Dorian Abbot cancellation and MIT Free Expression Working Group — Chisholm follow-up letter

March 30, 2022

Dear Penny, Phil, Annalisa, Steve,

and other members and partners of the MIT Free Expression Working Group:

Greetings from San Francisco.  Congratulations on being selected to serve and thank you for your dedicated service in the Free Expression Working Group. Your work is of inestimable importance to MIT in the minds of many alumni, including me.    

In FY16 I had the great honor and privilege of serving as MIT Alumni Association (MITAA) president and chair, a role I fondly refer to as MIT’s head cheerleader and matchmaker. That year, circling the globe twice, I met thousands of our alumni in over two dozen clubs and affinity groups in twelve countries on five continents. Speaking with and getting to know so many accomplished, creative, and thoughtful individuals, especially international ones, with a shared experience in MIT, has much influenced my thoughts on free speech and expression, for MIT, our nation, and globally.

The Importance of Free Speech to Alumni and MIT

Our international alumni especially treasure the free speech and expression that we take for granted in the US.   Often free speech is strictly curtailed in their own countries, especially in Asia and Africa.  I experienced this personally in both Kenya and China, where I was advised, for example, not to reveal that I am gay.  These alumni see America as a bright beacon of freedom, including of speech and expression.  Tellingly, every one of their countries, no matter how authoritarian, claims to defend free speech, demonstrating how readily an equivocal defense, the most effective way for despots to suppress free speech, can devolve.

Our international alumni are not the only ones who feel this way.  My friend and colleague Jim Banks ’76, former board chair of the Black Alumni/ae of MIT (BAMIT), first made me aware of the essential role that freedom of speech played to enable the US Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.  In Jim’s words, “Suppression of communicating thoughts and ideas, whether through speech, writing, association, or assembly have always been significant forms of discrimination.”

More than any other institution, MIT should unequivocally defend free speech and expression. As the New York Times editorial board elegantly stated on March 18,

Freedom of speech and expression is vital to human beings’ search for truth and knowledge about our world. A society that values freedom of speech can benefit from the full diversity of its people and their ideas. At the individual level, human beings cannot flourish without the confidence to take risks, pursue ideas, and express thoughts that others might reject.

Every great scientist and engineer whose name is engraved on MIT’s historic Bosworth Buildings (Buildings 1-10) and inspires us was once considered a heretic or crackpot.  Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church, the political establishment of his day. Newton deliberately made the Principia intractable “to avoid being baited by little smatterers,” in his words, many of whom were malicious. Herschel, who discovered Uranus, was said to be “fit for bedlam.” How many other great scientists’ works did not see the light of day due to suppression of their thoughts and ideas?  How far back has that set knowledge and humanity?  And how many are being set back at MIT today?

If you don’t believe that many members of the MIT community are today deeply closeted based on their political, philosophical, scientific, or other views, consider this: quite a few members of the Corporation are deeply closeted on account of such views.  I know this from having served on the Corporation from 2015-2021. If members of the Corporation feel and act that way, imagine what it is like to be a first-year undergrad, post doc, or junior professor.  Much harder. 

Disinviting Professor Abbot

The most egregious, recent example of free speech failure at MIT was the disinvitation of Professor Abbot. Immediately after that event, I had extensive in-person and email exchanges with Rafael, Rob van der Hilst, Corporation chair Diane Greene, and other MIT leaders.  Rather than recount those extensive conversations here, I have appended highlights of the email exchanges to this message.  In them, among much else, you will see why I recommended that we:

1. Adopt the Chicago Principles.  While the paragraph version of the Chicago Principles provides history and context, the bulleted version  (https://www.thefire.org/fast-facts-the-chicago-statement-on-freedom-of-expression/) makes their substantive claims more readily transparent.  The bulleted version also illuminates how much the principles/statement strive for balance.  For example, among the 11 bullets, bullet 6 counterbalances bullets 4 and 5.

• Apologize, promptly and emphatically, to Professor Abbot and the thousands of young, aspiring scientists in the Boston area who were unable to hear his public lecture.

Disinviting Professor Abbot was the very kind of behavior, typical of authoritative regimes, from which many of our international students would like to escape.

All Institute Policies, including DEI, must be Open for Debate and Discussion

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are topics on which reasonable individuals can have different perspectives and disagree.  Early last year, after reviewing initial drafts of MIT’s Five-year DEI Roadmap, I saw that it focused on a few, narrow attributes of diversity and inclusion, primarily race and gender.  Chair Diane Greene, to her great credit, welcomed presentations on a wide range of viewpoints on the subject to the Corporation last April. Influenced by first-hand interactions with so many of our alumni, I suggested a broader, more all-encompassing framework, holistic diversity, including not just physical and identity attributes but also intellectual/cognitive attributes and a host of related attributes.  (See https://profectusmag.com/broaden-diversity-holistically-to-reverse-polarization-and-achieve-academic-excellence/).  The presentation was received graciously, if not warmly and enthusiastically, by the many members of the Corporation who responded.  It is just one example of many possible perspectives on DEI quite different from our current practice. 

