<p>"I don't like that thinker vs feeler split. (does that make me one or the other?)"</p>
<p>Yes - generally. Your statement that "principles mean nothing if they don't exist to uphold human values" definitely puts you in the "feeler" category!</p>
<p>But, doesn't feeling without thinking being empty feel-goodness put me in the opposite?</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure how values is a non-thinking entity.</p>
<p>
While I agree that it is unfortunate that M.J.'s actions are calling the whole admissions process into question, I really disagree with those who continue to call her actions a "mistake." </p>
<p>It may have been a mistake when she first applied for the administrative position 28 years ago, but it became a deliberate lie -- outright fraud -- when she failed to correct that "mistake" over the course of many, many years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you here :)</p>
<p>I think it is possible to maintain one's integrity, condemn the actions of another, while still feeling compassion for the person. I have said on numerous occassions that I believe it was the right thing for Marilee to step down, and that it was done so in a public manner. I believe her actions were wrong and she was punished for doing so. </p>
<p>This does not mean I can't feel some degree of compassion or support for the person who signed my admissions letter and has helped create a happier and more diverse student body.</p>
<p>From the newspaper on Friday</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT chancellor Phil Clay said in a telephone interview that another MIT dean had received a phone call questioning Jones' credentials, prompting an inquiry that took several days. It found that Jones had claimed at various times to have degrees from Union College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the Albany Medical College, but in fact had no degrees from any of those institutions. Clay said MIT was unaware that Jones had any undergraduate or graduate degree. </p>
<p>Jason Gorss, a spokesman for RPI, said Jones attended that university as a part-time, non-matriculating student from September 1974 until June 1975 but did not receive a degree. Officials at the two other schools said she had never been a student there. </p>
<p>"It represents a very long deception when there were opportunities to correct the record," Clay said. "This is not a mistake or an oversight."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At least the MIT chancellor seems to be one of the few who have gone on the record as saying this was no mistake. In light of this, I especially can't understand its characterization as a "youthful mistake" on the MIT admissions office blog as well as elsewhere. Not only that - she was not a kid when she did this - I believe she was in her late 20s.</p>
<p>Marilee doesn't need your compassion...she needs a psychiatrist. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that your compassion isn't helping her one bit--it's actually harming her. At this juncture, she doesn't deserve to "feel better" through your support and compassion. She needs to let what she did sink in; which, in all probability, it never will. It's doubtful a person like her can even feel genuine remorse. </p>
<p>As for forgiveness, that is only to be given by people whom she directly hurt through her actions, not by the Oprah-millions. Most of the forgiveness and compassion expressed here is self-serving, to say the least.</p>
<p>If she really wants to atone for what she did, she should go out and start working toward her degrees--all three of them--now, and in the fields in which she claimed she had them. Then perhaps she could hold her head up, and deserve your "compassion" and support.</p>
<p>What do you think is the likelihood that that is going to happen?</p>
<p>I didn't recall the blog suggesting it was an accident. I believe the argument was over whether 'misrepresenting' her credentials was an accurate term. For that I agree that 'fabricating' would be a better choice of words.</p>
<p>Either way... I think it is an unfortunate event for all those involved. Hopefully this will be a quick and smooth transition and we can move on.</p>
<p>
Sure, Mollie, but the first step in seeking redemption from sin is to admit the sin and repent. To her credit, Ms. Jones has admitted to the first, rather smaller, "sin" of lying about her qualifications 28 years ago. But she (and MIT and the Facebook support group) have conveniently ignored the huge "sin" of 28 years of incredible hypocrisy as she rejected and rescinded applicants for padding their qualifications too.
