From The Faculty Chair

Institutional Level International Engagements:
Points for Discussion

Rafael L. Bras

Over the last decade, MIT has increased its overseas presence. Most would agree that such worldview is appropriate for a university like ours. Nevertheless many faculty, the Faculty Policy Committee (FPC), and many colleagues in the administration, would like to develop a robust and transparent process to decide how and with whom should we establish significant institutional level relationships. Questions abound: Are we using the most effective mechanisms in existing arrangements? Are there principles to guide decisions to engage internationally? Who makes the decision? Are present arrangements impacting the ability of the faculty to engage with our own students? What constitutes a "significant institutional relationship" requiring a special process for decision-making?

It is important to realize that MIT has been involved in international activities for 40 years or more. Some of these engagements have been large. They were varied in scope, ranging from improving nutrition in less-developed countries, to developing research and educational capabilities in various locations around the world. They have involved exchanges of students, scholars, and faculty. Some were controversial, like efforts to bring large numbers of students from Iran and Taiwan in the early 1970s.

There are a wide variety of ongoing, large, international efforts in places like China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Ireland, Singapore, and England (with Cambridge University). The last two are arguably the flagships of present activities, dominant by the number of faculty, students, and resources involved. In addition, there are one-of-a-kind programs, very different in nature, such as the Alliance for Global Sustainability, MISTI (MIT International Science and Technology Initiative), and arguably OCW (OpenCourseWare), given its worldwide reach.

It is also important to acknowledge that attempts have been made to evaluate international engagements and put in place advisory bodies to help the engagement decision.

There was a committee on "International Institutional Commitments" in the 1970s. A committee chaired by Gene Skolnikoff wrote "The International Relationships of MIT in a Technologically Competitive World" in 1991. In 1996 the International Council was formed, chaired by the then Associate Provost Phil Clay. The Council was effective in discussing general issues, but was apparently unable to pass definitive judgment on proposals.

The one conclusion we can definitely reach is that sufficient experience exists for us to infer best practices and improve on process.

Back to top

There is general agreement that international engagements at all levels must abide by a series of transparent, well-defined, principles. Several have been suggested. The Skolnikoff committee enunciated five distinct principles that reflected the fact that at the time the U.S. found itself falling behind technology and productivity gains in other countries, particularly Japan. MIT was being criticized for educating the competition, and hence a great deal of emphasis was given to the American roots of the Institute.

Conversations with Provost Brown and Chancellor Clay and discussions in FPC yield the following potential set of operating principles for current international engagement:

1. The effort has to be "mission centric" to MIT's focus in education and research. It should not be a service.

2. The use of the MIT name and brand must be protected and regulated.

3. Political and social sensitivities must be addressed. MIT should always stand by its policies relative to open access and information.

4. Faculty time is a major resource; MIT faculty must be clearly behind the effort in significant numbers for major projects.

5. Each major effort must have an MIT officer/dean behind it, guaranteeing performance and delivery of expectations at the institutional level.

6. The effort must be sustainable in the long run economically and intellectually. It should have long horizons.

7. MIT does not outsource the granting of degrees.

8. Significant international efforts should not detract from our ability to serve our students.

9. Care is needed to make sure that activities do not create uneven loads on faculty not involved in the programs.

10. Guidelines on pricing and costs are necessary for consistency.

In contrast to the Skolnikoff committee principles, the above set takes involvement for granted, and does not struggle with the national identity of the institution.

There is an ill-defined category of "minor" projects, involving one or a few faculty, that consensus opinion suggests should not have to go through unusual scrutiny. Some of the operating principles given above are codified in MIT OSP policies, or are self-policed for activities involving a few faculty and students, and relatively small amounts of money. The first three items above fall in that category. The issues of social and political sensitivities are possibly the most troublesome. It can be argued, though, that established policies of openness of publications; of access by individuals irrelevant of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation; and travel restrictions related to safety, would cover the engagements of individual faculty and students involved in research and education internationally.

What then defines a significant institutional engagement? What requires institutional level review and approval?

The last seven of the enunciated principles indirectly define such efforts. I would argue that: involvement in educational exchanges; degree granting activities; use of MIT's name in any form in relation to a degree or educational program; differential treatment of blocks of individuals in the admission process (note that this does not necessarily imply compromising quality), all constitute reasons for institutional level review and approval. I would also argue that projects of large dollar value generally come with large expectations that require institutional review and management. Large dollar value is normally related to the involvement of significant numbers of students, staff, and/or faculty, another criteria for defining "significant." Projects with "capacity building" as an objective should be subject to institutional review. Projects committing faculty, staff, and students to long absences from the campus should be considered "significant." Projects involving supplemental faculty compensation or arrangements outside sponsored research norms should have institutional level review and approval.

Back to top

It is still not clear how to carry out the institutional level review and approval of significant projects or how to make the decision to commit MIT to a project. To me the second part of the question is clearer; commitment decisions of this nature must reside in the hands of the top administrative officers of MIT. Logically the Chancellor, Provost, and President should be involved and their consensus should carry the day. But the safeguarding of principles (the first part of the question) and the discussion of the extent to which proposals satisfy the principles, whatever they may be, should be in the hands of a standing faculty committee with representation of the Faculty Policy Committee. One could imagine an iterative process like the one currently in place to approve new degrees, culminating in a presentation to the faculty (if FPC deems it appropriate and necessary) and a decision by the top administrative officers. Such a process is not that different from what effectively goes on now; it is a matter of articulating the principles, codifying the steps, and insisting on equal treatment for all proposals.

A much harder question being discussed in the Faculty Policy Committee is whether MIT should have an overarching strategy to engage in significant international activities at the institutional level. Such a strategy may be taken to imply that large international activities may be best driven from the administration, rather than from traditional faculty sources. On-going projects fall into both categories. A strategy could have a geographical element, with MIT choosing to develop in specific areas. A strategy could focus on partnering with sister institutions of comparable quality to create a virtual network of MIT education. The Skolnikoff committee enunciated the MIT mission as: "MIT is a research university committed to fostering education and advancing knowledge for the betterment of the human condition." A strategy could then argue that within that mission MIT should focus on improving the conditions in the developing world. OCW would fall largely in that category, with a unique use of technology that on its own could also be an element of a strategy. Or alternatively, a strategy could only focus on the developed world.

The Faculty Policy Committee is in the midst of collecting information and learning about the multiple dimensions of the question of MIT's engagement in international programs. This discussion is simply the beginning. FPC invites your input. We hope to converge to some recommendations, to be presented in the Faculty Newsletter and discussed in a faculty meeting early next spring term.

	Back to top
	Send your comments