UA needs long-term vision
The UA Senate was popularly perceived as being inefficient, ineffective, and just not doing all that much. This, in fact, provided much of the impetus behind the restructuring that led to the creation of the UA Council. And this is more than just a feeling; the “exit polls” of graduating seniors indeed indicate that many students are dissatisfied with student government at MIT. This logically leads to the question of what exactly is it that the UA should be doing? For as long as I can remember, the UA has lacked a real vision; sure, they want to improve life for undergraduates and advocate on their behalf, but how? What can the Senate point to that it actually accomplished? The answer to that question is “nothing.” The “doing things” part of the UA has always been the committees. The committees on dining, space planning, events, sustainability, and education, to name just a few, have always been the ones who can point to things that they have actually accomplished and tangibly improved undergraduate life through. And this makes sense; the committees all have clear charters and projects that are led by chairs who have a vision for the committee.
Clarification on La Révolution Française
Two weeks ago, I wrote an article stating my opinion on a new piece of French legislation that proposed to criminalize the public denial of the events of 1915 that culminated in the deaths of many Armenians. I argued that the French government, or any other government for that matter, does not have the authority to restrict the freedom of speech and expression. The point I tried to get across with the article was that of liberty. In order to give our lives meaning, each and every one of us chooses and adopts certain doctrines, ideals, and objectives. These pervade through our lifestyle, affecting everything from the way we think, to the way we act, to the way we conduct our relations with others around us.
Getting better by leaving the Institute
I am no longer an undergraduate at MIT, but my mother still receives notices from the parents’ association now and again. Last week, she received an email from Christina Aprea informing the MIT parents community that a junior was found dead in his dormitory room. The cause of death has not been officially released yet.
Affirmative action: the perspective from admissions
In response to the recent discussions taking place in these pages, where a lot has been said about the admissions process, I want to take this opportunity to add to the conversation with a few comments.
Let’s take a moment
It seems all we do at MIT is talk about the future. How are med school apps going? Are you going to take your job offer? Are you ready for that test tomorrow? In a way, it’s justified; we’ve spent our whole lives working as hard as we can in hopes of mastering our futures — in hopes of controlling our destinies.
Responding to tragedy
The passing of Brian G. Anderson ’13 this past week marks the fourth death on campus in six months. This news is shocking to us all, and The Tech wanted to take this opportunity to address student morale on campus. As students ourselves, we know that on top of p-sets, exams, and general MIT stress, these events can be overwhelming.
Social issues surface in the final Republican debate
Just as Santorum surged into final Republican debate before Super Tuesday, the culture wars reignited; set alight by Obama’s Catholic contraceptives clash, Charles Murray’s book-length jeremiad about lower-class immorality, the Susan G. Komen foundation, and the word “transvaginal.”
A student perspective on MIT 2030
Over the past year, the Institute has been releasing “MIT 2030,” its framework for land use and renovation for the next 20 years, and it contains some interesting and ambitious ideas for commercial development on and around the MIT campus. However, behind flowery language of an “innovation district” lie major problems with MIT 2030. In effect, the plan neglects the central mission of the Institute: to “advance knowledge and educate students.”
Let’s not derail MIT from its path of excellence
MIT is the finest research institution in the world, in no small part because of its unwavering commitment to recruiting, admitting, and hiring the best talent in the world, even if that talent comes from less-advantaged or atypical backgrounds. Periodically examining the mechanisms by which the Institute pursues its mission is essential, but those examinations must be grounded in both data and an understanding of the MIT ethos. Brandon Briscoe’s execrable and intellectually dishonest rant against diversity and inclusion at the Institute is neither, serving as a disheartening call to take MIT in precisely the wrong direction. By mischaracterizing MIT’s admission and hiring processes as a de facto quota system, Briscoe effects a brilliant takedown of a straw man of his own creation and manages to cast aspersions on the intellect of every MIT-affiliated woman and underrepresented minority, … all based on little more than a few sloppy citations and the courage of his own biased convictions.
Understanding diversity
Many people hold a naïve conception of affirmative action and don’t understand what it actually involves, yet they deem it a dangerous program that threatens our Institute. We believe that affirmative action is actually incredibly fair and integral to the success of any merit-based institution in the world we live in.
Unconditionally brilliant
In responding to Brandon Briscoe’s , I won’t recount my successes as a minority at MIT, or those of my mother and father, a former employee and a graduate student, respectively. Not that my perspective lacks worth, but other students and faculty members can disprove Briscoe’s insinuations many times over. However, I must address Briscoe faulty evidence of reverse discrimination directly.
Excellence has many dimensions
In the Feb. 17, 2012 issue of The Tech, Brandon Briscoe argues that MIT is “heading in the wrong direction with affirmative action”, and suggests that MIT uses quotas or preferences in its admissions and hiring practices. While we respect Brandon’s right to express his opinion and his courage in doing so, we fundamentally disagree with his premises and statements.
On excellence and diversity
As a Mexican-American alumna of MIT, I feel comforted by that “don’t get me wrong, every student and faculty member I have ever met at MIT …deserve[s] to be here.” I’m relieved that the Institute policies which “erode the meritocracy at MIT” somehow allowed me and other appropriately qualified minorities into the school.
CORRECTIONS
A news brief published last Friday misidentified Alec C. Lai ’13 as Next House President. While Lai is the UA Council Representative for Next House, the current Next House President is Austin D. Brinson ’13.
EDITOR’S NOTE
In light of the public response to last Friday’s guest column on MIT’s affirmative action policies, The Tech would like to take this opportunity to clarify its editorial process on the opinion pages.
After 150 years, MIT is heading in the wrong direction with affirmative action
A key question brought up at the recent MIT Diversity Summit, and the MLK Jr. annual breakfast, was how can MIT balance excellence with diversity? It has been commonly noted that students and faculty alike perceive tension within the Institute between the frequent appeals for increased diversity, and the culture of hard work and meritocracy that make MIT what it is. This question received heavy emphasis in the 2010 Report on the Initiative for Faculty Race and Diversity. One of the final statements of that report was that, “While almost everyone at MIT would like the Institute to be an institution of merit and inclusion, it will be difficult to reach this ideal if race and ethnicity are ignored and presumed irrelevant.”
MIT 2030 and MITx
With dining firmly behind us and orientation plans still in the works, it’s time students turn their attention to the bigger, more transformational things happening at MIT. We’ve pointed out the need for students to talk about big issues before. It’s now time to get more specific.