Silicon Valley entrepreneur and MIT and Harvard graduate John Chisholm wrote this public letter. Re-posted here with permission.
In the last few days, I have heard from more alumni (and non-alumni) than I can recall at any time since my term as alumni president/chair. Their reaction to the cancellation of Professor Abbot’s Carlson Lecture ranges from disappointment (in MIT) to outrage. Whether it was the New England Aquarium or MIT who cancelled the lecture doesn’t generally matter to them. It is MIT’s Carlson Lecture; it is MIT for whom alumni and the world have high expectations; and it is MIT that they hold responsible.
I don’t use the word “crisis” lightly but based on the volume and intensity of responses I have heard, not to mention the viral media coverage, this is indeed a crisis that could permanently damage and diminish MIT’s vaunted reputation for scientific excellence and integrity, in my view. Despite that, with the right response, I believe we can turn this failure of open scientific inquiry and freedom of speech into a net positive for MIT through which thousands of estranged members of the greater MIT community begin to feel drawn back to MIT.
Some Corporation members feel that internal disciplinary action is called for. Let me focus not on that here but on MIT’s public response. Professor Abbot’s thoughtful, credible, emphatic, and timely statement demands a similarly thoughtful, credible, emphatic, and timely response from MIT. Based on conversations with Corporation members, alumni, and others, here are three points of a recommended public response, along with some possible language:
1) We made a mistake, and we apologize for it. Cancelling Professor Abbot’s Carlson Lecture was absolutely counter to MIT’s values of open scientific inquiry, free speech, and viewpoint diversity. It was a victory for the very “cancel culture” that is an anathema to open scientific inquiry, and we allowed it to happen. We apologize to Professor Abbot, to the thousands of individuals who would have benefited from and enjoyed hearing Professor Abbot’s scientific insights, and to many more members of the global community of scientific truth-seekers we let down. We are working with Professor Abbot to reschedule his talk on campus as soon as possible.
2) We affirm MIT’s commitment to free speech and open scientific inquiry. More than any other institution, MIT recognizes the necessity of viewpoint diversity, freedom of speech, and open scientific inquiry to improve the quality of thought, sharpen any debate, and foster innovation. We proudly join the University of Chicago, Princeton, Purdue, Washington University in St. Louis, and dozens of other US colleges and universities in declaring our support for the Chicago Principles on freedom of speech and expression. MIT will no longer partner with organizations who do not share our commitments to open scientific inquiry, free speech, and viewpoint diversity.
3) We will review our internal processes and practices to identify opportunities to be more welcoming and inclusive of diverse viewpoints, free speech, and open scientific inquiry, and when necessary, to defend them. Freedom of speech for just those with whom we agree is meaningless. I have asked [TBD] to lead this internal review. In addition, I have asked [TBD] to create and lead an Institute-wide forum to ensure that diverse viewpoints are welcomed and included on campus..
Of course, making a public statement is not enough; it must be backed up by leadership and visible follow-up on the promised actions. I believe that MIT leadership’s vocal support and follow-up of these three points will go far to ensure that a debacle like this does not happen again and will help restore faith in MIT of many estranged alumni.
John Chisholm
Pingback: An Open Letter to MIT – Patrick May