If MIT is to stay a vital and dynamic institution, all Institute policies must be open for public debate and discussion.  DEI is no exception.  

Specific Issues around Free Expression

Regarding MIT’s stated policies on academic freedom and freedom of expression, which I understand are FEWG’s specific focus, here are some observations:

1. Stunting student, faculty, and community growth.  Restrictions to free expression should be tightly defined, such as defamation, fraud, child pornography, coercive harassment (e.g., shouting down a public speaker), or physical threat. The Chicago Principles use the language “that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, [or] that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests.”  The more we expand on these narrow restrictions, the more we stunt the emotional intelligence, social growth, and agency of students, faculty, and civil society.  If, by appealing to an administration, whether MIT or a federal government, I can silence you because I disagree with or am offended by you, I never learn to 1) live in the real world where people all the time disagree with or have different objectives from me, 2) crystallize thoughtful counterarguments that clarify (and perhaps change) my thinking in response, and 3) develop the strength of character and grounded self-confidence that comes from my ideas being challenged, tested, refined or rejected, and consequently re-defined and strengthened over time.  The greater the range of expression over which an administration has control, the less need for and practice of democratic self-governance, and the more authoritarian that administration.  Not the kind of campus or society any of us would choose to live in.

• Unintended consequences of suppression.  The more we try to constrain free expression, the greater the incentives for that speech, perhaps hateful, both to go underground, making it harder to bring counterarguments against it; and to ramp up, as purveyors and others seek the publicity that comes from the administration trying to suppress it.  Professor Abbot’s cancellation and the ensuing negative media torrent about MIT (including Professor Abbot’s own blog post) is a case in point.

• Compelled speech/expression, often overlooked, is as dangerous or more so than infringement of free expression.  MIT freedom of expression should protect students, faculty, and others from being required to express thoughts with which they disagree.  The FEWG should identify and enumerate the most egregious examples of compelled speech/expression at MIT. 

• The MIT Free Speech Alliance (www.mitfreespeech.org/) has grown large faster than any other MIT affinity group in recent memory, with over 500 members today.  Their website contains a trove of free speech and expression resources, including detailed student survey results here, to which all FEWG members should avail themselves.  If it isn’t already, MFSA deserves to be recognized by MITAA as an official affinity group. 

All, I hope these few thoughts are helpful.  Again, many thanks.  If I may provide more information or be helpful in any way, please call on me.  

Best wishes,

John Chisholm ’75 ‘76G

FY16 MITAA President/Chair

+1(650) 222-8892

Appendix.  October-November, 2021 Email Exchanges

On October 6, 2021, a few days after Professor Abbot’s blog post on MIT’s disinvitation and the ensuing media coverage, I wrote to Rafael, Corporation chair Diane Greene, and others:

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.

A few days after sending that email, I was able cordially to discuss the disinvitation in person with both Rafael and Rob van der Hilst individually at the Venice Biennale in Italy.  To my surprise, of my three recommended bullet points above, they were both fine with #2 (affirming MIT’s commitment to free speech and open scientific inquiry) and #3 (review our internal processes and practices to identify opportunities to be more welcoming and inclusive of diverse viewpoints); it was just #1 (We made a mistake, and we apologize for it) that they were uncomfortable with or uncertain about.  One expressed discomfort in apologizing to someone they had “lost respect for,” and the other asked, “Who would we apologize to?” since we had made Professor Abbot “whole” by inviting him to give a scientific lecture at MIT instead of the public lecture.  So, in my follow-up letter to Rafael, Rob, and Provost Marty Schmidt (with whom I haven’t directly discussed the matter), I focused on this point #1:

Gentlemen, at the risk of belaboring this point, let me reiterate why I feel it is so important for us to apologize, publicly, to Professor Abbot. 

1)      If you are promised an apple and I give you an orange, only you can say whether you were made whole or not.  I may think the orange is more than equal to the apple, but that is not for me to say.  Dr. Abbot has clearly indicated that our “orange” (giving a scholarly talk at MIT) was not equal to the apple he was promised (giving a talk to inspire high school students to pursue careers in science).  Maybe he gives scholarly lectures all the time and had been particularly looking forward to talking with high school students.  How wonderful if Dr. Abbot had been able to post instead, “MIT bent over backwards and went to great lengths at its own expense to quickly find an alternative venue for me to speak to young people in Boston. Thank you, MIT!”  But we did nothing of the kind.  We oweDr. Abbot an apology. 

2)      We may think Dr. Abbot was fine with our “orange,” but often what we hear is not what the other person said.

