this issue features a summary report from the Ad Hoc Committee on the FacultyQuality of Life (page 5); “When Everything is Secret, There is No Truth” by Ted Postol (page 9);another installment on Professors of the Practice by Oli de Weck (page 12); a retrospective byBarbara Stowe on the recently completed fundraising campaign (page 16); and a StudentLeaders Report (page 18).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XVII No. 4March/April 2005

TWO I NCI D E NTS THAT OCCU R R E D

at the Institute this month disturb me agreat deal. In the first, a group of malestudents walked out in protest during theunveiling of the new class ring. The ringdepicts a woman in a modified MIT seal.In the second incident, posters announc-ing activities of the Campus Committeeon Race Relations were defaced withracial slurs. Allegedly this followed a dis-ruption in a public meeting. This type ofthreatening, ignorant, and intolerantbehavior is not what this communitystands for. Unfortunately, it is not asrare as one would expect. It happensevery year.

This is not the first time a woman hasbeen depicted on the class ring. The per-petrators of the “protest” argue that theydo not object to the image of the woman,but to the modification of the Institute

O N J A N UA RY 1 4 , T H E President ofHarvard, Lawrence Summers, stopped inat a conference held by the NationalBureau of Economic Research (NBER) todeliver a luncheon speech to about 40experts and scholars gathered to discussthe under-representation of women andminorities in the Science and Engineeringworkforce in the U.S. A stated purpose ofthe meeting was to address the question:“What programs and policies can furtherthe process of diversifying the science work-force?” Earlier in the day I had spoken aboutMIT’s efforts to address this question.

Several months before this meeting,the media had reported that duringSummers’ leadership there has been asharp decline in tenured faculty offers towomen in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts andSciences (FAS) in all fields of the human-ities and social sciences, as well as in

continued on page 4

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

Rafael L. Bras

From The Faculty ChairMarginalization andDiscrimination at MIT

AcademicResponsibility andGender BiasNancy Hopkins

continued on page 3

I T I S O N E O F T H O S E crisp, frigidCambridge mornings in early March. TheCharles River is still frozen solid and thesky is saturated a deep blue as studentsscurry across campus for the first week ofclasses. IAP just finished two days ago.Gone are the days when IAP lasted onlyfour weeks. The extension from four toeight weeks was approved in 2017 aftermuch debate among faculty and adminis-trators, but remains controversial evenafter two decades. Ultimately, the wisdomof enhancing IAP as a unique MIT expe-rience has prevailed, allowing students toexperience fields far from their intellec-tual centers of gravity. It also allows themto take a number of half courses (sixcredit units), which now outnumber whathad traditionally been full courses (12credit units). This extension of IAP forcedMIT to postpone the spring semester by a

EditorialMIT 2040

continued on page 22

Erik Demaine and Olivier de Weck

Vol. XVII No. 4 March/April 2005

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies and Planning

Jeanne S. BambergerMusic and Theater Arts

John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

*Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

*Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelOcean Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science and Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science and Statistics

Daniel S. KempChemistry

Samuel J. KeyserLinguistics & Philosophy

Jonathan KingBiology

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil and Environmental Engineering

*Fred MoavenzadehCivil and Environmental Engineering

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

David ThorburnLiterature

*George VergheseElectrical Engineering and Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsSTS and Writing

Kathryn A. WillmoreVice President and Secretary of the Corporation

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458Email fnl@mit.edu

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$20/year off campus

Photo credits: Page 1 Ford-MIT Alliance (J. Saleh), Page 14, Ford Motor Company

From The 01 Marginalization and Discrimination at MITFaculty Chair Rafael L. Bras

Editorial 01 MIT 2040Erik Demaine and Olivier L. de Weck

01 Academic Responsibility and Gender BiasNancy H. Hopkins

05 Summary Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Faculty Quality of Life

09 An Open Letter to the MIT Faculty:When Everything is Secret, There is No TruthTheodore A. Postol

12 Professors of the Practice:Bridging Industry and AcademiaOlivier de Weck

MIT Poetry 15 Goodbye to the Orchard; SingerSteven Cramer

16 A Retrospective Look at The Campaign for MITBarbara Stowe

Student Leaders 18 Improving the Graduate Student Report Academic Experience

Barun Singh

20 Making the Green GradeWilliam C. Van Schalkwyk

27 MIT Retirement ProgramsEllen Weiss

M.I.T. Numbers 28 Satisfaction with resources that support researchand teaching [from the 2004 Faculty Survey]

contents

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

3

month, with commencement now beingheld at the end of June.

