Universities Ask Court To Block ICE's Directive Ordering The Removal Of Foreign Students Engaged In Remote Learning

from the don't-be-a-dick,-ICE dept

MIT and Harvard are suing to have ICE's latest attack on (legal) foreign visitors to this country blocked. A few days ago, ICE retracted an exception it had previously issued in response to the COVID pandemic. This exemption was issued back in March to allow students here on visas to continue their studies, even if all of their classes were now online.

It's now July and the COVID crisis isn't over. In fact, it appears to be getting worse. The US is expressing its exceptionalism by dominating the world in the number of new cases daily. Schools are prepping for the fall semester and the reality of the situation is that moving back to normal classes, rather than sticking with remote learning, just isn't possible at this point in time.

That reality makes no difference to ICE. It has decided the crisis is over and any students here legally should exit the country if they can't take classes in person. MIT and Harvard have no intention of moving back to physical classes when school commences in a couple of months. And the schools don't feel their foreign students should be punished for not attending classes that aren't being held or putting their health at risk unnecessarily just because the administration has unilaterally declared it safe to return to school.

Here's how the schools describe the current situation in their lawsuit [PDF]:

Medical evidence and official governmental guidance indicate that indoor gatherings of any size are of particular concern. Densely populated classrooms that are attendant with on-campus instruction have the potential to turn into “super-spreader” situations that endanger the health of not only the university community, but also those in the surrounding areas and anyone else with whom community members may come into contact. Indeed, in recognition of the exceptional risk of indoor congregation, Harvard has limited undergraduate on-campus residency to 40% of capacity for the upcoming term. Similarly, MIT has limited undergraduate on-campus residency for the fall to members of the rising senior class and a limited number of additional students.

Even if it were possible to simply ignore the ramifications of bringing students back on campus to partake in "super-spreader" classes, ICE is demanding schools jump through a series of logistical hoops to ensure students here on visas can continue to be enrolled and stay in the country. The first demand is that physical classes must compose a certain percentage of the total curriculum. Then it gets even more difficult. Schools will be required to do the following for each and every foreign student enrolled.

[ICE] announced that universities that have adopted a hybrid model—a mixture of online and in-person classes—will have to certify for each student on an F1 visa that the “program is not entirely online, that the student is not taking an entirely online course load for the fall 2020 semester, and that the student is taking the minimum number of online classes required to make normal progress in their degree program.” To do so, universities on a hybrid model will be required to issue a new Form I-20 for each of these students—in some cases, numbering in the thousands per university—by August 4, 2020.

Even if ICE doesn't care about foreigners, you'd think it might have some consideration for the Americans running these schools. But it appears it doesn't. The clawback of the exemption means schools must start putting more people on campus -- including staff and administration -- even if it means increasing the risk of virus transmission. The lawsuit points out the original exemption was supposed to be in place "for the duration of the [COVID] emergency." Without prior notice or request for comment, ICE has decided the emergency is over… at least for foreign students.

This unjustified move will do an amazing amount of damage to foreign students.

The July 6 Directive will harm continuing F-1 students immensely. For many students affected by the July 6 Directive, it is infeasible or impossible to attempt to transfer to a program that offers in-person curriculum and therefore allows them to pursue their education from within the United States on F-1 visa status. These students will therefore likely be forced to leave the country. The consequences of this sudden displacement are both financial and personal. In addition to incurring substantial expenses to make international travel arrangements in the midst of a pandemic that has significantly reduced the availability of air travel, as well as losing their homes—in many instances at great cost associated with broken leases—some students will be forced to upend their young children’s lives by returning to their home countries, while others’ families will be split apart in order to comply with the July 6 Directive.

[...]

For F-1 students enrolled in a fully online program, under the July 6 Directive those students cannot lawfully remain in the United States to continue their studies. Unless this Court intervenes, these students will be required to make precipitous arrangements to return to their home countries amid a worldwide pandemic that has caused nations to close their borders and has considerably limited international travel options. They must abandon housing arrangements they have made, breach leases, pay exorbitant air fares, and risk COVID-19 infection on transoceanic flights. And if their departure is not timely, they risk detention by immigration authorities and formal removal from the country that may bar their return to the United States for ten years.

