|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coincident to the preparation of the article "The MIT Chancellor: A Job Description" the following communication between Professor Bacow and Professor Steve Kleiman was forwarded to the Faculty Newsletter by each party.
Dear Larry,
I am writing about two serious and troubling issues: grandfathering and trust – MIT's grandfathering of faculty, and faculty trust in MIT's governance. Last Thursday, I raised these issues at one of Jay Keyser's faculty dinners, and a number of people took up the discussion. Jay suggested that I send you a summary. An editor of the Faculty Newsletter suggested that I publish a copy to widen the discussion.
My immediate personal concern is a change in the children's scholarship plan, which may affect me. Last May 18, MIT's Vice President for Human Resources Joan Rice sent around a notice, which stated that MIT will eliminate the benefit for graduate study at MIT for all current and future employees, including tenured faculty. Many of my colleagues may not have read the notice carefully, since they would not be affected. However, a greater issue is involved: the lack of grandfathering. This is not the first time in the last few years that MIT has failed to grandfather its tenured faculty: MIT eliminated the benefit of support for further education, and it eliminated the benefit of support for professional travel.
Has MIT really changed its long-standing policy of grandfathering? It appears so. What does this apparent change portend for the current review of retirement benefits? Must we also worry about future changes in medical benefits? What is going on? and why? A number of years ago, Stanford attempted to eliminate a similar benefit without grandfathering. Some professors threatened to sue. The benefit was, presumably, one of the attractions of the university, and the withdrawal was a violation of a long-standing "promise." Moreover, the initial decision was made without involving a truly representative group of faculty, some of whom were losing the benefit. Stanford set up a new committee, which reversed the decision. I learned about the Stanford case from a colleague, now at Harvard, who served on the new committee.
MIT is different, and I am sure that our concern about grandfathering will be relieved without anyone's feeling the need to sue. My department, Mathematics, like many other departments, competes with Harvard, Princeton, and so on for new faculty. We tell our prospective new members that they will like doing research and like teaching at MIT. Often, we can say happily that the dean has agreed to help us meet Princeton's salary offer. To be honest, will we have to add: "But we have to tell you that MIT may not keep its promise to continue to provide you with its current benefit package"? An even greater issue is at stake: faculty trust in MIT's governance.
Unlike at many other places, at MIT large attendance at faculty meetings has normally been unnecessary, because faculty have felt confident that MIT is well run. This trust has been one of the greatest benefits of being at MIT, for it has allowed faculty to devote more time and energy to research and teaching. In particular, faculty have considered grandfathering to be a basic axiom of MIT policy. Along with other issues, the apparent change in this policy has made many faculty begin to worry that their trust has been misplaced. Doubtless it would help to increase communication. Before any major administrative decision is made, the case ought to be presented for open discussion with faculty. Of course, adequate time must be allowed for faculty to consider the matter and express their thoughts. One good forum is the Faculty Newsletter.
Yours,
Steve Kleiman
Professor of Mathematics MIT Class of 1961.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|