We both watched the same video. From my perspectice I see a subtext of the administration having its own (dysfunctional) process and getting a suboptimal outcome that's coming through very clearly. I mean, he admits the department still doesn't know what to do. He doesn't say that the bureaucracy went its own way and did something incoherent, because he doesn't need to. Ask any grumpy old professor to watch that video and say whether or not he's griping about his administration, and they won't even need to watch the video, it's just assumed. It's not important that you agree with me here, I'm just sharing my perspective. You can also watch the video and see that he's just repeating the departmental story, which is the first-order meaning of what he's saying, and it's not wrong.
They taught that class from 1980 to 1997. Nobody can say it didn't have a long and unexpectedly successful run. It's understandable if they were legitimately sick of teaching the same material.
Your reading too much into it. Literally they taught the SAME course for 10 years after he left? That action doesn't even MESH with your logic. MIT wand the admin WANTED to continue SICP. It's Sussman who wanted to stop.
No, they taught it from 1980-97 with the original instructors, then for ten years the department head taught the introductory course (from unspecified materials, possibly different), then they went to Python with another set of new teachers. Hard to know from the outside what the admin wanted.
They taught that class from 1980 to 1997. Nobody can say it didn't have a long and unexpectedly successful run. It's understandable if they were legitimately sick of teaching the same material.
Agreed on your other points.