The schools are asking the court to strike down the directive. They point out the guidance violates US administrative law, which prohibits "arbitrary, capricious" agency actions. Directives that fail to consider "important aspects of the problem" are the very definition of these terms. The suit also notes that directives like these are supposed to be preceded with a "notice and comment" period, which obviously did not happen here. The plaintiffs are asking the court to permanently block the new policy and declare it unlawful. Hopefully, the court will see ICE's move for what it is: an abuse of its power to inflict misery on foreigners -- even those who are here legally.

Filed Under: covid-19, education, ice, immigration, online education, students, visas
Companies: harvard, mit

MIT Media Lab Launched Disobedience Award, Funded By Reid Hoffman

from the this-is-cool dept

Last week, Joi Ito, director of the MIT Media Lab (and a very sharp thinker on a variety of topics related to innovation) announced a really cool new award that the lab was putting together: a Rewarding Disobedience award, for $250,000, funded by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman:

This prize is a one-time experiment that, if successful, we will consider repeating in the future. It will go to a person or group engaged in what we believe is excellent disobedience for the benefit of society. The disobedience that we would like to call out is the kind that seeks to change society in a positive way, and is consistent with a set of key principles. The principles include non-violence, creativity, courage, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. The disobedience can be in — but is not limited to — the fields of scientific research, civil rights, freedom of speech, human rights, and the freedom to innovate.

That's a pretty cool idea for a prize. And I particularly like Michael Petricone's suggestion that the award should be named after Aaron Swartz, who of course was engaged in a great number of civil disobedience projects. And, unfortunately, one of them involved MIT turning on him, leading him to getting arrested and charged with a variety of ridiculous charges. Since then, there has been a struggle among many at MIT to figure out how that happened and what the university should do to prevent similar things in the future. Naming this kind of award after him would be a great start.

We recently wrote about the book The Idealist, about Swartz and the world of free culture (and had the author, Justin Peters, appear on our podcast for an excellent two-part discussion about the book). One things that becomes clear from the book was the absolute disbelief by Swartz and his family of the fact that MIT refused to support Swartz after his arrest. The university basically turned its back on him completely. It's something that the university still ought to do something about, and naming this award after Swartz would be a step in the right direction.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, innovation, joi ito, mit media lab, reid hoffman
Companies: mit

Will Molecular Biology's Most Important Discovery In Years Be Ruined By Patents?

from the GNU-Emacs-for-DNA dept

Techdirt readers hardly need to be reminded that, far from promoting innovation, patents can shut it down, either directly, through legal action, or indirectly through the chill they cast on work in related areas. But not all patents are created equal. Some are so slight as to be irrelevant, while others have such a wide reach that they effectively control an entire domain. Patents on a new biological technique based on a mechanism found in nature, discussed in a long and fascinating piece in the Boston Review, definitely fall into the second category. Here's the article's explanation of the underlying mechanism, known as CRISPR-Cas:

Bacteria use CRISPR-Cas to attack the DNA of invading viruses. The workings of this natural defense mechanism were elucidated through basic research carried out mostly within universities. By hijacking and recombining its bacterial parts -- a flexible kind of engineering that is the hallmark of molecular biology -- researchers have shown how CRISPR-Cas can be used to edit the human genome, or any genome, in principle.

CRISPR-Cas can be thought of as the first really powerful and general-purpose genome editor -- a GNU Emacs for DNA. It is widely expected that it will have a massive impact on molecular biology, both for pure research and in industrial applications. Given those very high stakes, it will not come as a surprise to learn that there is already a fierce tussle over who owns a key patent in this field:

A patent battle is raging between the University of California, Berkeley and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. MIT's Technology Review has called the legal dispute a "winner-take-all match" with "billion-dollar implications," as the contenders all have stakes in startup companies based on the technique. The Broad team was granted the first patent in 2014, but the Berkeley group filed paperwork contesting the decision.

As the Boston Review rightly points out, the Broad Institute patent is problematic for several reasons. It is very general, and lays claim to using CRISPR-Cas to edit all animal and plant DNA. The Broad Institute has granted an exclusive license for therapeutic applications, which means that the company concerned has a monopoly on what is expected to be one of the most important areas for CRISPR-Cas. Any other company wanting to use the technique, even for non-therapeutic work, must pay for a license. To top it all, it's generally accepted that CRISPR-Cas is the result of a global, collaborative effort:

Academics around the globe, from Japan to Lithuania to Spain and the United States, have contributed to our understanding of CRISPR-Cas. No group can claim sole credit for discovering the system or the know-how for using it to edit genomes.

And yet the winner of the current patent battle, whether the Broad Institute, or the University of California, is likely to end up with immense power over the use of CRISPR-Cas. The article notes:

Monopolizing a core technology developed collectively using public funding ought to require an extraordinary argument. Even if we limit ourselves to looking through the economic lens, this would require making the case that a monopoly on CRISPR-Cas therapeutics would be so wildly effective -- and wide enough in scope to tackle the huge range of diseases mentioned in the patent -- that it would far outweigh competitive efforts with tens, or hundreds of other companies. In the current debate, no such argument has been given.

As well as giving many other details about this important case and its historical background, the Boston Review article goes on to suggest an alternative approach to one based on intellectual monopolies, one that builds on the fact that CRISPR-Cas is a tool for editing the biological software at the heart of all life:

We can take a leaf from the software world's book and sketch a free biology (as in "free software") that respects these responsibilities. This will require new mechanisms for describing research ownership and sharing that are in the public interest and that support the university’s research branch.

Although that may sound Utopian, for biology at least, it's starting to happen:

Synthetic biology is already making steps in this direction, with projects such as BioBricks that provide a mechanism for scientists to contribute their work to a public registry and allow others to build on it.

Moreover, for those who think the idea of free biology will never really take off, it's worth remembering people said the same about free software, which now powers most of the digital world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: crispr, dnam crispr-cas, patents
Companies: cal, harvard, mit, university of california berkeley

DailyDirt: Looking Fashionable In New Spacesuit Designs

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Protecting humans from the harsh environment of space isn't easy, so spacesuits are usually bulky and not too fashionable. Buzz Lightyear's outfit is actually not too unbecoming, but astronauts probably shouldn't dress like animated characters, even if they could. Astronauts shouldn't worry about what they look like as long as they're safely protected, but certain astronaut images might scare off folks (aliens?). Here are just a few spacesuit designs that future space travelers are testing out now.

• Alan Eustace didn't make it to space, but he did set a new world record by free falling from 25 miles above the Earth. He broke Felix Baumgartner's record by about a mile, and it took a special spacesuit to protect him during his 15-minute fall that exceeded the speed of sound. [url]
• MIT is working on a form-fitting spacesuit with active compression coils embedded in the fabric. This BioSuit has been under development for a few years already, and it's definitely the most fashionable spacesuit -- if it actually allows astronauts to survive in space. [url]
• NASA asked people to vote for their favorite new Z-2 spacesuit design, but the winning design won't go into space. The Z-2 suit will be tested for performance and comfort, but it's just a prototype that will influence the design of a future spacesuit that may one day be used for spacewalks and planetary EVAs. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: alan eustace, astronauts, biosuit, eva, felix baumgartner, manned missions, space, space exploration, spacesuit
Companies: mit, nasa

DailyDirt: Moving To Outer Space (Temporarily)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The number of ways to get people into space is at a record low right now, but some projects on the horizon are planning to get more people living in space in the not too distant future. Commercial space ventures are going to be shuttling (or capsule-ing, as the case may be) people to low earth orbit, and some other projects are aiming for more distant journeys. Here are just a few space exploration plans to keep an eye on if you still want to be an astronaut someday.

• In December, NASA is planning to launch Orion on a Delta IV Heavy rocket as a test for its next generation manned space vehicle that may one day get astronauts to Mars. No one will be on board for the first trip, but the craft will be gathering data to make sure the vessel is suitable for transporting people comfortably and safely. [url]
• The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) is an inflatable habitat that can connect to the International Space Station and provide commercial living space for a little over $50 million for a 2 month stay. This will be a steal compared to the current $40 million price tag for an individual to stay on the ISS for a week. (No word yet if you'll be able to re-rent out your spot on Airbnb.) [url]
• The optimism of the Mars One project should not be dismissed, but the technology to actually build a viable colony on the red planet may be further from reality than 2025. An analysis from some MIT students concludes that Mars One is unlikely to be sustainable with the current state of its technological progress. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: beam, colony, delta iv, iss, leo, manned missions, mars, mars one, orion, space, space exploration
Companies: bigelow, boeing, mit, nasa, spacex

Huffington Post Doubles Down, Has MIT Professor Spread Blatant Falsehoods About Creation Of Email

from the really-now? dept

We already covered the bizarre situation in which one of the biggest names in PR has "teamed up" with the Huffington Post to write an entirely bogus "series" of stories on the "history of email" that is nothing more than a PR campaign for a liar. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai claims to have invented email. He did not. We went into great detail on this on Tuesday, so you can check out the history there.

Despite my requests to both Huffington Post and Larry Weber (the PR guy who kicked off the "series"), neither has responded and explained if any money is changing hands here. That means either it is, and Huffington Post is violating FTC rules concerning "paid" posts, or Huffington Post just made it clear that it is willing to post pure bullshit without the slightest bit of fact checking. I'm still not sure which is worse.

Instead, it appears that they've gone forward and posted the latest in the series. Incredibly, they've convinced an MIT professor, Deborah Nightingale, to destroy her own credibility by writing a piece that is supposedly "debunking" the "myths" that everyone puts forth in proving that Ayyadurai is simply wrong in claiming to have invented email. Except the "myths" are not myths, and her debunking does not debunk anything. It just repeats the same false claims (using nearly identical language) as Ayyadurai and his friends in their original posts.

Nightingale cherry picks a few things, presents them in a misleading way, repeats the entirely bogus story about Dave Crocker claiming interoffice email was impossible (which is not at all what he actually said), and then just repeats (almost word for word) Ayyadurai's previously disproven claims. It's clear that the only way they think they can win this debate is to redefine what email is in such a narrow way to pretend that Ayyadurai's specific implementation was the "invention" of email. It's not. It's ridiculous. Here's their definition, according to Nightingale, though more or less repeated word for word by the other posts in the series.

"first full-scale electronic replication of the interoffice mail system consisting of the now-familiar components of email: Inbox, Outbox, Folders, Attachments, Memo, Address Book, Forwarding, Composing, etc.,"

Again, as noted in our post yesterday, nearly all of that was done previously by others (often many years earlier). But Ayyadurai, Weber and Nightingale are pretending that none of that was truly email because it didn't have every single component that Ayyadurai's app had. That's ridiculous. Email is an ever-evolving set of standards. You could just as easily make an equally ridiculous claim that "email" didn't really exist until it also had color highlighting. After all, the offline interoffice mail system had the ability to highlight with colored pens, and email didn't include color highlighting until years later. But, of course, that's ridiculous, because color highlighting doesn't make email.

Email was very much in place long before Ayyadurai's app. It included all the basic concepts of email, including an inbox, folders, to:, from:, subject, cc:, bcc:, etc. Ayyadurai may have written a wonderful new form of electronic messaging, but he didn't "invent" email.

The thing that's amazing here is that Ayyadurai is using one of the oldest trolling tricks in the book, in pretending that everything that he is actually doing is actually being done nefariously against him. Almost everything that he claims people are doing to him are things that he is actually doing himself:

He claims that the attacks are because Raytheon/BBN's entire "identity" is built off of its fake claim to have invented email.

First off, that's not true. Raytheon is a giant multi-billion defense contractor. It doesn't care about who invented email. BBN has a long and well-documented history of a whole bunch of innovations concerning the internet and networked computing. If it didn't invent email (and no one there really claims to have "invented" email anyway -- they say, rightly, that it was a group evolution by a bunch of folks, some at BBN and some elsewhere), its legacy as the core innovators of the internet would still be in place. Instead, the only one whose entire "identity" is built off a fake claim to have invented email is... Ayyadurai. Here's his Twitter page:

His entire Twitter stream is about him claiming to have invented email. Tweet after tweet after tweet are just about those claims.

He has an entire website called "the inventor of email." He's written a book about email, which claims on the front page that he's "the inventor of email":

Oh, and notice the "blurb" on the cover of the book? It's from Larry Weber. Gee...

He claims that others "fabricated a controversy" to deny him his rightful place in history

The only fabricated controversy is by him. There is no controversy. He didn't invent email. But he sure trades off of the claim that big powerful interests are trying to silence him.

He claims that those of us debunking his bogus claim refused to look at the primary documents

This is untrue. We went through the documents in detail and explained why they actually debunk Ayyadurai's own claims. Their "smoking gun" is a paper by David Crocker at RAND from December 1977, in which they falsely claim he said that an interoffice email system was impossible. Yet they never point you to the paper. go read it here. Go read the primary documentation and you'll see that not only did Ayyadurai and his friends/colleagues totally take Crocker out of context, they pulled two totally unrelated sentences from different parts of the report, excised from context, to pretend he said something he did not. Read the whole report and you'll actually see that not only were email systems quite common, lots of folks were developing all sorts of components of an electronic interoffice mail system. Crocker's paper is about one such version, but notes that many others are doing the same, and it includes screenshots of messages that clearly look like email today.

He claims that everyone is trying to rewrite history

He and his friends are the only ones doing so. The history is clear. There is no controversy other than the one that he's manufacturing.

What's bizarre is that the Huffington Post is a willing accomplice in perpetuating this myth -- and why the company won't comment on this, and the nature of its relationship with Weber and Ayyadurai. Again, either the Huffington Post is running a sponsored series without disclosing it (in violation of FTC rules) or it has been totally duped. I've heard from some folks suggesting that this is just the "blogging" side of Huffington Post, where there are no real editorial controls, but that doesn't explain HuffPost Live's multiple segments on this issue, including its bizarre interview with Ayyadurai. That is a journalistic endeavor (or purports to be) that appears to have been totally duped. The series still promises one more article, by Ayyadurai himself, and we expect more of the same rewriting of history, using the exact same phraseology. The question is whether or not Huffington Post will recognize that it's being used as part of an effort to drum up a faux controversy over something that is blatantly untrue.

Filed Under: david crocker, deborah nightingale, email, history, huffington post, journalism, larry weber, les michelson, shiva ayyadurai, v.a. shiva ayyadurai
Companies: aol, huffington post, mit

Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz

from the sad dept

Last summer, MIT tried (weakly) to defend what it called its "neutral" stance on Aaron Swartz, allowing the case to proceed even though the only party that had a legitimate claim to "harm," JSTOR, had come out almost immediately after Swartz's indictment to say that it did not support the prosecution. Around the same time, we noted that MIT was in the midst of a legal fight to block the release of Swartz's Secret Service file. Some found this effort a bit odd -- but the reasons are now becoming clear. An investigative report by the Boston Globe, scouring 7,000 pages of discovery documents in the case, found that some employees at MIT appeared to gleefully support going after Swartz with all of the powers of the DOJ.

In a handful of e-mails, individual MIT employees involved in the case aired sentiments that were far from neutral. One, for example, gushed to prosecutor Stephen P. Heymann about the quality of the indictment of Swartz.

“Nicely done Steve and kudos! All points . . . are as accurate as I’ve ever seen,” wrote the information technology employee. “(I only say that because every time I’ve ever given an interview, details are always slightly to horribly munged; not that I ever expected any less, it’s just a true relief and very refreshing to see your accuracy and precision).”

Elsewhere, it becomes clear that MIT helped escalate the case when calling in law enforcement. The Globe highlights a note taken by an MIT library staffer who noted that it was "now a federal case" and "All we provide is by choice -- not subpoenaed." Even more damning, a senior MIT network engineer basically seemed to think he was now working for the DOJ:

That cooperation with law enforcement also extended to a senior MIT network engineer who monitored traffic to and from Swartz’s laptop and appeared to be looking to Pickett for instructions. On Jan. 5, having collected 70 gigabytes of network traffic, he e-mailed the agent, “I was just wondering what the next step is.”

The documents also demonstrate that MIT employees "prodded JSTOR to get answers for prosecutors more quickly -- before a subpoena had been issued." That hardly seems "neutral."

The report also notes that MIT -- as admitted by an internal investigation -- "paid little attention to the details of the charge" including the key fact that the CFAA charge depended on this being "unauthorized access." However, since MIT's network was wide open to guests, it was hard to say that it was unauthorized. Yet MIT did little to explain that to prosecutors.

The report also delves into JSTOR's side of things, suggesting that, contrary to its public stance, before Swartz was revealed, it too was pretty angry (often at MIT) and considered calling in law enforcement repeatedly. However, in the end it appears that cooler heads prevailed there, as the organization decided not to pursue those actions. If only the same had happened at MIT.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, doj, mit, prosecution, stephen heymann
Companies: jstor, mit

DailyDirt: Can Computers Grade Written Essays?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Technology aimed at education could really benefit an incredible number of students by making classes and learning (potentially) a more pleasant and efficient experience. Computers can't replace a really good human teacher, but they can make it easier for good human teachers to reach a vast audience of students. Massively open online courses (MOOCs) promise to change how education works, but there are some technological tools that might be missing. It's pretty straightforward to test students on math problems in an automated way, but grading essays is a much more daunting problem. There have been some calls for automated grading software from various organizations (like the Hewlett Foundation). But at the same time, the National Council of Teachers of English argues that computers simply can't grade essays. Here are just a few more links on this debate over the use of algorithms over English professors (or grad students).

• EdX, the non-profit started by Harvard and MIT, is releasing some software to automagically grade human-written essays. Some see this software as just another tool for educators to use for more immediate feedback to students, while others are worried that these algorithms will be used incorrectly and lead to disastrous educational policies and outcomes. [url]
• There are studies that show algorithms are statistically comparable to humans when it comes to ranking essays on a 5 point scale. There are things machines can do better and things humans do better -- just make sure you know the differences and automated essay grading can be done productively in the right context. [url]
• Automated essay readers can grade 16,000 essays in 20 seconds. The Educational Testing Service is testing out automation, so students may soon be facing algorithmic grading for their college entrance exams. [url]
• Grading a few sentences can be harder than it might look. Professional (human) teachers are obviously better at interpreting the insights and ideas behind the words a student writes, but computers scale much better and never tire of horrible spelling mistakes or misplaced modifiers.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: ai, algorithms, artificial intelligence, automation, education, edx, essays, ets, exams, grading, mooc, nlp, tests
Companies: harvard, hewlett foundation, kaggle, mit

US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous

from the counter-productive dept

We recently wrote about how Aaron Swartz's legal team was arguing with MIT and the DOJ about publicly releasing some of the documents in the case against him. MIT and the DOJ want to keep the names of key people at MIT and JSTOR secret, while Swartz's family says the info should be public. In response, among other things, the US Attorneys' Office has said that, since Swartz's death, they've been bullied and hacked. From the filing:

In my capacity as First Assistant United States Attorney, I have been shown various harassing and potentially threatening email messages directed at United States Attorney Ortiz and the United States Attorney’s Office following Mr. Swartz’s suicide.

Attached at Tab E are copies of the following articles:

a. Swartz case protest at Boston US Attorney’s Home, The Boston Globe, March 12, 2013; and
b. Swartz protesters go to prosecutor’s home, The Boston Globe, March 17, 2013.

In my capacity as First Assistant, I have been shown various harassing and threatening messages directed at AUSA Heymann. One such email I have seen states, among other things:

ROFLMAO just saw you were totally dox’d over the weekend by Anonymous. How does it feel to become an enemy of the state? FYI, you might want to move out of the country and change your name . . .

That same email copies personal information of AUSA Heymann, including his home address and personal telephone number, among other things. AUSA Heymann has also reported to me that his personal information (including his home address, personal telephone number, and the names of family member and friends) were posted online, and that his Facebook page was hacked.

Attached at Tab F is a redacted copy of a postcard that AUSA Heymann has informed me he received at his home.

Attached at Tab G is a copy of a postcard that Professor Philip Heymann has informed me he received.

This is the first postcard they're talking about: The picture in the center is of Philip Heymann, father of Steven Heymann. Steve Heymann led the prosecution of Swartz. His father, Philip is a former deputy attorney general and a professor at Harvard.

Once again, as we've stated numerous times in the past, these kinds of activities, while they may feel like a way to make a statement against those who have done wrong, are incredibly counterproductive and stupid. Rather than making any sort of realistic or helpful point, they just give more ammo to the DOJ to block a full, fair and thorough exploration into what went wrong. Making them into victims is a really pointless move that helps the DOJ continue to cover up the details of what happened by giving them cover.

I recognize that there's tremendous anger towards the US Attorneys' office over this case, and much of that anger is likely justified. But channeling that anger into childish threats doesn't help anyone, least of all Swartz's memory and family. Yes, the prosecution of Swartz was unfair, and I would support a legitimate investigation into what happened and ways to keep the DOJ from such overzealous prosecution in the future (though, I agree with others that this sort of thing is endemic to the DOJ, and wasn't unique to Swartz's situation). But these actions turn the DOJ into victims and give them an excuse to hide behind. These kinds of attacks may make some kids feel better, but they don't help at all.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, anonymous, bullying, carmen ortiz, hacking, steven heymann, us attorneys
Companies: jstor, mit

MIT Should Make All Its Research Open Access In Honor Of Aaron Swartz

from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept

We've discussed a few different efforts to continuing the work that Aaron Swartz started -- and Farhad Manjoo over at Slate has a good suggestion specifically for MIT: it should make its own academic research open for all, while also working with other top universities to do the same. Of course, MIT is in the middle of a self-investigation into its role in the Aaron Swartz prosecution, as many people familiar with the case have said that it helped prosecutors, and drove the case forward, rather than recognizing that Swartz's actions were not criminal and, at the very least, fit with MIT's overall culture (even though Swartz was not a student there).

If MIT truly wants to atone for joining the federal case against Swartz, it should do something much grander: It should pledge to spend its money, prestige, and moral authority to launch a multiuniversity campaign to free every scholarly article from behind pay-wall archives like JSTOR. In other words, MIT should pledge to finish the project Swartz started.

Making academic articles available to everyone is one of the most direct ways for MIT to fulfill its public-spirited mission to expand the world’s access to knowledge.

This is not a crazy idea at all -- especially for MIT. While lots of colleges and universities are now putting full courses online, MIT was really the first big university to do exactly that, announcing plans to put all of its courseware online for free way back in 2001. Is it really such a stretch to seek to do the same thing for research as well? Manjoo even has some good suggestions for how it could go about doing this logistically, pulling ideas from a few others, mainly Michael Eisen::

MIT could stop the whole business with a few bold steps. First, it should declare that, within three years’ time, its libraries will cease subscribing to all academic journals and archives that do not make their articles available online to everyone. Second, MIT should require all of its faculty, grad students, and other affiliated researchers to submit their work only to open-access journals. Third, MIT should instruct its deans and other officials to no longer look favorably upon the mere fact of publication in a “prestigious” journal when making hiring and tenure decisions. Instead, promotions should be based on the quality of a person’s work, wherever it’s been published. (This sounds obvious, but most people in academia will tell you that where you publish is just as important as what you publish.)

Finally and perhaps most importantly, MIT should encourage other universities to participate in this effort. Specifically, it should establish a fund that pays for the true costs of publishing academic journals. Call it the Aaron Swartz Memorial Open-Access Fund. Instead of paying exorbitant subscription fees to for-profit journals, universities would instead contribute to the fund. (The amount would be a function of a school’s size and research budget.) Journals would draw from the fund according to how often their work is accessed. It’s not unlike the compulsory license system that pays musicians when their work is covered or played on the radio, except instead of allowing for more poppy renditions of Elvis tunes, this fund would let anyone in the world access any academic article at any time.

This move seems almost too reasonable for it to actually happen. It matches with MIT's efforts in other areas. It would drive forward one of Aaron's key efforts, and it would act as a serious mea culpa for any role that the university did play in his prosecution.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, education, open access, research
Companies: mit