[1014] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gayle M. Gallagher)
Tue Jan 29 15:26:15 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1199896795==_ma============"
Message-ID: <v04020a01b87b05b72a07@[18.38.0.84]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:48:20 -0500
From: "Gayle M. Gallagher" <gayle@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v04020a00b87a315410b5@[18.239.5.4]>
--============_-1199896795==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
************************************************
--============_-1199896795==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
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
************************************************
--============_-1199896795==_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/
