7:00 - 9:00 PM, Ashdown House

RSSC Members present: Jennifer Berk, Andy Eisenmann, Abby Pelcyger, Bill Hecht, and Anne McCants. Kirk Kolenbrander was also present.

 Question/Statement

How about a quick update on what you have heard so far in your community feedback sessions?

Not surprisingly, we have heard a great deal about residence selection. Trying to summarize: If you take away the opportunities to select and to be selected, you will destroy communities. We have heard this most vocally from the members of Chocolate City, in particular, and the language houses as well (and also from some floors/subsections). Also, we have heard about what happens to sophomores who have been thrown out of the system. People want to know if MIT is still guaranteeing access to sophomores.

You call for a new graduate residence system committee. Is this just another way to postpone decision-making? You do not say why you have removed your previous language about graduate students.

We tried to look at the complete residence system. Whenever people have looked before at the graduate community, they tend to look at it in terms of buildings. But the graduate student community is quite diverse. While we can say some things (graduate students are underserved with respect to housing), more statements require an expertise that we do not have. One needs to approach the President and Chancellor with coherent, compelling arguments that are more than simply motherhood and apple pie.

To paraphrase what I just heard, "Yes, this is just another way to postpone decision-making for graduate students."

It would be unwise to issue a report that is poorly thought out.

But you didn't make any effort to collect relevant graduate student data. We tried to help, and you would not let us help. What did you need to know?

This is complex stuff. Motherhood statements are easy to make, but they aren't worth much. We simply did not have the time, as it turns out, to do the graduate student community justice. We regret this, but we have to accept that we did not accomplish what we set out to accomplish.

Could you at least recommend some dates for the new committee? Can't you help us a bit?

Graduate students need housing, and we said that.

But what more do you need to know to be helpful? What are you missing?

But decisions are in your report about graduate students. You have taken space away from Ashdown for your first year offices.

We got that suggestion from the residents of Ashdown.

What about overflow of undergraduates into graduate housing.

Not acceptable.

Then you should say that in your report.

Graduate students need a building right now. We need a restatement of that, as was in your Phase II report.

There are points about the graduate student community about which everyone agrees. Those should be stated in your report.

The committee came to the conclusion that it could make a system case only for the undergraduates, given the time constraints.

You gave no reasons for why a new graduate residence system committee should be formed.

We will add language to the amended final report to address many of these concerns that we have heard over the past hour. But let us be clear that we have not had the time to substantiate our concerns in the way that they deserve. The graduate students deserve that coherent, substantiated argument.

What financial resources actually are available to build a new graduate residence hall?

There is an endowment that yields approximately $2 million/year, which is presently being used to pay off the outstanding debt in the Edgerton House.

You all need to understand that the graduate student community is impacted by your recommendations. We deserve more attention.

Again, we agree that you deserve more attention, and we deeply regret that we were not able to give the graduate students what they deserve. Our lofty attitudes about what we could accomplish did not survive. We are sorry.

There are two observations that would help. 1) Graduate students are an integral part of the community. 2) We will use the buildings within the residence system for the purposes for which they were designed.

We will try to include that language in our final report.

Orientation should be a shared experience of freshmen and first year graduate students. Your orientation does not do this. Why are you directly opposing the Task Force in this regard?

The age and station of freshmen and first year graduate students is different. We recognize, however, that there are instances where there can be a shared experience.

First year graduate students and freshmen are very similar.

Many people, including the residents of Ashdown, would be less contentious about all these issues if the RSSC did more to explain their reasoning.

We certainly have heard this a great deal.

Do you really believe that MIT will throw sophomores out into the street, rather than putting those sophomores into graduate housing and throwing the graduate students into the street?

The FSILG/residence hall balance that we know must be maintained does not involve graduate students.

Please talk about putting graduate students into FSILG's.

This is a 100% voluntary program, for both the FSILG and the graduate student.

Why not give the individual residence halls the authority to choose who get kicked out?

If a student must leave the residence system, can he or she come back?

This needs to be worked out, either by the RSSC or by the implementers.

What if the new residence hall is not finished by the fall of 2001? You must put forward a contingency plan.

We have every expectation that the residence hall will be completed on time. We expect that contingency plans are being made, external to the RSSC.

Eliminating dorm rush will lessen dorm culture. That culture has to be preserved.

Classes are the heart and soul of MIT. It is hard to get people to pay attention after the first week. Delayed rush will not allow people to participate, and will add great stress on top of classes.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.