There have been other changes too,some very visible, others much moresubtle. The campus has grown signifi-cantly over the last four decades. Thewaterfront along Memorial Drive wasalready owned by MIT in the twentiethcentury from the Longfellow Bridge to theWestern end of campus (where the oldHyatt had once stood). So, the enlarge-ment of the Institute was fueled byexpanding across the railroad trackstowards Central Square and KendallSquare. There are now more buildingscarrying NW, N, and NE numbers thanthere are buildings on the main campusaround Killian Court. Ironically, MIT’sand Harvard’s campuses are on the vergeof entanglement, after being held at armslength for the last two centuries. MIT isstill the leading university for science andtechnology in the country and perhaps inthe world, with total student enrollmentpeaking at 13,840 last year. The percentageof undergraduate women has alsoincreased to 50%. (In contrast, thenumber of female students has plum-meted at Harvard since 2005, except at theHarvard Medical School.)

The biggest change at MIT was proba-bly the reorganization of the Institute in2025 with the dissolution of the depart-mental structures. While the traditionalschools (Architecture and Planning,Engineering, Humanities, Arts and SocialSciences, Sloan School of Management,and the School of Science) still exist, theirinternal structure was transformed fromthe traditional hierarchical tree-likedepartmental structure into a network-like structure of loosely connected knowl-edge centers. Despite vehement oppositionby some, MIT was the first university inthe United States to muster the courage tobreak down the barriers between tradi-tional departments and disciplines (e.g.,between mechanical, electrical, andnuclear engineering; organic-inorganicchemistry; molecular biology and genet-

ics) and to organize its research unitsaround the interdisciplinary center struc-ture. The success of both the BiologicalEngineering Division and the EngineeringSystems Division contributed to this trend.The change caused great difficulty initiallybecause of the ambiguity in allocatingfaculty positions and other resources, cen-trally controlling a network structure, aswell as mapping MIT’s units to the tradi-tional professional societies. But it alsogave MIT and its faculty the ability to besignificantly more nimble and aggressivein their pursuit of new research opportu-nities relative to its domestic and interna-tional competitors. It became clear by 2010that so-called “interdisciplinary” work hadbecome the norm,rather than the exception.

This flexibility allowed MIT to activelyimpact a number of significant techno-logical breakthroughs in the first half ofthe twenty-first century: MIT spear-headed decentralized energy productionand distribution based on multi-sourcehydrogen production and ultra-high-effi-ciency photovoltaics, and the control ofpersonal digital devices and computers viabrain waves and voice commands.(Keyboards and other oddities such as thecomputer mouse are still on display at theMIT Museum.) A growing population ofcyborgs around the world and especiallyat MIT no longer use computer monitors,and project digital images directly to theirvisual cortex, thanks to the difference-mending collaboration between theMedia Laboratory and the ComputerScience and Artificial IntelligenceLaboratory, before those units were dis-solved. Two of the six astronauts executingthe first human landing on Mars in 2032were MIT graduates (one fromAeronautics and Astronautics, one fromEarth, Atmospheric, and PlanetarySciences). World hunger fell 30% in justone year when, in 2034, MIT pioneeredthe light and efficient “pan-nutritionevery-flavor bean.”

Technology has also permeated teach-ing and learning at MIT, withOpenCourseWare (OCW) now serving asthe main portal for students within andoutside of MIT. All MIT lectures are now

being broadcast and archived automati-cally on OCW, with the site receiving over500 million visits daily. The virtual TAsystem allows for interactive Q&A ses-sions between remote students and on-campus teaching assistants and faculty. Atother universities, students organize “MITOCW Clubs” which meet twice weekly towatch MIT lectures, discuss problem sets,and take exams. OCW grades studentsautomatically where possible, and acurrent matter of debate is whether eagerstudents who prove themselves onlineshould receive certificates of learning.Meanwhile, top high-school studentsattain OCW experience to improve theiradmission portfolios.

