This apology rings hollow to me. A person of Jeremy Howard's statue was able to raise the issue in the media and get it resolved.
I would like to understand what would happen to a person who is not of a Jeremy Howard's statue and does not have such a access to the public discourse?
One thing I found interesting is the only name in the letter is Jeremy's. It's "signed" by the committee. Is that a reputation protection technique? A way to diffuse responsibility? It seems like an imbalance of power to be able to drag someone's name through the mud while being anonymous yourself
> A person of Jeremy Howard's statue was able to raise the issue in the media and get it resolved.
But it's not though. They aren't apologizing for dragging him through the mud, they're apologizing that people got the impression that they had already rendered judgement on these complaints. They're still "under investigation."
I would like to understand what would happen to a person who is not of a Jeremy Howard's statue and does not have such a access to the public discourse?