Sorry but what "doublespeak" do you see in that statement?
> MIT’s action comes in response to a complaint it received in October from a woman, who is an online MITx learner, claiming online sexual harassment by Lewin. She provided information about Lewin’s interactions with her, which began when she was a learner in one of his MITx courses, as well as information about interactions between Lewin and other women online learners.
1. A student claimed online sexual harassment by Professor Lewin
2. This student provided information of these interactions.
3. MIT conducted an investigation
4. The investigation found that Lewin's behavior violated the current sexual harassment policies.
Seems pretty straightforward, except for #2, though I guess we can reasonably surmise that the information involved screenshots or saved chat logs. Otherwise, what other kind of information are you looking for that would help clarify whether or not MIT's sexual harassment policies were violated or not?
Otherwise, what other kind of information are you looking for that would help clarify whether or not MIT's sexual harassment policies were violated or not?
Exactly what he did? "sexual harassment" is an extremely broad category. Was it a few sexist remarks, or something much worse?
> Sexual harassment may take many forms. Sexual assault and requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions constitute sexual harassment. However, sexual harassment may also consist of unwanted physical contact, requests for sexual favors, visual displays of degrading sexual images, sexually suggestive conduct, or offensive remarks of a sexual nature.
As to why MIT doesn't get into more detail...that's kind of the modus operandi for these kinds of internal, non-criminal investigations. I don't know what you're reading into this, but perhaps you think the professor has been harshly punished for a few ambiguously sexist remarks, and you think seeing them would vindicate him? Perhaps. But it's also possible that the professor did something egregious, and it may not be helpful to air that out (especially if it means reproducing offensive photos that were allegedly sent).
So when is conduct benign enough that the University could just publish, and when is it not? That's a difficult decision. But for the most part, if the purpose of a press release is to explain why online materials are no longer online, it's not necessary to get into the nitty gritty of the findings of the investigation. If the professor wants to publicly fight the investigation, then it'd be more appropriate for the university to reveal the damning information it has.
From the link: "Harassment of any kind is not acceptable behavior at MIT ... Harassment is any conduct, verbal or physical, on or off campus, that has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual or group's educational or work performance at MIT or that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational, work, or living environment."
> MIT’s action comes in response to a complaint it received in October from a woman, who is an online MITx learner, claiming online sexual harassment by Lewin. She provided information about Lewin’s interactions with her, which began when she was a learner in one of his MITx courses, as well as information about interactions between Lewin and other women online learners.
1. A student claimed online sexual harassment by Professor Lewin
2. This student provided information of these interactions.
3. MIT conducted an investigation
4. The investigation found that Lewin's behavior violated the current sexual harassment policies.
Seems pretty straightforward, except for #2, though I guess we can reasonably surmise that the information involved screenshots or saved chat logs. Otherwise, what other kind of information are you looking for that would help clarify whether or not MIT's sexual harassment policies were violated or not?