3)      I understand that some of us may be uncomfortable with Dr. Abbot’s behavior and/or the blog post with which he responded.  That’s understandable but irrelevant to the question of apologizing.  We can discontinue future interaction with Dr. Abbot, if we wish, but for not making good on what we promised him, he still deserves an apology from us.

4)      I understand that others in EAPS were consulted before we responded to Dr. Abbot.  That’s great; they are an important constituency.  But they are by no means the only constituency.  Three others are the thousands of students who did not get to hear and benefit from Dr. Abbot’s insights, our nearly 150,000 alumni, and the greater scientific and engineering communities.  This issue has brought MIT alumni out of the woodwork who I haven’t heard from in years, as well as academics from other universities I have never met.  As I said in my earlier message below, their reactions range from disappointment in MIT to outrage.  Just because they are out of sight of the MIT campus does not mean we can or should ignore them.  They are also much more diverse, both geographically and philosophically, than the much smaller number of Cambridge/campus-based members of the MIT community. 

5)      One man’s reaction: To me, the sentences [from Marty’s October 7, 2021 faculty letter] “the department leadership concluded that the debate over both [Professor Abbot’s] views on diversity, equity, and inclusion and manner of presenting them were overshadowing the purpose and spirit of the Carlson Lecture” on the one hand, and “both the department and the Institute respect and support Professor Abbot’s freedom to express his views,” on the other, seem directly contradictory. 

6)      In his classic How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie says, “If you make a mistake, admit it quickly and emphatically.”  I tried to follow that advice in the language I drafted earlier.

7)      Thanks to the viral media coverage of this matter, the world is watching to see how MIT responds.  How small-minded and ungenerous it seems to them of MIT to be unwilling to apologize to Dr. Abbot.  Not the sort of institution any of us would want to be associated with.  

8)      The simple gesture of a public apology will not only put this issue, which will otherwise continue to fester, behind us, but it will generate tremendous goodwill for MIT globally.  Incredible how powerful one simple gesture can be.

9)      MIT’s formally declaring our support for the (University of) Chicago Principles on freedom of speech and expression is long overdue and should be part of this. 

10)    Ultimately, our decision needs to come from what we know from our conscience is the right thing to do. 

Gentlemen, I would recommend that the public apology come directly from Rafael. Rafael, having personally lost relatives in Europe to the Holocaust, you can speak with great conviction and authority to MIT’s commitment to free speech and expression. 

All, time is of the essence.  Thank you for listening.

On reflection since then, the only obstacle to our publicly apologizing seems to me to have been pride (ego).  Indeed, sometimes the simplest thing is the hardest thing to do.  I believe this simple, powerful gesture is 90% of what we need to do to put this festering issue behind us and move on.  It would also generate tremendous goodwill worldwide for MIT.  

Finally, on November 15, my close friend and colleague Whitney Espich, MITAA CEO, invited me, among other alumni leaders, to provide input on the disinvitation of Professor Abbot.  I responded to Whitney, copying Rafael and Diane:

Thanks for your note and for reaching out as you do so well.  On October 8-9, I had cordial conversations 1:1 at Venice Biennale with Rafael and Rob van der Hilst about Dr. Abbot’s disinvitation.

Like you, I have heard from dozens of alums who are deeply concerned about free speech at MIT.  While they view as justified the torrent of criticism from the NYTimes, WSJ, and many others, they are concerned about its long-term impact on MIT and our brand. At the same time, they are skeptical of the “affirmation” of freedom of expression in Rafael’s October 18 letter, words which did not align with our actions. Relatedly, distinguished Harvard Kennedy School economics/political science Professor Lant Pritchett (MIT PhD ’88) said he thought the letter “did more harm than good.” 

As you surely know, over half the MIT faculty polled in recent weeks indicated that they felt their voices or those of their colleagues were constrained on an everyday basis. Last week the father of a very bright, science-minded high school senior with perfect 800s on his SATs told me that his son would not apply to MIT after all because of lack of free speech at MIT. Our lack of freedom of expression is indeed affecting MIT’s reputation among the very individuals we most want to attract. 

So far, our responses to the uproar have been defensive and oblique actions: searching for justifications for the disinvitation, and hosting faculty and alumni forums to further discuss the matter. Those responses go counter or are orthogonal to the simple, direct actions we need to take: publicly apologize to Professor Abbot and the students who did not get to hear his lecture, demonstrate MIT’s commitment to free speech and expression not with hollow words but tangible action (e.g., publicly embrace the Chicago Principles), and commit to being more inclusive of viewpoint diversity (see my October 6-7 email to Rafael and Diane elaborating on these steps).  Had we taken these steps promptly, MIT would now be honored and celebrated, rather than lambasted and ridiculed, by global scientific communities, press, and social media. Taking those steps even now would still help, and is the right thing to do, though at this late stage they will have less impact, be met with further skepticism, and will not undo damage already done. We sorely need professional crisis damage-control counsel, and from outside of our echo chamber. 

# # #