[1012] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Shulman)
Mon Jan 28 09:32:08 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1199894487==_ma============"
Message-ID: <v04020a07b87b07bc2136@[18.239.5.4]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:26:45 -0500
From: Peter Shulman <skip@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v04020a01b87b05b72a07@[18.38.0.84]>
--============_-1199894487==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Gayle,
Your misquote in The Tech is frustrating -- they are unfortunately
understaffed. But it's not so much the reasons that you and others have
proposed for changing the Lobby 7 space, but that this has become an issue
at all.
What The Tech did not report, and what I have yet to hear, is what's
motivating this change in the Lobby 7 aesthetic. For whom is this change
being made? Who benefits? There are lots of new technologies we _can_ use
but don't have to. There are lots of possible objections to the electronic
projections, but loosing the student feel of Lobby 7 really upsets me the
most.
It looks to me that the only people who benefit are the upper
administrators on the second floor of Building 7 who will now have a view
out the Lobby windows from their offices. Not surprisingly, these are the
same people making the decision.
Furthermore, I've seen the costs of construction on campus sky-rocket in
the past two years. Nearly $120 million for Simmons Hall?? It was
originally slated at $45. How many hundreds of million for the Stata
Complex? This renovation money, however much it is, could be better spent.
There's no student who'd rather see a high-tech lobby than a better
financial aid package, or better campus events, and no potential student
would not come here because of banners in the lobby. (If so, they
_shouldn't_ come here.) And with so many more important projects on the
horizon (improving the Libaray system, decreasing dorm crowding, endowning
student events), soliciting donors for this kind of project is just
irresponsible. The first mission of MIT is educational -- in both the
academic and social sense -- and loosing sight of that goal has repeatedly
upset and hurt students over the past several years.
For years, drop posters have provided and outlet for student creativity.
No doubt, the proposed electronic projectors would require their own
creativity. But sitting around a computer screen versus painting a long
sheet of unrolled paper are two very different experiences. The latter
brings student groups together in a central social space -- the other could
be done in anyone's isolated dorm room. I have no doubt that MIT engineers
will be able to develop a projection system that works technically. But is
it worth the cost? Drop posters cost next to nothing, support one of the
few active service organizations on campus, and unlike the electronic
system, are not BEGGING to be hacked -- repeatedly.
When I first visited MIT, the summer before my senior year of high school,
my family and I took a tour first of this campus, and then of our
distinguished colleague up the river. Do you know what stood out? The
"Smoots" painted on the Harvard bridge. The clear, clunky presense of
students. On the second tour up-river, a major stop was a statue of their
founder (who, if I recall, is really a statue of the son of the President
at the time the statue was commissioned, because John Harvard's visage had
been lost). It was clean. It was BORING.
If you and the rest of the administration have already made up its mind and
have used the public fora merely as a means for announcing it while paying
lip-service to predicted student objections, than I've seriously misjudged
(once again) the character of MIT. If instead, you and others are honestly
seeking input, please remember the "Administration's" constituency and
bring the drop posters back.
--**Peter
>Peter,
>
>My comment about the respectivefulness of drop posters in Lobby 7 was
>taken out of context and misreported by The Tech. I did say "that there
>have been som posters that have not been respectiveful of the space" in a
>longer comment at the meeting. Those with whom I've worked on this
>project are not trying to control "every form of student expression" but
>simply looking at the feasibility of utilizing available and emerging
>technology to display information in this space and other locations on
>campus.
>
>Gayle Gallagher
>
>At 7:08 PM -0500 1/27/2002, Peter Shulman wrote:
>>Dear Tech,
>>
>>I was dismayed by "Drop Posters May Be Replaced" of January 23, in which
>>you report the debate over the future appearance of Lobby 7 and its
>>housing of drop posters -- or not.
>>
>>Both Professor Reiter and Director Gallagher miss the point. In his
>>reference to Lobby 7 as "the front door to MIT," Reiter calls for a lobby
>>that "should be very streamlined and contemporary." Gallagher calls drop
>>posters "not respectful of the space, quite frankly." The article then
>>describes some kind of (surely expensive and nonexistent) electronic
>>projection system to replace drop posters.
>>
>>Are they serious? Not respectful to whom? Must the Administration
>>control every form of student expression on campus? Whose Institute is
>>this, anyway?
>>
>>Hey students -- wake up -- these quotes aren't from one interest group
>>among equals -- these are the people making the decisions.
>>
>>MIT is not a large, multinational organization, and its main lobby should
>>reflect what makes it unique (its students) and not a forced sterility
>>and impotence more appropriate for the corporate world.
>>
>>And the cost? Perhaps the expected donations and Institute funds (ten of
>>thousands of dollars? more?) expected for this myopic plan might instead
>>be invested in the student life and learning initiatives so desperately
>>clamoring for support -- student activities, a dining system that works,
>>permanent solutions to dorm overcrowding, better financial aid packages
>>-- than in this superficial and self-indulgent architectural plan.
>>
>>Before anything else, the Institute is a place of learning -- not simply
>>for its more than 10,000 students and nearly 1,000 faculty, but for the
>>myriad of staff, administrators, and visitors who lay claim to our shared
>>intellectual treasure. But more than anything else, what distinguishes
>>our campus from its corporate colleagues is the vibrancy of student life
>>that pulses through its corridors and courtyards. Though a seemingly
>>minor manifestation of that life, drop posters actually form one of the
>>few visible reminders that we live and work, discover and innovate,
>>create and experience -- in a place of learning. Until their "temporary"
>>suspension for the lobby's renovation last year, drop posters captured
>>the spirit of student activities, alerted regulars and visitors to the
>>coming week's events, provided income for the service organization that
>>provided the raw materials at a nominal fee, and more than anything else
>>-- humanized the stark neoclassical skeleton of the Institute.
>>
>>As Building 7 memorializes the Institute's illustrious founder, William
>>Barton Rogers, perhaps we could turn to him for guidance. In a letter to
>>his brother Henry written during the hectic but electrifying first year
>>that MIT opened its doors in Boston in 1865, Rogers noted his frustration
>>for having to handle (while simultaneously teaching the first class of
>>MIT students and administering the fledgling university) the construction
>>of an additional story to what was then MIT's sole building: "These
>>architects" wrote Rogers, "are great plagues when the persist in
>>disregarding utility for the sake of their notions of outside
>>appearances...."
>>
>>It's time to remember Rogers' vision for a place of learning. I think
>>it's time students start putting up drop posters again. It's not only
>>their university, you know -- it's their home, too.
>>************
>>
>>Peter A Shulman, MIT '01
>>Doctoral Candidate in History and Social
>> Study of Science and Technology
>>
>>skip@mit.edu
>>24 Magazine St. Apt. #4
>>Cambridge, MA 02139
>>
>>************
>
>
>
>************************************************
>Gayle M. Gallagher
>Director
>Conference Services, Events and Information Center
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Room 7-121, Cambridge, MA 02139
>Voice: 617-253-1475; FAX: 617-253-7002
>************************************************
************
Peter A Shulman, MIT '01
Doctoral Candidate in History and Social
Study of Science and Technology
skip@mit.edu
24 Magazine St. Apt. #4
Cambridge, MA 02139
************
--============_-1199894487==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Gayle,
Your misquote in The Tech is frustrating -- they are unfortunately
understaffed. But it's not so much the reasons that you and others
have proposed for changing the Lobby 7 space, but that this has become
an issue at all.
What The Tech did not report, and what I have yet to hear, is what's
motivating this change in the Lobby 7 aesthetic. For whom is this
change being made? Who benefits? There are lots of new technologies
we _can_ use but don't have to. There are lots of possible objections
to the electronic projections, but loosing the student feel of Lobby 7
really upsets me the most.
It looks to me that the only people who benefit are the upper
administrators on the second floor of Building 7 who will now have a
view out the Lobby windows from their offices. Not surprisingly, these
are the same people making the decision.
Furthermore, I've seen the costs of construction on campus sky-rocket
in the past two years. Nearly $120 million for Simmons Hall?? It was
originally slated at $45. How many hundreds of million for the Stata
Complex? This renovation money, however much it is, could be better
spent. There's no student who'd rather see a high-tech lobby than a
better financial aid package, or better campus events, and no potential
student would not come here because of banners in the lobby. (If so,
they _shouldn't_ come here.) And with so many more important projects
on the horizon (improving the Libaray system, decreasing dorm crowding,
endowning student events), soliciting donors for this kind of project
is just irresponsible. The first mission of MIT is educational -- in
both the academic and social sense -- and loosing sight of that goal
has repeatedly upset and hurt students over the past several years.
For years, drop posters have provided and outlet for student
creativity. No doubt, the proposed electronic projectors would require
their own creativity. But sitting around a computer screen versus
painting a long sheet of unrolled paper are two very different
experiences. The latter brings student groups together in a central
social space -- the other could be done in anyone's isolated dorm room.
I have no doubt that MIT engineers will be able to develop a
projection system that works technically. But is it worth the cost?
Drop posters cost next to nothing, support one of the few active
service organizations on campus, and unlike the electronic system, are
not BEGGING to be hacked -- repeatedly.
