[881] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
The state of dining II
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Ito)
Thu Oct 4 11:11:47 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011004101935.00d3dbd0@hesiod>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:00:38 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, Brad Ito <bito@MIT.EDU>
From: Brad Ito <bito@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <p05010414b7e1bc41f2fe@[18.243.0.247]>
So it seems that some significant progress has been made in getting the
pertinent administrators to back up and collaboratively come up with a
better plan. Furthermore, unlike previous similar situations (RSSC and
FoC), the decision we don't like isn't being offered as a necessary design
parameter. That is, there's a chance that, given a concerted effort, we as
students can come up with a much more effective design of the MIT Dining
System. This is a "Good Thing" (tm). Bravo to those who helped to raise
sufficient fuss to start some real change.
Clay promised to make this new process much more public, and to enable it
to make a real difference, despite the final call being his (with Vest or
the Corp being able to step in). Supposedly the existing financial numbers
will be released for public review at the end of this week and the details
of how the CDRB will be run will come out as soon as they get together and
meet.
HOWEVER, all is not yet roses. Clay did outline a plan B which did include
mandatory dining for freshman, which would still be undesirable for many of
the reasons that folks are protesting the original proposals that came out
of the dining office. He said that if no better plan emerged after 45
days, such a plan would be implemented. That means that the fate of Campus
Dining now lies in the hands of a Dining Review Board that must incorporate
new members, rewrite the rules by which it operates, solicit opinions from
thousands of people, and redesign dining at MIT using a system of
consensus. The cynic in me says Clay thinks he is setting up the Dining
Review Board for failure.
What we as a student community need to do now is to prove that student
input can lead to a viable plan. If we fail, many unique parts of MIT
student life will be lost forever. We cannot fail.
I offer a call to arms. Do not let the outrage that you feel be blunted
with time. Prove them wrong. Students CAN make a difference; we do NOT
need to be told what to do by administrators.
Yet temper that anger with some of the intelligence that brought you
here. The phase for merely the exhibition of outrage has passed. They
know we are upset, they know lots of us are upset, and they have been
forced to the negotiations table. Further escalating the protests to the
level of shutting down Athena (as has been suggested) or similar acts is
now an inefficient use of resources.
Rather, let us take the massive student energies that have emerged and
forge a new Dining System that we can all be proud of. Many resources for
student discussion exist around campus, let us use these to birth a new
plan for the community from the only place it should come from: the
community itself. Talk with those around you, help come up with new ideas
of how dining should be run, and respond critically and intelligently to
the suggestions of others. If the quality of student life matters to you,
here is your chance. We have forced them to listen to us, now is the time
to speak.
I ask those who have already gathered proposals to post them publicly
(anyone want to make a new email list or recommend one to take over for
this purpose?) Let us engage in real conversation and help the Campus
Dining Review Board come up with a meaningful plan. The way to be taken
seriously is to first take ourselves seriously.
Peace,
Brad Ito
At 04:05 AM 10/4/2001 -0400, Matt Cain wrote:
>It doesn't look like a good account of tonight's meeting has been sent
>around, so here's my take. BTW, a history of the dining system at MIT over
>the last 20 years is now available on the DormCon site:
>http://web.mit.edu/dormcon/www/
>
>Short Version:
>Student input HAS been heard and new options WILL BE explored by the
>Campus Dining Review Board which will have increased student representation.
>
>Long Version:
>The meeting started off with Chancellor Clay who outlined the course the
>process will take from here. Here are the high points from my notes:
>
>-The design will start again with student input this time
>-There will be 45 days (~ 6 weeks) of discussion
>-In that time the Campus Dining Review Board will be empowered to evaluate
>dining options and plans will full support (resources, data, etc.)
>-At the end, the CDRB will present a plan or set of plans to the
>administration
>-The administration will have the final say
>-IF the CDRB can't figure anything out, `Plan B' will give each freshman a
>mandatory meal plan
>-CDRB will have expanded student representation (from 4 to 9 students)
>-Proposals should not "automatically exclude" off campus vendors,
>self-cooking, food trucks, etc. but must have a self-supporting system
>
>This represented a definite win for the students, IMHO. We have a very
>real way to present counter proposals that better meet our needs. Enough
>editorializing...
>
>Berlin was up next. First he presented the goals of the new system
>(whatever it may be):
>
>-target all the service areas, meet their needs and build community
>-balance student needs with business needs (e.g. don't loose > $1 million/yr)
>-provide flexibility to retain existing dining communities
>-make a sustainable system that we can be proud of
>
>Next was a slide with the major areas in which he had received feedback
>over the last two weeks:
>
>-Mandatory is unacceptable to students
>-Respect decision making
>-preserve self cooking opportunities
>-proposed plans are not affordable for many
>-There is no confidence in their ability to deliver
>-No specific attention to Veggie/Kosher/special diets
>-plans compromise house & FSILG dining programs
>-students want expanded card options
>-refund unused balances
>
>After this, the questions began to come in. Very little was said there
>that hasn't been said on at least one of these lists before (usually with
>more expletives). What's important to note is that there is a lot of room
>for the CDRB to come up with other options and plans without minimum
>participation by all can be considered as well. There is NO hard mandate
>for a mandatory system. If the economics of the situation demand it, dems
>the berries. At least then we'll know that the issue has been thoroughly
>researched by the people most directly affected.
>
>
>MENTAL HEALTH
>was the second topic to be covered. The institute is doing the right thing
>in this case. the task force presented parts of their draft report. The
>final report should be released circa the 31st. If you're interested, see
>http://web.mit.edu/medical/mhtf/
>
>Those are my notes and conjectures from the meeting. I encourage others to
>give their view of things.
>--
>
>
> -Matt Cain
> mcain@mit.edu
> Dormitory Council President
*********************************************
Bradley T. Ito bito@mit.edu
34 The Fenway 617-437-1043 x233
*********************************************
I wish for Peace. I wish for Understanding in the face of Tragedy.
"With my mind, I make the world" -Dhammapada
