Yes, but in at least one of those cases (both cases?) the piece was recommended to him by a higher-up in the SIAI. So associating them with the SIAI in the weak sense that they reflect views connected to the Institute is not unreasonable. If that was the intended meaning, it is just very poor phrasing.
ETA: And regardless of those issues, that’s a reflection of problems with the author, not necessarily a claim that defends the SIAI from the particular criticism in question.
Yes, but in at least one of those cases (both cases?) the piece was recommended to him by a higher-up in the SIAI. So associating them with the SIAI in the weak sense that they reflect views connected to the Institute is not unreasonable. If that was the intended meaning, it is just very poor phrasing.
ETA: And regardless of those issues, that’s a reflection of problems with the author, not necessarily a claim that defends the SIAI from the particular criticism in question.