If you belonged to the Westboro Baptist Church or some other group it'd be legit to claim you're responsible for their actions to a certain degree.
Why do MIT students get a special exemption from the chain of responsibility that applies to everyone else?
If you are a member of a collectivist institution it's also your responsibility to take what action you can to shape its moral aspect. And to be silent is to abet.
I fear you're cutting off the nose to spite the face.
And these frequent DDoS attacks are partly to blame for Aaron's death, it's the reason why prosecutors are so hardcore about "hacking" or anything vaguely similar to it.
I am not associated with MIT. However I consider Abelson's forthcoming report as being more representative of the organization, than whatever random administrator was dealing with the prosecutor. Abelson was undoubtably there before the administrator in question, will be there after, and is far more widely known than the currently faceless administrator.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson then get back to me on whether that is a reputation that a student should be proud of or rejecting.
Imagine you're a student, halfway through your 4 year program at MIT... You don't know Aaron, or anything about his situation. Yes, you get an exemption from blame, because it has nothing to do with you and it's not your business. You cannot just exit and go elsewhere without seriously hurting yourself.
When you're enrolled at a University, you are not part of a collectivist institution, you are a customer at a business. If you choose to go elsewhere, that's on you, but who is anyone else to tell you what you should do? You're starting to sound like the WBC...
Likewise, customers have social responsibility in their purchasing decisions, and transferring credits to another school isn't all that huge of a deal, either, so I'm kind of finding your take a little overblown. Obviously every student at MIT volunteered to come there, too.