FNL HomePage

Editorial Board
E-mail FNL

FNL Archives

Faculty Bulletin Board

MIT HomePage

From The Faculty Chair

Faculty Invovlement in Student Life
Lotte Bailyn

Since the tragic death of Scott Krueger in September, the Institute has been engaged in extended conversations about the educational climate at MIT. Concern centered first on the question of alcohol abuse, and it remains a very complicated issue. The administration is working on a detailed analysis of the current policies regarding alcohol at MIT and refining them to be in accord with both the law and the principle of responsible drinking for those over age 21. And both the IFC and the UA have come out with very thoughtful ideas on how to deal with the abuse of alcohol. But two events since Krueger’s death raise questions: the delivery of a keg to an underage student with a false ID at one MIT fraternity and the hospitalization of a BU freshman after becoming intoxicated in the room of an MIT student in another fraternity. These two incidents indicate that despite the efforts of the administration and student leadership, recognition of the seriousness of alcohol abuse has still not permeated the Institute. And the fact that both incidents happened in fraternities raises once again the question of how to ensure that fraternities fit in with the overall educational goals of MIT.

The concern about freshmen in fraternities led to the introduction, at the October faculty meeting, of a motion to house all freshmen on campus. During the following month there was an outpouring of concern from students, parents, and alumni. From those connected with the FSILGs came a picture of a supportive environment, a haven that alone made it possible "to survive the first year." Even parents, initially disturbed by the system of residential choice and worried especially about fraternities, reported the extent to which their sons grew in maturity and responsibility after joining a fraternity and how important the "brothers" were to their well being. From the other ILGs and the dorms, also came a plea for choice: of where to live and with whom to live. And so, at the next faculty meeting, a different "sense of the faculty" motion was passed that accepted the diversity in the residential system but asked for a less frantic and more informed choice. And the administration has responded with steps to implement that motion.

Again, however, questions remain. The "sense of the faculty" motion was passed in November by about 60 faculty members, a rather small percentage of the whole. It is clear, therefore, that there is an issue here that goes beyond alcohol or residential choice. A key question is whether faculty want to be involved in student life. The Task Force on Student Life and Learning has called for an integration of life and learning, a bridging of academics not only with research but also with community. If we mean this, then a number of significant changes will have to be made. One has to do with the resources available for the support of non-academic student activities and another relates to faculty time. In both of the debates about alcohol and the residential system, there was a call for more student-faculty involvement. But that would require greater support for joint activities and some rethinking of what we expect the faculty to do. And that, in response to the events of the last few months, is an important conversation I hope we will have.

FNL HomePage

Editorial Board
E-mail FNL

FNL Archives

Faculty Bulletin Board

MIT HomePage