SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Despite criticism and complaints, MIT won't cut ties to Saudi Arabia
MIT won't sever its financial and research ties to Saudi Arabian government groups over the brutal killing of a journalist, despite the urging of many faculty and students, and complaints by some of the university's female researchers that they face more restrictions than their male colleagues when working in the Saudi kingdom.
On Wednesday, MIT president, L. Rafael Reif, denounced the behavior of the Saudi regime for violating human rights but rejected calls to unilaterally pull out of engagements in the Middle Eastern country.
MIT needs to provide faculty autonomy to decide whether they want to remain on the current projects and can't abandon those in Saudi Arabia, including alumni, who are trying to modernize the kingdom, Reif said.
"MIT utterly condemns such brutal human rights violations, discrimination and suppression of dissent, including the murder of Jamal Khashoggi," Reif said in a message to the MIT community. "Nevertheless, I hope we can respond to present circumstances in a way that does not suddenly reject, abandon, or isolate worthy Saudi people who share our principles and are doing good work."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:00PM (5 children)
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 07 2019, @03:55PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:47PM (3 children)
Then you'd better prepare to accept the consequences.
We don't live in a society where people can ignore laws if they feel like it. Imagine the result if everyone did that... One's effort, unless he is an idiot, is better spent in getting the law changed so that a real and lasting effect is produced. I have little sympathy for Shwartz. His actions were stupid, needless, and cowardly -- the opposite of the smart and brave lionization he has received.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:03PM (1 child)
And there it is: The slippery slope fallacy that is often used in this kind of discussion. 'But if some people ignore unjust/unconstitutional laws, they should be punished because otherwise everyone would ignore all laws!' Of course, it makes the assumption that people believe that all laws are equal, which is simply not the case. Many laws are blatantly unjust and unconstitutional, and should be treated as such (i.e. ignored).
You're going beyond just saying, 'If you break the law, you might be punished.' You're actually opposing breaking certain laws, whether they are unjust or not. That makes you a government bootlicker and an authoritarian.
Civil disobedience is one way to get laws to change. Ignoring the laws on a massive scale and making life hell for those who try to enforce them is another.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @01:40PM
since you are pedantically criticizing my post, I must point out the flaw in yours.
slippery slope does not apply. I said imagine if everyone did that. slippery slope would apply if I said we must not let a single person do that.
The reason I phrased it this way is because the person I was replying to said that ignoring laws that you don't agree with is a general valid solution. it is not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @08:16PM
fuck you and your law, you pig loving motherfucker.