Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: syriacus
The statement was drafted in a consultation among colleagues who gathered to review the information we had on the incident,” MIT Chancellor Phillip L. Clay PhD ’75 said in an e-mail to The Tech. “We prepared a statement after we discussed what our responsibilities are to the public regarding the incident.”... Clay said that MIT considers Simpson’s actions to be “reckless,” because taking the reported items to an airport could reasonably be foreseen to cause alarm. “We all have a responsibility not to cause alarm and to be mindful of security requirements.”

Now I am really really frightened. We can all question whether Star's actions were sufficiently circumspect, but she is 19 and obviously more of a geek than a woman of the world. What is really really scary is the burgeoning and manifest collective stupidity of the MIT faculty and administration.

Since when does the head of a leading university treat the campus cop as a trusted colleague much less his legal adviser? I know it his hard for this MIT hack (yes he is really really dumb and unprofessional) to remember, but there is a little red brick school up the road that has a bunch of lawyers that could have told this dunce not to make absolutely stupid statements. If he doesn't want to consult Duhshitzwitz, then Brandeis, Tufts and Boston University also have reputable legal faculties.

When was it ever sensible for someone to spout off an official opinion after admitting that he didn't have all the facts (and couldn't because he states that he hadn't actually talked to the young lady)?

In particular since when did "causing alarm" become an actionable offense. Many many many folks on this forum or traveling through Logan airport could take one look at that young lady's breadboard with flashing LED's and tell you with absolute confidence that it is not a detonator of anything other than the egotistical sense of self importance of a bunch of security nuts. If none amongst our Thousands Standing Around (TSA) could see that this was not a harmful device, we have much bigger problems than an allegedly immature college student.

I really hate to think where this new injunction, "thou shalt not cause alarm" may take us. Am I forbidden to walk my dog at 3:00AM however much fuss he might make to go out because I can foresee that I will cause alarm among our neighborhood watch busibodies (who don't have full-time work) who found it suspicious that someone was parked in the entrance changing a tire (which also could foreseeably have caused alarm)? Am I responsible because a squeaky wheel on my hand luggage could foreseeably "raise alarm" among the TSA crowd?

There is no hope when the adminstration of MIT is this dumb.

72 posted on 09/22/2007 9:23:31 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: AndyJackson

“Many many many folks on this forum or traveling through Logan airport could take one look at that young lady’s breadboard with flashing LED’s and tell you with absolute confidence that it is not a detonator of anything...”

Are these the same folks who might, at one time, have taken one look at someone lighting his shoelace, and told us, with absolute confidence, that it also was not a detonator of anything?

Your confidence in such hubris is truly foolhardy.


143 posted on 09/22/2007 1:35:15 PM PDT by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson
You have to remember that there are plenty of people out there making hoax devises to cause a stir. This one for instance. It is suggested that you download it to your laptop, open it inflight, and leave at your seat while you go to the bathroom. Then you are supposed to play the innocent victim card and claim it was just a joke. Expect to be arrested if you do.
183 posted on 09/22/2007 3:40:03 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

“I really hate to think where this new injunction, “thou shalt not cause alarm” may take us.”

For many, many years, there has been a law against “inducing panic.” Only current, or latent, anarchists would have big problems with a law like this.

Are you current or latent?


257 posted on 09/22/2007 11:25:45 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson