"At least Richard Stallman is not accused of raping anyone. But is that our highest standard? The standard that this prestigious institution holds itself to? If this is what MIT wants to defend; if this is what MIT wants to stand for, then, yes, burn it to the ground."
Let me get this straight; because Stallman did *not* rape anyone, we must utterly destroy the university that employs him. Yes?
What Stallman said:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
How it was interpreted:
> he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing".
The whole sorry mess seems to come down to a university student who couldn't understand that "presented herself to him as" means '*pretended* to be willing', not '*was* willing'.
Then, having realized her mistake, instead of admitting it and apologized, she doubled down. Claiming that it didn't matter that her key claim was false, because of other things she thinks are bad about Stallman, like:
> Richard Stallman has problematic opinions.
Because there are correct opinions about everything, and we all know what they are, and anyone who deviates from them deserves to be purged?
Zionists think supporters of Palestinian human rights have "problematic opinions". Authors have literary awards stripped for publicly supporting the #BDS movement.
"What is the meaning of a literary award that undermines the right to advocate for human rights, the principles of freedom of conscience and expression, and the freedom to criticise? Without these, art and culture become meaningless luxuries."