[323] in UA Exec
Re: You are being lied to.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin F Holmes)
Tue Apr 6 18:34:02 2010
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:33:56 -0400
From: Martin F Holmes <goholmes@MIT.EDU>
To: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>
Cc: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@mit.edu>, Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>,
Ted Hilk <thilk@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: <20100406144721.em41ihzqoookccsg@webmail.mit.edu>
Hi Jessie,
Good addition with Matt McGann -- always a solid student backer. I hadn't had
any bad experiences with Randolph, but since others have, I suppose I'd agree
with being cautious here. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating
that you go
around to all of these senior admins and share your plans with them
(especially
Mead, Reif, Champy, or Lerman) but I have used them for some solid advice on
ways to proceed in the past (without divulging information about what we're
planning to do). Clearly you need to use tact when dealing with this level of
senior administration, but I don't think it hurts to reach out to them and
share your concerns. That's how you make new allies that you never knew you
had. If you happen to find that they are quite receptive and do want to help
(and back that up with specific action), it can only benefit you to
have allies
in the senior administration. At that point you may want to consider
forming a
stronger partnership with these key senior admins who may be secretly backing
you.
Martin
Quoting Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@MIT.EDU>:
> 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>:
>
>> 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>:
>>
>>> 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>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Liz A. Denys
>>> lizdenys@mit.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
