|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are at a crossroads in the history of MIT. The administration is currently seeking to force all freshmen to live on campus beginning in 2001. This is a fundamental change to a housing system that, for over a hundred years, has given freshmen the right to make an informed decision about where they wish to live.
One would think that such a change would be made with overwhelming evidence to support it, but little such evidence exists. As the proposals of the RSSC (Residence System Steering Committee), the SAC (Strategic Advisory Committee to the chancellor), and other groups have been finalized, it has become clear that implementing this decision in any form will have many adverse effects and is inconsistent with the findings of several well-balanced committees comprising students, faculty, and administrators.
The RSSC, the SAC, and the TFSLL (Task Force on Student Life and Learning) have stated that, despite its faults, MIT's current housing system is one of the best in the nation at fostering diversity, strong communities, and unprecedented student satisfaction.
According to the Cycles survey taken at colleges across the nation, 86.6% of MIT students said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the residential system here. Over 50% said they were "very satisfied." At peer institutions, an average of 76% said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with only 34% saying they were "very satisfied." See http://counterpoint.mit.edu/v11/n4/4-3.html. One of the main reasons cited, is the unique opportunity at MIT for freshmen to make an informed decision about housing after having seen the living groups and meeting the people in them. Many of you may take for granted the fact that you would never rent an apartment or buy a house sight unseen, but this is a luxury among college freshmen and one of the great strengths of the MIT system.
This system allows students to take an active role in shaping their lives from the moment they arrive on campus, preparing them for the adult decisions that await them in the world outside MIT. Taking away this freshmen choice removes one of the first opportunities for students to begin taking responsibility for their own lives. It will also have a more direct effect on campus communities. The mission of all living groups will begin to move away from supporting first-year students. Many of the independent living groups that rely on freshmen for their spirit and viability will be forced to disband and shut down. In fact, the SAC predicts that about 30% of the current FSILGs will close in the near aftermath of forcing all freshmen into dorms. Strong, supportive communities that have helped thousands of young men and women become mature, self-sufficient adults, will cease to exist.
This void will not be filled by simply adding more beds to the system. With the mission of supporting freshmen now gone, the more stereotypical "fraternities" will thrive by catering to the lowest common denominator among sophomores. Students who come to college looking for that type of experience (and many do) will surely find it.
It is important to realize, however, that the dorms have cultures as strong and as unique as any FSILG at MIT. When freshmen choice is taken away, these cultures will quickly become homogenized. Without strong communities with which to identify, students will feel more alone and isolated than they already do, and, frankly, this is dangerous in the high stress environment of MIT.
Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the whole situation is the way in which the decision was made. According to his letter to the MIT community, President Vest based his decision in large part on the final report of the TFSLL (Tech Talk, 26 Aug 1998). This report, however, was tainted. As Jeremy Sher, a member of the Task Force, later stated at a rally against the decision: "In fact, the Task Force did no deliberation on the [Freshmen on Campus] issue, except for a couple of hours in the fall, after which we decided not to talk about it.
"Then, in mid-July, one of the co-chairs of the Task Force called me into his office and told me the following thing. 'The decision was inevitable,' he said. 'It would be made with or without the Task Force's consent.' " (Public statement, 8 Sep 1998). In the wake of the President Vest's announcement, student and faculty opposition was overwhelming. Students held protests and pleaded with the administration to reconsider, and the faculty did not vote to support the decision. However, nothing changed.
In my six years at MIT as both an undergraduate and a graduate student, I have never seen such polarization of the students and administration. At a Community Meeting during this past Family Weekend, President Vest responded to a question about student opposition to the decision with, "I'll probably get in trouble for saying this, but it's a fact of life. I will guarantee you that if you go to any campus on America, students would vote to have the current system remain." (Public Statement, 16 Oct 99). Actually, students have devoted a great deal of thought to this issue and are genuinely concerned about the future of MIT. For many of us, the places where we go to sleep each night are more than just beds in a hall; they are our homes and our communities. We are not opposed to change; we are opposed to potentially harmful and destructive change.
The characterization of our concern as some stubborn adherence to the status quo has understandably upset many of us. There is a definite rift in the MIT community that needs to be mended. The only effect of the decision so far has been to create antagonism between the students and the administration. Students have lost confidence in the administration, and a feeling of distrust is growing. This will continue until students feel that they are being taken seriously. Please urge Chancellor Bacow (bacow@mit.edu) to delay this decision for further study. It is not at all clear that moving all freshmen to campus is in the best interest of MIT, and there are many more pressing problems, such as graduate housing, that simply cannot be put off any longer. Most importantly, no housing system will work without the support of those who live under it, and students will not support a system that has been forced upon them.
You can visit http://mitchoice.mit.edu to get more information about student resistance to the decision. Please take a look at the open letter to President Vest and Chancellor Bacow and show your support for a student voice by signing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|