Perhaps I'm missing something, but I do not see an apology behind that link. A detail of Yale's reasoning, but not an apology.
> However, I disagree that Yale violated its policies on free expression in this situation.
I'm not sure what "[Yale's] policies on free expression" are, but my understanding here is that Yale blocked the IP address of a site because it was using some data that Yale published, and modifying it in a way Yale disagreed with. There might be an argument to be had under copyright, but I don't think it's important at the moment. Yale states this:
> the developers violated Yale’s appropriate use policy by taking and modifying data without permission, but, more importantly, they encouraged students to select courses on the basis of incomplete information.
Abusing the fact that you have power over the students' access of information to prevent access to information you disagree with is what people have a problem with; this is especially true when you label something like this "malicious activity". These concerns are not addressed by the dean's letter.
I wonder if they act the same way about contentious academic papers. Prof A writes a paper, Prof B writes a rebuttal quoting Prof A's paper, Prof A cries copyright and shuts down Prof B?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I do not see an apology behind that link. A detail of Yale's reasoning, but not an apology.
> However, I disagree that Yale violated its policies on free expression in this situation.
I'm not sure what "[Yale's] policies on free expression" are, but my understanding here is that Yale blocked the IP address of a site because it was using some data that Yale published, and modifying it in a way Yale disagreed with. There might be an argument to be had under copyright, but I don't think it's important at the moment. Yale states this:
> the developers violated Yale’s appropriate use policy by taking and modifying data without permission, but, more importantly, they encouraged students to select courses on the basis of incomplete information.
Abusing the fact that you have power over the students' access of information to prevent access to information you disagree with is what people have a problem with; this is especially true when you label something like this "malicious activity". These concerns are not addressed by the dean's letter.