[868] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Discuss Mandatory Dining at the UA Town Hall Meeting Tonight
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anil K. Varghese)
Thu Oct 4 03:10:55 2001
Message-ID: <200110040610.CAA27557@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:10:21 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, "Anil K. Varghese" <akvar@MIT.EDU>
From: "Anil K. Varghese" <akvar@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:30:19 EDT."
<200110040330.XAA18588@buzzword-bingo.mit.edu>
I wasn't talking about flaming Marilee Jones about her article.
I think I"m actually one of the few people on the lists who hasn't totally
condemned her article being that I was at a presentation she gave about this
stuff, and actually agree with about half the stuff she's talking about (though
I have yet to read the full text version of the article).
What I was talking about was a general reaction to the administration
(the only specific guy I mentioned was Chuck Vest), in an effort to get them
to change their ways.
Perhaps the timing of my e-mail was bad, but it doesn't change the feeling
of helplessness caused by 4+ years of the administration's apathy and
insensitivity to student feelings.
No, Marilee Jones shouldn't be flamed for her article.
But we still gotta do something to make the administration as a whole
be affected by student opinion. And if that includes flaming admins in
general, including Jones and Larry Benedict (two admins that I like), so be it.
Like someone else said, people in administration have to suffer a cost for
going against popular student opinion. So far it's been free for them. As
far as I can tell, the last time it cost the administration anything when
it did stuff students didn't like was back during the Vietnam War. We need
to make it expensive for them to screw us over. The only idea that's making
sense right now (maybe it's my lack of sleep that's talking) is by making them
pay emotionally. If you've got other ideas, I'm all ears.
Whatever happens, we're involved in a continual negotiation with the
administration about the future of undergraduate life at MIT. As it stands,
I still can't put my finger on why the admins actually want to do stuff for us,
except for the ones who were hired specifically to look after us. Maybe they
feel sorry for us. But not sorry enough that they're trying to wreck the
way of life we've had and loved for decades.
Back when we did have some power, enough students had the balls to take a
stand and make a difference. Sadly, that's not the case now. So we have to
maximize the energy and willpower of the few who will take a stand. Barring
things like wrecking alumni donations and high school recruiting, I don't see
other ways to exact a price from the administration.
No, I don't like being nasty to people. But I'm angry, and I don't see any
other viable options.
-Anil Varghese
} See, this is the kind of thing I meant when I said "Shame on you" in
} my PS of my last email. Read Dean Jones' reaction to the flames she's
} gotten (she claims I'm the 908th student to email her today). Her
} reaction wasn't "Oh my god, I'm a horrible person, I must have done
} something wrong if I pissed these people off."
}
} It was "It's such a shame they all misinterpreted my meaning, and it's
} a good thing I'm thick-skinned enough to deal with it." While probably
} thinking how immature all those people were who told her to fuck off.
}
} This does not help our cause. Sure, it might make you feel better, but
} it doesnt' prove shit to them as far as making them realize they're
} wrong. Anger is great, showing them we're angry great, but doing so in
} such an immature fashion only works against us.
}
} -Brandy