When I first visited MIT, the summer before my senior year of high
school, my family and I took a tour first of this campus, and then of
our distinguished colleague up the river. Do you know what stood out?
The "Smoots" painted on the Harvard bridge. The clear, clunky presense
of students. On the second tour up-river, a major stop was a statue of
their founder (who, if I recall, is really a statue of the son of the
President at the time the statue was commissioned, because John
Harvard's visage had been lost). It was clean. It was BORING.
If you and the rest of the administration have already made up its mind
and have used the public fora merely as a means for announcing it while
paying lip-service to predicted student objections, than I've seriously
misjudged (once again) the character of MIT. If instead, you and
others are honestly seeking input, please remember the
"Administration's" constituency and bring the drop posters back.
--**Peter
<excerpt>Peter,
My comment about the respectivefulness of drop posters in Lobby 7 was
taken out of context and misreported by The Tech. I did say "that
there have been som posters that have not been respectiveful of the
space" in a longer comment at the meeting. Those with whom I've
worked on this project are not trying to control "every form of student
expression" but simply looking at the feasibility of utilizing
available and emerging technology to display information in this space
and other locations on campus.
Gayle Gallagher
At 7:08 PM -0500 1/27/2002, Peter Shulman wrote:
<excerpt>Dear Tech,
I was dismayed by "Drop Posters May Be Replaced" of January 23, in
which you report the debate over the future appearance of Lobby 7 and
its housing of drop posters -- or not.
Both Professor Reiter and Director Gallagher miss the point. In his
reference to Lobby 7 as "the front door to MIT," Reiter calls for a
lobby that "should be very streamlined and contemporary." Gallagher
calls drop posters "not respectful of the space, quite frankly." The
article then describes some kind of (surely expensive and nonexistent)
electronic projection system to replace drop posters.
Are they serious? Not respectful to whom? Must the Administration
control <italic>every</italic> form of student expression on campus?
Whose Institute is this, anyway?
Hey students -- wake up -- these quotes aren't from one interest group
among equals -- these are the people making the decisions.
MIT is not a large, multinational organization, and its main lobby
should reflect what makes it unique (its students) and not a forced
sterility and impotence more appropriate for the corporate world.
And the cost? Perhaps the expected donations and Institute funds (ten
of thousands of dollars? more?) expected for this myopic plan might
instead be invested in the student life and learning initiatives so
desperately clamoring for support -- student activities, a dining
system that works, permanent solutions to dorm overcrowding, better
financial aid packages -- than in this superficial and self-indulgent
architectural plan.
Before anything else, the Institute is a place of learning -- not
simply for its more than 10,000 students and nearly 1,000 faculty, but
for the myriad of staff, administrators, and visitors who lay claim to
our shared intellectual treasure. But more than anything else, what
distinguishes our campus from its corporate colleagues is the vibrancy
of student life that pulses through its corridors and courtyards.
Though a seemingly minor manifestation of that life, drop posters
actually form one of the few visible reminders that we live and work,
discover and innovate, create and experience -- in a place of learning.
Until their "temporary" suspension for the lobby's renovation last
year, drop posters captured the spirit of student activities, alerted
regulars and visitors to the coming week's events, provided income for
the service organization that provided the raw materials at a nominal
fee, and more than anything else -- <italic>humanized</italic> the
stark neoclassical skeleton of the Institute.
As Building 7 memorializes the Institute's illustrious founder, William
Barton Rogers, perhaps we could turn to him for guidance. In a letter
to his brother Henry written during the hectic but electrifying first
year that MIT opened its doors in Boston in 1865, Rogers noted his
frustration for having to handle (while simultaneously teaching the
first class of MIT students and administering the fledgling university)
the construction of an additional story to what was then MIT's sole
building: "These architects" wrote Rogers, "are great plagues when the
persist in disregarding utility for the sake of their notions of
outside appearances...."
It's time to remember Rogers' vision for a place of learning. I think
it's time students start putting up drop posters again. It's not only
their university, you know -- it's their home, too.
************
Peter A Shulman, MIT '01
Doctoral Candidate in History and Social
Study of Science and Technology
skip@mit.edu
24 Magazine St. Apt. #4
Cambridge, MA 02139
************
</excerpt>
************************************************
Gayle M. Gallagher
Director
Conference Services, Events and Information Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room 7-121, Cambridge, MA 02139
Voice: 617-253-1475; FAX: 617-253-7002
************************************************
</excerpt>
************
Peter A Shulman, MIT '01
Doctoral Candidate in History and Social
Study of Science and Technology
skip@mit.edu
24 Magazine St. Apt. #4
Cambridge, MA 02139
************
--============_-1199894487==_ma============--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
