[303] in UA Exec
Re: You are being lied to.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Lukmann)
Sun Apr 4 22:43:17 2010
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:43:06 -0400
From: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@MIT.EDU>
To: Ted Hilk <thilk@mit.edu>
CC: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>, hwkns@mit.edu,
Nathaniel Fox <natefox@mit.edu>, Alexandra Jordan <amjordan@mit.edu>,
Anthony Rindone <arindone@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
UA Executive Board <ua-exec@mit.edu>, cfs@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g2h6ed15f041004041817lb6cf945er3fbcf9f9913131b3@mail.gmail.com>
Hey Ted,
I'm sorry to hear that, but it certainly makes sense given my experience
with her when she was an Asst. Housemaster at Simmons (5-7 yrs. ago). I
mentioned her mostly for the fact that she is one of the few people who
are usually willing to talk with students and who, by the nature of her
position, has some real leverage over DSL. In general, she's probably
someone that active student advocates should build a relationship with -
even if she proves to be altogether unhelpful on the dining front, she
may be willing to take a stand on other things that students care about.
-Andrew L.
Ted Hilk wrote:
> Hey Andrew,
>
> The last time I spoke with Prof. Muriel Medard, she was trying to
> justify reducing financial aid by $1400 for students opting out of the
> dining plan when the actual difference in expenses between dining hall
> food and cooking for oneself over a year is only $500 on average.
> Nevermind the fact that this would essentially be predicating student
> aid on student choices (should I get extra financial aid if I want a
> new computer?). After half an hour she finally admitted that the
> amount was arbitrary and that the extra deduction was solely intended
> to 'encourage' students to buy into the dining system. She is very
> polite and willing to talk at great length about issues, but I'm
> afraid she does not appear to be in support of the student perspective
> on this matter.
>
> Ted
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu
> <mailto:lukymann@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hey Jessie (and everybody else)...
>
> Like you pointed out, a number of reliable student allies in the
> administration have moved on and on the whole, less cooperative
> people have replaced them. Without a guy like Immer or Larry to go
> to, this generation of student leaders is (I believe) having a
> harder leveraging their relationships than we did. That said,
> there are still a number of people who might have a bit of pull in
> DSL that I would recommend people engage, if they haven't already:
> Phil Walsh (CAC), Ann McCants (former faculty CSL chair), Muriel
> Medard (CSL chair - though her opinions on dining might be
> well-ingrained). Also, even though he is on his way out, I've
> always found Steve Lerman to be a friend to students and he might
> be in the position to speak (or act) a little more freely now that
> he is moving to GWU.
>
> I think it's great to see a number of students realizing that they
> need to hold administrators feet to the fire when they fall short
> of their own rhetoric/promises regarding meaningfully engaging
> students on important issues. If you (and I do mean all of you)
> don't make it difficult (or embarrassing) for them to ignore you,
> they will never have any incentive to act in your best interest
> any time it conflicts with the easiest path to their goals (in
> this case, dining cost effectiveness).
>
> Keep it up!
> -Andrew L.
>
>
>
>
> Jessica H Lowell wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU <mailto:hwkns@MIT.EDU>>:
>
> Jessie,
>
> We tried coming up with our own proposal last year (DPC).
> Admins keep
> calling it "an important piece of student input" and
> completely ignoring its
> contents. What's driving this is the desire to eliminate
> the deficit and
> "build community" around dining, which involves less
> choice and more money
> (but not MIT's money - they need to eliminate the
> deficit). Those are
> principles that everyone in the administration (that I'm
> aware of) agrees
> on. I haven't talked to Matt - I'll send him an e-mail.
>
>
> Yeah, I saw the proposal. It looked like a good step. It's
> the same old story
> with Dining. When I dealt with that, though, it was easier,
> because larryben
> (Columbo's predecessor) was still around and he was on our side.
>
> Who does Columbo listen to? Presumably Phil Clay, but I doubt
> Clay's useful
> here. Immerman's gone, so that's a non-starter. The FSILGs
> generally have a
> stake in students not getting screwed over on Dining, since
> less choice often
> hurts their frosh and on-campus members - is anyone on the
> FSILG side of the
> Student Life staff persuadable and trusted by Columbo? Could
> any of the RLAs
> help here? If Admissions has any influence with Columbo,
> which they may not,
> they'd likely be willing to help you out with him.
>
> It sounds like if you keep working primarily with Columbo,
> you're not going to
> get anywhere. Obviously, you have to work with him,
> communicate with him, not
> antagonize him too much. But that doesn't mean you can't work
> with other
> people (sounds like a good project for a senator or two!).
> And if you can dig
> up administrative allies, they might be able to make more
> progress with Columbo
> than you can.
>
> Have you bugged your rich potential-big-donor alumni? Many
> FSILGs and some dorm
> living groups keep in contact with a lot of their alumni, and
> might be able to
> dig up a few wealthy folks who would be pissed about students
> being screwed
> over on dining.
>
> The UA has little real power given to it - it has to find ways
> to manufacture
> its own.
>
> - Jessie
>
>
>
