Goodbye, MIT
&gt; MIT’s leadership apparently took umbrage at his statement of these simple facts: that George Floyd “had not lived a virtuous life” (based on his multiple criminal convictions)<p>Surely the authors know that &quot;statement of facts&quot; has the ability to completely alter the interpretation of the rest of the content. Key questions are: why is this fact relevant in this context, what is the author conveying by bringing this in? Etc. To take a radical example, if one reads an article about a recent mass shooting followed by &quot;statements of fact&quot; about the declining population of whites in America, then one would reasonably conclude that the author is a white supremacist who implicitly supports the shooter. Non-white supremacists don&#x27;t talk about the great replacement.<p>So the question is why would someone bring up the criminal record of an unarmed Black man who was extrajudicially killed by an officer of the state? What does this fact do for the reader? It&#x27;s not hard to imagine what many would conclude. Editorial narrative is something I learned about in middle school, why are the authors feigning ignorance about its existence?