Interphase students and alumni share DEI-related concerns regarding the replacement of OME by OACES
Interphase, one of the OME’s oldest programs, has reflected MIT’s approach to diversity since the 1960s
Photo Provided by Meagan McFadden
On Sept. 12, the MIT Faculty Newsletter published an issue introducing the Office of Academic Community, Empowerment, and Success (OACES), which replaced the former Office of Minority Education (OME). The choice to remove “minority” from both the office’s title and the OACES website contrasts with the Institute’s past approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the aftermath of this change to the OME, The Tech reached out to Interphase alumni and 2025 scholars to discuss the impacts of these changes on the OME’s longest standing program.
The development of OME and Interphase EDGE/x
On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. In response, Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson ’68, PhD ’73, member of the Black Student Union, and former MIT President Dr. Paul Gray ’54, ScD ’60 formed Project Interphase in 1969. Over the years, Project Interphase has been staffed by many Black graduate students, some of whom were Interphase alumni themselves.
Gerald Baron ’84, current Chair of Outreach & Engagement Committee of Black Alumni(ae) of MIT, described his experiences with Project Interphase to The Tech. Baron understood that the mission of Project Interphase was to expose intellectually capable students to foundational coursework before they entered MIT. In the two years he was involved with Project Interphase, Baron described the cohort as culturally diverse, including “Black, Latinx, Asian and First American (Native American)” students.
Baron served as a tutor for Project Interphase in 1984 and as the Program Director in 1985. As his first job after graduation, Baron found it rewarding to immediately give back by assisting students with their transition to MIT. In a statement to The Tech, Baron felt that Project Interphase acknowledged the diversity of students’ backgrounds by fostering an environment in which students could learn from others different from them and gain access to professors and experiences that would help them become successful at MIT.
Baron noted that the transition to MIT is more challenging for African-American students dealing with imposter syndrome and the effects of others making them feel that they do not belong. He wrote that many African-American students also deal with the weight of family “vicariously living through” their academic success.
In 1973, a report published by the Office of the President outlined issues facing MIT’s racial climate. The report reiterated MIT’s policy on diversity, which called for access to education, employment, achievement, and personal fulfillment to be based solely on “individual ability, interest, and merit.” In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, requiring that “federal contractors not discriminate in employment and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity.” In the late 1960s, about 11% of Americans were Black, but each 1,000-member class at MIT had perhaps half a dozen Black students.
The report responded to these conditions by acknowledging that “informal traditions and shared priorities” at MIT were created by a “society dominated by white men,” contributing to “ingrown institutional challenges.” In the spring of 1973, the Commission on Minority Education reported on the unique problems facing minority students, including isolation, insecurity, and “perceived contempt from non-minority members of MIT.” The Commission recommended efforts be made to strengthen the sense of community among minority students and facilitate access to the full range of educational and counseling resources that exist at the Institute.
Through the work of the proposed Office of Minority Education in 1973, the MIT administration hoped to create a “truly human environment” where all students could thrive as individuals, not solely as “representatives of ‘the women’s issue’ or ‘the Black issue.’” Thus, in 1975, MIT formally founded the Office of Minority Education (OME).
The OME adopted Project Interphase, which gradually evolved into Interphase EDGE. In 2018, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, former Associate Dean and OME Director DiOnetta Jones Crayton’s team worked with MITx to accommodate a new remote cohort called IPx, culminating in the Interphase EDGE/x program that continues today.
Michaela Purvis ’24 has been involved in Interphase since their admission to MIT in 2020. They participated in IPx 2020, an online program during the pandemic, which they estimated had around 88 students. For Purvis, the biggest reason for participating in Interphase was to receive financial aid. Purvis also attended a predominantly white high school and hoped that Interphase would connect them to students of color, especially since the U.S. was under lockdown. Since the pandemic interrupted their senior year, Purvis found a summer of academic adjustment extremely helpful.
Purvis also praised the second part of Interphase EDGE/x, a two-year engagement with the program revolving around academic success, community building, and professional development. They still keep in contact with their Interphase advisor.
The beginning of the OME’s dissolution
OACES combines the OME and the UAC’s Advising and Student Belonging pillar. In January 2023, Associate Dean and Director Dr. Diep “Yip” Luu joined the Undergraduate Advising Center (UAC). Three new subunits were created: Advising & Academic Achievement, Advising & Strategic Initiatives, and Advising & Student Belonging (ASB). Similar to the OME, the ASB pillar was committed to “academic success, mentorship, and belonging for students from historically marginalized backgrounds and/or those who have navigated unique paths to MIT.”