I don't think it's a necessity for someone to repent for me to forgive him or her. I think she should say she's sorry for her own sake, but I'm forgiving her anyway.</p>
<p>I hear you -- this was not a one-time lie, it was something that compounded over many years. It was wrong. I still respect the things she accomplished as dean of admissions, and I still like her as a person.</p>
<p>I'll add another one-liner from my Methodist upbringing: Do justice, love mercy?</p>
<p><quote>While I agree that it is unfortunate that M.J.'s actions are calling the whole admissions process into question, I really disagree with those who continue to call her actions a "mistake."</quote></p>
<p>Then we can agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I can think of several reasons why one might not correct a youthful mistake. Shame? The devastating consequences of disclosure on loved ones and respected colleagues? Mental illness?</p>
<p>Some have questioned why Marilee applied for the position of Admissions Dean when she knew her credentials were false. It's entirely possible she was strongly encouraged to apply by those who respected her work, but she didn't know how to decline the opportunity without divulging her secret. Who really knows? Everything that's been posted on these boards is pure speculation.</p>
<p>Many, many of Marilee's colleagues respected her work and spoke of her dedication and compassion for others. In my earlier post, I speculated that perhaps she promoted integrity not "in spite of", but "because of" her earlier lies. Is it possible that she wanted others to avoid the guilt and shame she felt as a result of her mistakes?</p>
<p>collegeguy, Not accident, "mistake in her youth." From the MIT admissions office blog:</p>
<p>
[quote]
To make a long story short, Marilee Jones, our Dean of Admissions, misrepresented her credentials on her resume 28 years ago in 1979, when she applied for her first job at MIT. What started as a mistake in her youth was compounded over time
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although reference to the fact that the act compounded over time is accurate I think the language of the chancellor was more appropriate in that it is emphasizing that this was never a "mistake" but a perpetuated deception.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Many, many of Marilee's colleagues respected her work and spoke of her dedication and compassion for others.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>True enough. Marilee was widely admired. But I see no reason why this admiration should continue. When it turns out that all this admiration of her was based on a fraud then it's only natural that the former esteem be replaced by a rather low opinion.</p>
<p>The phrase "mistake in her youth" keeps coming up. I guess some people consider 26 year-olds as "youth". Can anyone here imagine an honest person falsifying degrees to get a job at age 26? How many of you can imagine your own high school or college students making this "mistake?" </p>
<p>I was 26 about the same time as Ms. Jones. It was NOT hard for a woman to get a job at that time, especially in a metropolitan area where there were many entry level jobs. I think age 26 is and was a very attractive age to employers -old enough to have some maturity, yet young enough to have room to grow. And old enough to have a moral compass.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, doesn't feeling without thinking being empty feel-goodness put me in the opposite?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are severe validation and reliability problems with personality tests. A good popular book called Cult</a> of Personality cites much professional literature on the problems with those tests. Of course, if I bring this up in online discussion someone will usually commit the malpractice of type-casting me based on my suggestion that psychological theories ought to be subject to verification. Frederick Crews, who was actually a professor of English but a very astute amateur scholar of psychology, is a good author for critiques on unscientific theories in other subfields of psychology. </p>
<p>/thread diversion</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can think of several reasons why one might not correct a youthful mistake. Shame? The devastating consequences of disclosure on loved ones and respected colleagues? Mental illness?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can add loss of prestigeous position, loss of income, loss of power to that list-
None of which in any way justifies perpetuating the lie which enabled her to land her position in the first place. An honorable person couldn't do it.</p>
<p>
Very astute. And if anyone bothers to read up on pathological narcissism, this can be easily corroborated.</p>
<p>The 'Show Her The Love ' campaign coming from recent MIT grads is all about their young egos--and PC gone mad. Relax kids. Most of us aren't saying you didn't deserve your degree or your admittance. In a word: this isn't about YOU.</p>
<p>I've waited for a couple of years to agree with HH--and here's my chance. Jones needs a couple years of daily therapy--but she also needs and deserves every single slap on the hand. She's had a career of warm fuzzies and it led to her ruin. If you are praising her now--you are doing her a disservice. Let her front up to her lies. She deserves the harsh judgements.</p>
<p>As did Ken Lay. As did Richard Nixon. As did Scooter Libby. As did Stephen Glass.</p>
<p>MIT needs a few bracing self-delivered slaps to the cheeks--which I am sure are being delivered in their Board room. </p>
<p>Show us what you're made of, MIT. Let CSPan televise the next two board meetings!!</p>
<p>Well, why would some get the impression it is about them?</p>
<p>You missed a very aggravating discussion on the MIT board where people openly questioned the qualifications of admitted females. It is no wonder why one would get a little defensive in the face of such criticism.</p>
<p>
Gotta give a thumbs up to this too!</p>
<p>I agree with Cheers. In fact, I'd suggest that her earnings over the years be considered. I have no idea what a Dean of Admissions earns -- but I'd guess the delta over an administrative assistant may be close to $100K per year. Her deception cost MIT millions of dollars in salary paid. Most salaries are related to the level of education. Why else do we send our kids to college, or go ourselves? So she accepted income that she did not deserve. I don't know how that can be fixed now, but this is not a "victimless" lie.</p>
<p>Those of us who applied for the jobs that Marilee got--and didn't fudge our resumes--do not feel this is a "victimless" lie either.</p>