Amidst the growing number of housing controversies that seem to jeopardize student culture without regard for student opinion, some students have been trying to take matters into their own hands to get the administration’s attention. Among these plans was a boycott of CPW to protest the new “design exercise,” which imposes restrictions on mutual selection and allows squatting for freshmen during the rooming process. While it is frustrating that the administration seems to hold little regard for student input, the CPW boycott and the narrative around housing changes have been binary and ineffective for all parties. To shed some light on the issue, I’ll share some of my experiences with REX, thoughts on the process, and suggestions for the administration and ourselves to sow a better conversation around housing changes.
Newly appointed College of Computing dean, Dan Huttenlocher, is on Amazon's board. Will this conflict with the CoC's goal of teaching its students "ethics" in computing?
It disturbs me that the strong language of announcements about the College of Computing, like “the need for bold action, at scale and with speed,” appears to contradict what I hear from graduate students in EECS whose department and/or advisors assure them nothing will change.
These are challenging and difficult issues but MIT's decision — in the ultimate analysis — will serve us all well. MIT will and should remain an inclusive place.
Our goal is to discover the bad ideas and replace them with better ones. You want this to happen in yourself and in other people, which can only occur when those different ideas meet.
The recommendations made by Congress are not ultimately out of place. Their premise is to limit the devastation occurring in Yemen and to rebuke the actions of the Saudi Arabian crown prince; however, they will soon find that these goals may unfortunately act in opposition to one another.
MIT India Conference faculty advisor S.P. Kothari responds to a guest column, "Shunned by Harvard, feted by MIT." He explains the reasoning behind allowing Dr. Swamy to speak.
Chancellor Barnhart and Provost Schmidt respond to a guest column, "Shunned by Harvard, feted by MIT." They argue that freedom of expression is one of the institute's central values.
In lieu of celebrating the founding of the Schwarzman College of Computing, the MIT community should attend a different event organized by members of the MIT community to discuss the ethical issues of the college.
The argument that MIT cannot cease working with the nation of Saudi Arabia without punishing its worthy scholars is a cynical (and unproven) smokescreen that serves to obscure a much less patatable idea — that state-sanctioned murder to silence a journalist can be rationalized as a minor transgression, so as not to damage a lucrative relationship.
Are there any circumstances under which our institution would end relations with such an agent as Saudi Arabia? And if so, how would those circumstances differ from those we face with Saudi Arabia?
History has shown us that science has the potential to do more harm than good, and the College of Computing is a testament to MIT's responsibility to make sure it is used properly.
"We are pleased by our very meaningful collaboration with graduate student groups and others on these topics [and] we invite all graduate students to join us in creating an even better MIT."
Though iGEM was founded at MIT, the competition needs to be hosted in a different country in light of the U.S.’s current immigration policies.