[Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh - that was sort of in response to the f marilee attitude that has been coming out from some of the older classes. Many are bringing up the paper and I guess feel vindicated because they disliked her for it.



[/ QUOTE ]

I was asking more about what the paper was about. Can you explain it, and why it's controversial etc?

[ QUOTE ]

And the Clinton example is horrible. He lied under oath when specifically questioned about it. She was never asked about it and so any coming forward on her part would have been strictly voluntary and as the years went by became essentially impossible to do. She screwed up, it's true, but it was a mistake from almost 30 years ago that really has no relevance to whether she is capable/qualified for her job (except for the obvious questioning of integrity, but again, 30 years ago and we all see that once done so hard to undo).


[/ QUOTE ]

Look, lying on a resume is still lying. You're misreprenting yourself, and it's pretty much always grounds for dismissal from any job. I'm sure at some point she had to sign some sort of statement that everything she has provided for evaluation is true etc. Just because she wasnt specifically asked "what about line 43 on your resume" doesn't mean she's not lying by submitting it when it's wrong and she knows it. It's fraud pure and simple, it's too bad that it had to be something so minor. However, realize that politically sensative positions like hers are almost always going to be subject to strict scruitiny.

Sucks that she couldn't just come out with it and say it herself before this all came out and maybe save her job, or maybe she could have I don't know. Then again, considering the nature of her job honesty/integrity is ESSENTIAL. Otherwise other applicants are just gonna be like "well, the director lied about a degree, I'm just gonna lie and say I was the president of this club, or I got this award etc". Sends a bad message, I don't blame MIT.