<p>That "one dishonest act" , ihtfp2010, was reaffirmed by her every single day of her 28 year tenure. Her conduct is worthy of contempt, not sympathy. Her national crusade for others to be honest in the process she herself subverted is rank hypocrisy. What a sorry role model.</p>
<p>how can you say marilee was good for MIT, sure she is a good and caring person but for all those 28 years, she has had the final say in who all get to come to MIT. For all we know, literally tens of thousands of people who would have thrived at MIT got turned away. This is not to disparage those who have been admitted over those 28 years as they are great people too. I will relinquish that as a recent MIT reject, there is a bit of bitterness and a what if? factor but I still think that it is more difficult to see Ms. Jones helping MIT over the much more likely alternative, hurting MIT.</p>
<p>Um I believe the statute of limitations has passed....multiple times. I mean the statute of limitations for murder is like 30 years or something....</p>
<p>"Um I believe the statute of Limitations hs passed"</p>
<p>That is so wrong. As GreyBeard and Pattyl's posts above have clearly stated. Marilee Jones has lied each time she cashed a check, each time she answered to a title (Doctor) that she had not earned and did not possess, each time she signed her name with that title and each time a book she wrote was read by someone thinking it was a Doctor (PHd) that was the writer.</p>
<p>When she gave lectures as she is currently scheduled in July to the HS GC's in Northeastern USA, everyone one is that audience was presented a fraud by (after 28 years of practice) a very accomplished Liar and Cheat.</p>
<p>Whatever else she is - do not make her a victim. Her deceit was willfully and of long standing and was current up to the minute that she was found out!</p>
<p>All can be forgiven, but as Greybeard and others have pointed out, this was not a "mistake" made 28 years ago alone. This was a lie that went on and on and on, and she gained materially and otherwise from the benefits associated with the multiple degrees she claimed to have earned. She lied every time she was promoted and every time she went to a conference trumpeting her credentials and every time she published a book:</p>
<p>From "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh:</p>
<p>"'Living in sin'; not just doing wrong...knowing it is wrong, stopping doing it, forgetting. That is not what they mean.</p>
<p>Living in sin, with sin, by sin, for sin, every hour, every day, year in, year out. Waking up with sin in the morning, seeing the curtains drawn on sin, bathing it, dressing it, clipping diamonds to it, feeding it, showing it round, giving it a good time, putting it to sleep at night with a tablet of Dial if it's fretful."</p>
<p>Wouldn't a willingness to tell blatant lies that go to the heart of your qulaification for a job seem to indicate a contempt for conventional standards of being "qulaified", whether it be for a job or for admission to a university? I find this particularly disturbing in terms of the unconventional direction in which Ms. Jones took MIT admisissions.</p>
<p>does anyone else find this hilarious?</p>
<p>honesty is the best policy. can't beat that with a stick.</p>
<p>There is no statute of limitaitons for murder in Massachusetts. The statute of limitations for larceny is six years in that state. She's had the job since 1998, but cashing each paycheck is, arguably, a separate crime, or a "continuing fraud."</p>
<p>MIT is definitely NOT going to press any charges... are you kidding me? They want this whole situation to be in their rear view yesterday -- you think they want their admissions office to become a joke -- fodder for places like CC?</p>
<p>Academic institutions value their reputations above anything else. This is extraordinarily damaging. They will want to acknowledge this unfortunate incident and then move on as quickly as possible. The last thing they need is more publicity and this dragging on in the papers, the courts and the court of public opinion.</p>
<p>MIT doesn't get to decide whether criminal charges are filed. That's up to the district attorney.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT doesn't get to decide whether criminal charges are filed. That's up to the district attorney.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps if this was a state university in question. MIT is a private institution.</p>
<p>I agree with whoever said that this reflects poorly on MIT (I'm assuming she was asked to resign). I mean seriously, credentials are just that, credentials. They are supposed to show that you are capable of doing the work, not to divide the population into the "deserves employment" and "does not deserve employment" (that's what labor unions are for). I think it's pretty ridiculous that after nearly three decades of commendable results she was suddenly declared not worthy to work at MIT. Nothing about HER had changed. Only how people PERCEIVED her. </p>
<p>Imagine if MIT had a "no gays" policy, and someone lied about being gay, and 28 years of solid performance later they got discovered. Should they be fired? Is this situation any different?</p>
<p>^ yes, cuz - umm she significantly impacted every single applicant admitted to MIT in the last 28 years, without the credential required</p>
<p>thats like a law attorney serving at the highest paid law firm in the country w/o even graduating from college</p>
<p>Meadle...she never bothered to do any of that stuff with me, so dunno what you're saying...maybe cuz I was on the reject list from the start?</p>
<p>Laneb, what are you on? She lied for years about herself...she lost her job not because she did her job poorly (though some of us think so) but because she's a liar...and in an academic institution, lying = the sum of all fears...</p>
<p>It also just shows how the admissions office director isn't that hard of a job...no need for advanced education...haha...of course the people who think MIT admissions went down the drain probably feel this is just payback...</p>
<p>laneb2005, to totally disregard ethics: by not punishing her, MIT would be lowering the 'cost' of lying, encouraging more people to do it. And the more people that do it, the worse their new employees are, because they have falsified credentials (assuming these credentials are positively related to productivity). </p>
<p>Your analogy is ridiculous - the crime is very relevant to her position. Generally, someone willing to lie on their resume is more dishonest than someone who doesn't.</p>
<p>Did you read the NYT article? When she originally applied for the job in 1979 she didn't need a college degree. Then, as she was moved to a higher position, she could only do that with a college degree. I'm not justifying lying, and I know nothing about the fairness of MIT admissions (save from what the NYT article said, which spoke positively of her), but I personally disagree with MIT's decision. I feel like this is similar to getting rejected, from, say, MIT, for failing a seventh grade math class (oh alright, for cheating on the final and getting caught).</p>
<p>Please don't attack me ("what are you on?") for my opinions.</p>
<p>Emmanuel, the last thing you say is entirely speculation. It's possible that this was the only lie she ever told in her life, regardless of how likely it might seem. You really can't say that either way.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter that MIT is a private university. They wouldn't be a party to a criminal case in any event. The title of the case would be "The People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Marilee Jones." The district attorney decides whether to bring criminal charges, not the victim. (When the victim is the only witness to a crime, as a practical matter, district attorneys often won't prosecute without the cooperation of the victim. But this was a very public crime, andone of great public interest.)</p>
<p>MIT is the victim as you say. And they will have an enormous amount of influence as to how this gets handled (if it gets handled at all) by the DA. As I said before, MIT will do what it takes to try and get beyond this as quickly as possible and will invoke further reputational harm to the university at large by a protracted investigation / charges, etc... besides, I'm not convinced there is an actual CRIME in question here.</p>