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled race-based affirmative action programs unconstitutional. In a 2023 MIT Faculty Newsletter, the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) and the OME discussed the court case’s ramifications on MIT. In particular, MIT admission readers would no longer receive mandatory racial information about applications. The FAC argued the affirmative action ruling would cause underrepresented racial and ethnic group members to become “even less represented in [MIT’s] classrooms from 2024 on.” The FAC also claimed the SCOTUS decision would “affect current students who have been told by peers that they were admitted because of their race.” The FAC also believed currently enrolled students may be treated differently from incoming classes starting in 2024.
Days before the ruling, Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stu Schmill ’86 reaffirmed MIT’s commitment to diversity, stating that no matter the ruling, “our commitment to a vibrantly diverse and academically excellent MIT” would remain “undimmed.” The newsletter mentioned Interphase EDGE would continue to play an important role in supporting underrepresented minority students.
However, 2024 saw a stark decline in minority student enrollment numbers, from 25% to 16% in an aggregated profile for the previous four classes, which has now been removed from the MIT Admissions website. The percentage of Black first-year enrolled students dropped three-fold from 15% to 5%, and from 16% to 11% for Hispanic and Latino students.
This drop was reflected in Interphase: according to the OME website, Interphase EDGE usually consists of “70 scholars”; however, student sources attested to an approximate enrollment of 30 for the 2024 Interphase cohort. The year before, the 2023 cohort for Interphase EDGE also fell below expectations, with an estimated 50 scholars participating. Purvis, who worked as an Interphase EDGE residential peer mentor and teaching assistant, suspected it was also because of the “consistent turnover in [OME] admin.” and former Interphase Program Director Somiya Kalloo’s departure. Kalloo did not respond to The Tech's request for comment by the time of publication.
On Feb. 2, 2024, former OME Director Crayton stepped down from her role for unspecified reasons. In an MIT News article, Elizabeth Durant, Communications Officer for the Office of the Vice Chancellor, wrote how Crayton led the OME for 14 years, “advancing OME’s efforts to provide a robust portfolio of programs, services, and resources for undergraduate students of color.” Durant hailed Crayton as a change-maker since her arrival at MIT in August 2009. Among other notable accomplishments, Crayton co-chaired a major MIT 2010 conference on underrepresented minority student success in higher education; she also developed The Standard and the Creative Regal Women of Knowledge (CRWN), programs historically intended to support men and women of color, respectively.
On May 9, 2024, a meeting between the OME and OME-affiliated students took place. Diep Luu, former Interim Director of the OME, outlined future plans for collaboration between the OME and UAC, as well as a potential renaming of the OME entirely. Luu cited “potential organizational changes to the OME, cultural norms, and external scrutiny” as reasons for the move. According to MIT administration, renaming would “create a more inclusive and supportive environment.” The MIT administration stated that they would preserve the ten current OME staff, “ensur[ing] continuity in its specialized programming while avoiding any reallocation of resources to support the UAC’s expansion.”
Baron disapproved of the “possible dissolution” of the OME. “Any attempt to dilute the resources made available to African-American and Latinx students would be a horrendous mistake,” Baron stated.
On Sept. 23, 2024, a public meeting was held between members of the MIT community and representatives from MIT Admissions and Administration, including Stu Schmill, Melissa Nobles, Karl Reid, and Chris Peterson, to discuss the effects of affirmative action on MIT. A Q&A slideshow revealed many of the attendees’ concerns. Some attendees asked what steps were being taken to keep programming directed towards underrepresented minorities (e.g. OME, WISE, Ebony Affair, Sin LíMITe) sustainable and thriving, pointing to the unexplained drop in minority student percentages, MIT Admissions’s “failure to consult with peer institutions prepared for race-blind admissions,” and planned changes to the minority demographics.
Purvis was in attendance, and stated that the administrators “pretty much said that African-American students are less likely to be prepared” to enter MIT and were “looking for students who have basically already done the GIRs.” Purvis recalled that many were upset due to this “monolithic thinking” and the financial barrier present for students from Title I schools, who would have to pursue these higher courses in community colleges or equivalent courses if their school doesn’t offer them. According to Purvis, administrators stated that Interphase would supplement this knowledge gap for no cost, prompting discourse over the declining Interphase enrollment numbers. “The flaws in their thinking are that they’re already filtering out students that would benefit from Interphase,” Purvis wrote.
On March 17, 2025, Vice Chancellor Darmofal hosted a virtual meeting for current OME program users. Slides from the meeting reveal that from as early as February to April 2024, MIT began “consultation with OME stakeholders to explore options for enhancing collaboration and coordination between the OME and UAC.” Notably, this consultation occurred immediately after Crayton’s departure.
The proposal outlined in the slides would turn the OME into a UAC office to “distinguish” or “elevate” it. Furthermore, the mission and name for the OME would be developed with stakeholders; the former would include “cultivating a sense of belonging”. All of the proposed names replaced the word "minority" with terms such as mentorship, equity, engagement, educational excellence, community, or belonging.
The formation of OACES
When questioned again in September 2025 about specific reasons for the changes to the OME, Luu, now Senior Associate Dean of the Division of Graduate and Undergraduate Education, wrote, “OACES aspires to provide a more cohesive and coordinated approach to advising, mentoring, academic enrichment, and community building.” According to Luu, OACES aims to build on the “pioneering legacy of the OME” to champion the success of all MIT students, including minority students.
Given MIT’s former dedication to diversity, erasing the minority aspect of the OME concerned members of the community. Ananth Venkatesh ’28 believes that the restructuring of the OME is a “clear elimination of DEI,” satisfying “ridiculous” demands from the Trump Administration instead of “tackling discrimination and supporting minorities.” Purvis believes that administrators do not realize how detrimental the uprooting of OME programming such as the Talented Scholars Resource Room (TSR^2) and Interphase is to students with higher academic needs.
According to Interphase EDGE 2025 participant Meagan McFadden ’29, the staff told the cohort that OACES would be the same entity as the OME, just under a different name. “The effect and significance of this different name wasn't really examined as much as it could have been,” McFadden said. She estimated that there were around 90 students in her cohort, a significant increase from 2023 and 2024, which she felt was racially, geographically, and academically diverse. She guessed that there were around 10 to 15 Black students, and was one of three Black people in her 15 to 20 person class.
It is unclear how Interphase 2025’s demographics relate to the Class of 2029’s demographics. (As of this publication, MIT Admissions has not released the data for the class as a whole.) The 2025 program ended right before the announcement of the new OACES in September, but changes to the OME have been in the works well before its conclusion.
Former Interphase EDGE/x Program Coordinator Maria Aranibar sent out a resignation letter to the OME and greater MIT community on Aug. 27, 2025, outlining her reasons for resigning on June 25, 2025. While Aranibar’s main reason for leaving was to start her master’s this fall, she said it was “one part of the larger equation.” Aranibar believed her work was not appreciated and expressed that OME employees’ labor as “student-facing programming staff is taxing and not equitably compensated.” She noted that her position may not be filled until Spring 2026. In addition, she communicated that the OME had lost its second Program Coordinator on the Academic Success team as well as announcing the termination of the Interphase Program Assistant position in Summer 2026.
Aranibar deemed it “unacceptable” that a “two person team” was expected to run Interphase, a program with over 130 students, with no additional pay and limited staff. She felt that using promotions without increased compensation as an incentive for productivity created a toxic environment for an “office [that already] historically has a high turnover.” Aranibar also mentioned requests from upper leadership to reduce programming for Interphase, which would “affect [its] integrity,” given that the program had already been scaled back since Spring 2024.
Aranibar also cited the September 2024 Town Hall meeting as one of the “biggest moments in this office that made her take strides to leaving,” stating that “upper leadership chose retaliation” instead of investigating student concerns. In her letter, she claimed that leadership failed to escalate racial slur incidents during Interphase 2024, and disregarded a student-led survey in Spring 2024 that showed an “overwhelming amount of support for OME operation and programming.”
McFadden mentioned that the use of slurs was an issue in her cohort as well, which surprised her given that it occurred during an OME program. According to her, staff made an announcement forbidding the use of slurs and emphasizing a zero-tolerance policy for racism. When McFadden tried to report inappropriate usage of slurs to the administration, she found their response slow and the racism could have been handled “a little bit better.” According to her, nothing ultimately came out of the announcement.
Aranibar expressed fears that “the merging with the UAC is a much larger conversation than just office furniture and cubicle space” during the federal government’s “attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion” at MIT. Furthermore, she shared concerns about how the name change of the OME will play a large role in the “institutional amnesia that comes with office mergers.”
“Soon, the institution will forget why the OME was created in the first place,” Aranibar wrote.