Thomas J. Snodgrass's avatar

I as well think that this character Prahlad went way too far, after numerous warnings. He did not seem to recognize that what he was doing was beyond the pale. If this magazine was his first offense, it probably would not have been treated the same way. But this seems to demonstrate that he was deliberately flouting the rules and flaunting his supposed impunity in front of the administration. He was daring them to act. So, they acted.

The situation is, MIT is on very thin ice. They do not have a huge endowment like Harvard. Even huge endowments might be a target in this incoming administration, as president-elect Trump has threatened. MIT gets the vast majority of its money from federal contracts. Many are still furious with MIT for not being more forceful in stopping student protests and encampments last year.

So MIT has to err on the side of caution, if they want to have any hope of continuing to exist. And I write as an MIT alumnus. MIT is irritating the people and organizations that fund it, and its huge influential body of alumni.

People think that universities in the US can continue to be "woke" and are somewhat immune. No, nothing is farther from the truth. The recent "woke right" dustup on X demonstrates that the cretins who are anxious to wield political power right now and get retribution are only barely restrained at the moment.

So, MIT was just being prudent. Do we want MIT to survive and continue to be funded with grants and contracts? Then if so, MIT must toe the line. They must even be "more Catholic than the Pope himself" or however that saying goes. If that seems excessive (which it is), then fine. In the current atmosphere, it might be necessary.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts