[320] in UA Exec
Re: You are being lied to.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Sims)
Tue Apr 6 17:24:33 2010
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:24:19 -0400
From: Clayton Sims <ctsims@MIT.EDU>
To: hwkns@mit.edu
CC: Keri Garel <thekeri@mit.edu>, Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>,
Martin F Holmes <goholmes@mit.edu>, "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@mit.edu>,
Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>, Ted Hilk <thilk@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: <u2i9d4f87ed1004061200u9db4d288u213aa5043a71c588@mail.gmail.com>
If people are forming a PR approach to this issue: I'd recommend
focusing on this notion, personally. These administrators (those who
don't just fetishize dining hall culture) are working from a common data
set which says that:
* Students suck at feeding themselves
* Dining halls provide quality food which alleviates that problem
* Running piece-meal dining programs is expensive and cumbersome
Given these statements along with the premise "I have the right to
control your actions", mandatory dining seems like an entirely
reasonable plan. Arguing with the administration about whether the above
elements are true is almost certainly a losing game (given that they
don't seem to care, and also that those statements are almost certainly
true for large subsets of students, possibly all of them).
MIT is upset to lose face in the public's eyes in general, and lose the
support of its funders (both alumni and other). If you can't hit MIT in
one of those ways, you probably aren't going to get very far. I'd say
that trying to humiliate MIT in the eyes of the public and alumni by
focusing on how students are increasingly treated like children rather
than adults seems like a way to do that.
"Don't give money to MIT, it's a waste. Their students are too stupid to
feed themselves: How could they build rocket engines?"
"MIT graduates are an increasingly undesirable set of people to hire.
Being coddled all throughout their college years leaves them unable to
deal with real world problems."
If you can make the administration actually suffer in meaningful ways
(loss of funding, loss of face), they'll acquiesce.
Just remember that in many ways this is an argument about framing. It
isn't about whether MIT is correct that they will save 5% each year on
dining, or whether the dining options are sufficient, or whether
students really would save money and eat better if their plan goes
through. It's about Freshman on Campus, in loco parentis, and the fact
that the MIT student body is comprised of adults who have the right to
make their own decisions no matter what. That's what you should all be
screaming at the top of your lungs about.
-Clayton
Daniel Hawkins wrote:
> Charles Stewart and John Essigman are fine people, but their
> perspective (at least on dining matters) is very much "it doesn't
> matter what students say; we know what's best for them."
>
> -hwkns
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Keri Garel <thekeri@mit.edu
> <mailto:thekeri@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> I second the recommendation of Matt McGann and also strongly
> suggest avoiding Dean Randolph.
>
> Charles Stewart and John Essigmann are housemasters of McCormick
> and Simmons (respectively) - I've worked with both of them in the
> past, and they'd both be good people to turn to.
>
> -Keri
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu
> <mailto:jessiehl@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> I second Winston and Wartman (and I would add Abelson,
> Sussman, and Slocum to
> the category of sympathetic profs. Gray somewhat varies by
> issue - I have no
> idea what he thinks about Dining. Personally, I wouldn't
> generally take senior
> admins into my confidence on controversial issues - they can
> be helpful to work
> with, but there's a difference between a helpful partner and
> someone you really
> trust. Hastings and Lerman both signed on to today's letter
> in the Tech - make
> of that what you will.
>
> I would add Matt McGann in Admissions as someone I'd trust
> absolutely and who
> can give good advice.
>
> I *strongly* dis-recommend Randolph.
>
> - Jessie
>
>
> Quoting Martin F Holmes <goholmes@MIT.EDU
> <mailto:goholmes@MIT.EDU>>:
>
> Whenever I got the impression that students were being
> manipulated by the
> administration, there were a few key people I always went
> to for advice or
> help. Here's my laundry list of great contacts that you
> can be very forward
> and upfront with and who will listen to you and provide
> solid confidential
> advice:
>
> Dan Hastings (Dean for Undergraduate Education, not
> involved with DSL but great
> advocate and still has influence, respect, and power with
> senior admins)
>
> Bish Sanyal (former Chair of the Faculty, very sympathetic
> to student concerns,
> not sure of his current sway as former chair though)
>
> Paul Gray (former President, hard to get a meeting with,
> not directly involved
> with administration, but can provide you with great advice
> and still use his
> weight when he desires to add pressure to a situation)
>
> Phil Walsh (Director of Campus Activities Complex, very
> experienced and
> knowledgeable, able to provide good advice, has some sway
> within DSL and great
> experience with dining in the past)
>
> Anne McCants (former Chair of Faculty Committee on Student
> Life, huge student
> advocate, likely still has some influence within DSL)
>
> Jim Champy (one of the most influence members of the
> Corporation, member of
> Executive Committee of the Corporation, very difficult to
> get ahold of and
> likely requires a meeting request from Mike, Maggie,
> Vrajesh, or Sammi, a huge
> student ally although he usually works behind the scenes,
> provides very
> reasonable and balanced advice, has a ton of sway withing
> all levels of MIT)
>
> Steve Lerman (Vice Chancellor, about to leave MIT,
> provides awesome confidential
> advice, listens well to students, has huge sway within the
> administration but
> that may be subsiding given his pending departure from MIT)
>
> Rafael Reif (Provost, hard to get a meeting with, listens
> and sympathizes with
> students but requires a degree of tact since he's clearly
> a member of the
> senior admin, has a tremendous amount of sway and leverage)
>
> Dana Mead (Chairman of the Corporation, retiring at end of
> year, strong student
> advocate but also requires tremendous tact since he is a
> senior leader of MIT,
> tremendous amount of sway)
>
> Patrick Winston (Professor, very sympathetic to student
> concerns and provides
> good advice, limited sway withing DSL)
>
> Jed Wartman (limited sway but provides good sound advice)
>
> Robert Randolph (limited sway but provides good sound advice)
>
> I'd also recommend combing through recent issues of The
> Tech and Faculty
> Newsletter to identify other members of the faculty,
> administratior, or
> Corporation that you feel like may be strong student
> advocates.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@MIT.EDU
> <mailto:lizdenys@MIT.EDU>>:
>
> I have a pretty well established relationship with
> Muriel. I'll try to meet with her this week.
>
> -Liz
>
> Andrew Lukmann wrote:
>
> 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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Liz A. Denys
> lizdenys@mit.edu <mailto:lizdenys@mit.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Keri Garel
> Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences
> MIT Class of 2010
> thekeri@mit.edu <mailto:thekeri@mit.edu>
> http://keri.mitblogs.com/
>
>
