It would have been clear to anyone following the case that the government was treating Swartz unfairly. Why didn't MIT issue a public statement saying that they did not support the government charges against Swartz?
Comments about your question:
According to the Tech, Swartz faced up to 35 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines if he were convicted of the charges against him: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. This was totally absurd given what Swartz actually did. After JSTOR said that it would not press charges, why didn't MIT also issue a statement that it would not press charges? Also, would it have violated any MIT rules for MIT administration to comment on what we believed to be the merits of the case? If not, why didn't we issue comments?