I doubt that anyone in MIT's library system would have the authority to determine the university's actions in a legal case. These kinds of decisions are probably made at the highest levels: by the president, the board of trustees, and their lawyers.
> These kinds of decisions are probably made at the highest levels: by the president, the board of trustees
Not a place like MIT. The vast majority of their time is spent in money-land. Usually, they are on the fundraising side, lots of grip and grin. Some policy. Not minutiae, and some kid wiring up a closet is under minutiae.
> their lawyers.
Never seen a situation there where the lawyers did anything unless being told. So that is my question: Who told them?
I wouldn't consider a high-profile federal legal case that could (and probably did) reflect very badly on the university to be "minutiae".
The university's general counsel and other lawyers are paid to give legal advice to the university. Why would it be so strange for MIT's president to have taken their advice?
Look, you might be right. Perhaps someone put this on Pres Hockfield's desk along with everything else and she said "We need to make an example of this kid, or the university donations will suffer." or "the university will look weak" or even "the university will look bad to the JSTOR community"
But when put next to: "Who are we going to squeeze for $100M dollars to get the latest bio building", or "How do we get more people interested in STEM at a young age?" usually that stuff is under the category of "What do I have to do to get this off my desk and never see it again?"
BTW: I agree with you that if the library gnomes (or their superiors) were the ones holding the grudge, they would not have the power to do anything, as I mentioned above.
Was told by MIT's postmaster that half of MIT's Internet budget went to lawyers, for all the times that someone would see something an MIT student posted on the Internet and shout "I'm gonna sue!" Bonzai Kitten kept them more than a little busy for a while.