The network-centric focus in bothresearch and learning has radiatedoutward from MIT, with the Instituteserving as the hub of an internationalnetwork of premier universities forming aglobal alliance, with intellectual reach intothe farthest corners of the planet. MIT’slinks with Cambridge University in theU.K., the Singapore-MIT Alliance, theMalaysia University of Science andTechnology (MUST), and others havebeen unified and broadened to includeStanford University, École Polytechniquein Paris, Tsinghua University in China,and other partner institutions on all con-tinents, including a virtual outpost at thenew Antarctic research station.

This network had become not onlydesirable, but necessary after applicationsto U.S. universities from international stu-dents had declined by 36% (Engineering),24% (Business), and between 20–24% inother fields starting in the 2003/2004 aca-demic year. This decline continuedrapidly until 2009, after which time theU.S. government eased restrictions onforeign students. While foreign graduateenrollment in the United States leveled offat 250,000 by 2010, most of the damagehad already been done. In contrast tomany of its peer institutions, MITremained relatively unaffected by main-taining its high level of excellence andselectivity and by offering increased studyoptions to foreign students through its

MIT 2040Demaine and de Weck, from page 1

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

4

international network. This allowedforeign students affiliated with MIT’sknowledge centers to choose between full-time on-campus study at MIT and full-time study at a partner institution withvirtual classroom participation throughthe real-time OCW system, combinedwith short-term visits to MIT for intenseface-to-face encounters with faculty andfellow students from across the globe.

Another benefit of the global collabo-rative network of universities is thereduced impact of fluctuations in localmarkets and federal funding. When theU.S. government lost track of the impor-tance of fundamental research (starting asearly as 2004) MIT had to turn to othersources. One of those sources was createdby forming a larger, combined endow-ment between the partner universities,which now totals what would have been

the equivalent of $1 trillion in 2005. By2030, the university network created itsown funding agency, which now providesthe majority of research funding for alluniversities in the network and many uni-versities outside the network. The result-ing freedom has enabled MIT to lower itstuition substantially, realizing the princi-ple that good education cannot bebought. Current predictions suggest thatincreasing government support of theagency will be a central issue of the U.S.elections later this year. But whateverexternal funding does come in, MIT andits network have the power to reject anystrings attached to the money, and pre-serve its academic freedom.

But other things around MIT havestayed reassuringly the same. The Red Soxhave not been able to reclaim their WorldSeries title from the 2004 season and arestill looking for a repeat over threedecades later. It seems as though the cursehad only been temporarily reversed in

that one magical year. The Big Dig, as it isstill called, was completed by 2008, but theoccasional leak and tunnel closureremains. Food trucks are still the mostpopular form of nutrition for studentsand some of the staff around campus.And the sunset has a particular brillianceover the Charles River on this cold night,March 1st, 2040.

Editor’s Note: This editorial was written by

two of the “younger generation” of MIT

faculty. We always welcome articles by all MIT

faculty, but particularly wish to encourage sub-

mission of pieces by this “younger generation.”

MIT 2040Demaine and de Weck, from preceding page

Marginalization and DiscriminationBras, from page 1

seal. This argument, it seems to me, isdisingenuous, at best. The MIT seal hasbeen modernized before, and the tradi-tion is for every class to design a distinc-tive ring. There is a process in place forimplementing the ring design and thisprocess has led to many permutations ofthe basic concept, including having awoman on the seal. The MIT undergradu-ate population is nearly half women. It isobvious to me that, given the open andunrestricted process of the ring design,women would want clear recognition oftheir influence in MIT life. This type of“protest” by men is insensitive and seeksto promote a history that has no place inour present or our future. Some of ourwomen undergraduates feel threatened.They are frustrated and angry at the disre-spect of some of their male colleagues.

The reality is that this incident is but thetip of the iceberg of a much deeperproblem. Gender bias remains an issue,even when women are no longer a minor-ity in the undergraduate class.

People of color, however, still are aminority. That members of our commu-nity would deface a poster with racial slursis to me a sign that there is significantintolerance in our midst. As I said earlier,these incidents are not that rare.Insensitivity, insults, marginalization, anddemeaning treatment happen all the time,at all levels of the Institute. Some of theincidents become subjects of publicdebate, most we never hear about. I amnot naïve; society-at-large is full of bigotsand hence a community like MIT willhave its share. I would hope, though, itwould be a smaller than normal share andthat there could be civilized debate.

