[29] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
re: Living Wage blah
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy_B,MajMoola,MechWarrior,etc._)
Thu Apr 19 12:15:30 2001
Message-Id: <200104191606.MAA02062@MECHWARRIOR.MIT.EDU>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:06:17 EDT
From: "Jimmy_B,MajMoola,MechWarrior,etc._Chien-ta Wu" <jimmbswu@MIT.EDU>
Resent-From: jhawk@MIT.EDU
Resent-To: mit-talk-mtg@charon.MIT.EDU
Damn you all! I'm supposed to be working on a pset due at 1pm
I said,
>While it would be nice to see an MIT where students would actually get
>galvanized for things, it would require sacrificing many things we hold dear
>about MIT: its diversity of interests, its dedication to academic excellence,
>its Nerd Pride(tm), just to name a few. Then, we'd simply be another nameless
>university.
Zhe said,
>I disagree. I believe that if people actually were concerned about
>others they would make time. The time that MIT students spend drinking,
>partying on weekends, shooting the breeze during business meetings,
>and complaining about their work can be better used to
>fight for justice and against other social ills.
>
>I firmly believe that MIT students are highly respected and have power.
Wally said,
>Presumably you're going to support this hollow rhetorical *bollocks* with
>some rationale?
I will address Zhe's "MIT respect" first, then prove why MIT would be a different
place with lots of activists.
It would be nice if MIT students are truly highly respected and that our words
can make a difference in people's opinions. But consider the case of, say,
Global Warming. Many MIT professors have come out for the Kyoto Treaty and
other Global Warming causes. Yet it is still quite a political fight to get
anything Global-Warming related to pass. And up until a few years ago, many
Americans don't believe Global Warming was happening.
Why's that? It's because the American society is anti-intellectual. Look at
the president we just elected. Just because you scored well on the SAT and went
to MIT doesn't mean that people will listen to what you say. They do,
sometimes, but not often enough. Another case in point is the National Missile
Defense. Many professors here and at other institutions have signed a petition
against NMD, but the US public still seem pretty deadset on making it happen.
The key lesson is, yes, we will make some difference if we all get together and
speak with one voice, but the effect will be little, and we'll never speak with
one voice.
The point of why an activist MIT will not be the same place:
1. Diversity of interests: An activist MIT would have one hallmark, frequent
protests (at least once a month or so.) In order for effective protest to
happen, they'd have to be big. [if those protests are not big, then they're not
effective, and soon, people would lose interest because it's an uphill battle,
and thus we're back to square one: a non-activist MIT.] If these protests are
big ( > 200), then that means a large portion of MIT share the same opinion ( >
1000). This being America, it is likely a counterprotest will ensue, and that
means about 600 students would have an opposite opinion on this issue. On this
single issue, we'd have 1600+ students having a solid opinion. If we add up the
several other topics of the day (GM-food, FTAA, etc), that would mean that the
vast majority of the MIT students are devoted to one or more of these causes
(6,000+) Since they are solidly devoted to these causes, and since they are
supposed to carry a full academic load on the side as well, the other activities
on campus will shrivel. [One protest a month would inspire peripheral
activities such as lectures and article-writing, postering, etc. Given this, it
is difficult to see any other student activity being able to attract members.
Keep in mind of the number of tools/ghosts on campus.] Therefore, the student
interests on campus would essentially be limited to: social activism, student
gov't, religious/ethnic groups (maybe), publishing, and *maybe* academic groups.
Other universities can sustain a large social activist population because they
are huge (10,000+). They can afford to have 6,000+ students devoted to social
activism and still provide a vibrant community of student activities.
2. Dedication to academic excellence: As other people have pointed out, our time
is limited. Academic work should take up about 50 hours a week, frequently
more. Social activism requires daily reading of newspaper and other materials
to keep up to date, which takes up 1-2 hours a day. Adequate sleep takes up 7
hours a day. Food/food preparation takes up another 2-3 hours a day. Relaxing
to avoid burnout takes up another 3-4 hours. And then there is time to go
protesting/organizing or (!Gasp!) go on patrols, which is another 1 or 2 hours.
This doesn't even count time to work money. If you add up the hours, it is
apparent something has to give. Some events can be stacked, but that's still
more hours than there are in a day. The overall academic quality at MIT *will*
go down if students become more activist.
3. Losing Nerd Pride (tm): Social activism requires a lot of mingling with
people from other colleges/universities. There is also quite a bit of public
speaking going on. Given that, MIT students will become more adapt at human
relations. Now, that might not be a bad thing to some people, but I believe
Nerd Pride (tm) is what makes MIT fun and unique, and losing Nerd Pride (tm)
would damage MIT's character.
So that was that,
B, crackpot and defender of the status quo
(and it took me about 50 minutes to compose/write this email)
-----------
http://www.mit.edu/~jimmbswu "Who Dares, Wins."
--UK SAS
"It is good that war is so terrible,
else we should grow too fond of it."
--R. E. Lee
