[916] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
The state of dining
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lenny Foner)
Fri Oct 5 10:23:10 2001
Message-ID: <200110050725.DAA19403@out-of-band.media.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:25:25 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, Lenny Foner <foner@MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
From: Lenny Foner <foner@MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <p05010414b7e1bc41f2fe@[18.243.0.247]> (message from Matt Cain on
Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:05:33 -0400)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:05:33 -0400
From: Matt Cain <mcain@mit.edu>
Note >>> below.
-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
If this is the way the process is framed, you've ALREADY lost.
I don't know the makeup of the CDRB, but if it isn't possible for the
students to ram something through on their own, regardless of what
administration membership of the CDRB says, then those administrators
who don't want to look like fools -and- who want to have carte blanche
for ignoring student input in the future need merely to STALL and
DISAGREE to the point where the panel cannot "figure anything out".
Then, they implement "plan B" and can claim the high ground: "We did
it because -the students couldn't come up with a plan of their own-.
Thus, we're better than they are at planning these things and all
their whining should be ignored in the future."
The CORRECT "plan B" should be NO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO.
Only -that- default will come close to equalizing the power dynamics
and force -ALL- parties to actually come to an understanding. The way
it is now, one party has a perfect incentive to derail the proceedings
and then claim that their original plan should have been the one all
along.
(I admit that their plan B is at least not -everyone- gets forced
commons---just the freshmen---but why single them out? Why is -any-
change in the status quo required if the very body deemed most likely
to know what it's doing can't figure out anything better than what's
-already- in place?)
(Also---does "full support" mean access to detailed financial data for
the last several years from MIT and Aramark? If not, it's a fraud.)
Finally---6 weeks of discussion means that things come to a head RIGHT
BEFORE FINALS. This brilliant bit of timing means that things can
(and will) be slipped in at the last moment---we've seen this
innumerable times before. Why couldn't the planning take place
-over IAP as well- and hence allow participation by people who are
-not- in the throes of final projects, finals, and all that? Oh,
right, because the administration -always- tries to solicit "student
input" near the ends of terms, because that way it mostly doesn't
happen.
Call me cynical, but I've been watching this for almost 20 years now.
It never changes.