I do not believe in mandating educa-tion to all in order to address the ignorant

few. I do believe in the power of the com-munity to illuminate some of our friendsin need. This should involve plenty ofopportunity for voluntary debate. Itshould involve institutional zero tolerancefor bigotry and constant reinforcement ofour non-discriminatory values. Moreimportantly, it must involve the activeparticipation of the great majority of thecommunity that condemns this behavior.Note that I did not use the colloquial “hasno time for this behavior,” because onething we fail at, particularly the faculty, isto give these important issues the timethey require. I call on you, my colleagues,to be vocal in supporting the rights ofwomen and minorities at MIT. Lead byexample, eliminating the discriminationand marginalization that still exist.

Rafael L. Bras is a Professor, Civil andEnvironmental Engineering and Earth,Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; FacultyChair (rlbras@mit.edu).

Erik Demaine is an Assistant Professor inElectrical Engineering and Computer Science.He will be 59 years old in 2040(demaine@mit.edu). Olivier de Weck is anAssistant Professor in Aeronautics andAstronautics and in the Engineering SystemsDivision (ESD). He will be 71 years old in 2040(deweck@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

5

Summary Report from the Ad HocCommittee on the Faculty Quality of Life

FOR TH E PAST YEAR, the provost’s AdHoc Committee on the Faculty Quality ofLife (FQL) has been working to under-stand how satisfied MIT faculty membersare with their roles at MIT, how well theynegotiate the stresses of family and career,and what MIT might do to help facultyalleviate the stresses that interfere withtheir achieving a sense of success. Thisreport is a summary of the committee’sactivities, findings, and recommendations.

The committee was assembled, first, toestablish a benchmark of the current satis-faction and stress levels of the faculty and,second, to recommend changes to MIT’spolicies and administrative practices thatwould help to raise the satisfaction offaculty with their professional and per-sonal lives and to alleviate the stress thatdetracts from their work. The current AdHoc Committee is one of a series ofgroups that have studied faculty quality oflife at MIT, the most recent antecedentbeing the surveys conducted by the MITCouncil on Family and Work in October2001. (The final report from December2002 may be viewed at http://web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/fqol.pdf.) Numerous com-mittees have also studied the topic at uni-versities we would consider our peersincluding, recently, Stanford and Berkeley.Finally, there is an extensive literature ofstudies that have examined “life andwork” among college professors and otherprofessions with similar educational back-grounds and social standings. Theseinclude the New Scholars project atHarvard and the recent Agenda forExcellence report from the AmericanCouncil on Education. The present com-mittee has assembled a number of these

documents and other URLs athttp://web.mit.edu/fql for convenientexamination.

These studies have identified a consis-tent set of themes that buffet the connec-tion between faculty professional andprivate lives. The current Committee’swork (including its own new data gather-ing activities) has re-confirmed thesegeneral findings in the MIT context, andhas also identified a few issues that appearto be specific to the Institute.

To provide a factual grounding to thecurrent Committee’s work, we structuredinput from the faculty in two different sys-tematic settings. The first was a surveyadministered to all faculty members inApril 2004. Even though the surveyinstrument was extensive, a record-break-ing 70% of faculty members filled out thequestionnaire. The second approachinvolved a series of focus groups – facili-tated professionally with assistance fromMIT’s Human Resources department – inwhich we were able to explore topicsrelated to faculty quality of life and workin more depth. We held eight of thesefocus groups: five organized for ran-domly-chosen groups of faculty membersfrom each of the five schools, and threeadditional groups of randomly selectedfaculty targeted to address issues of inter-est and concern to specific age groups(younger than 35, mid-career faculty aged35-55,and senior faculty aged 55 and older).

A complete and extensive report of ourfindings (including statistical analysis ofthe data) and our recommendations ispresently being crafted by the ad hoc com-mittee. However, we also wished to makethe faculty aware of a number of general

themes through the present forum. Thefollowing pages provide a summary of thekey findings that emerged from the surveyand the focus groups:Background factors relevant to the life-work interface• MIT faculty members are generally satis-

fied with their roles at the Institute,expressing levels of satisfaction thatexceed at least two peer institutions.

• MIT faculty members experience a greatdeal of stress, at levels that exceed thoseof senior managers in the private sector.This level of stress appears to becommon among faculty at research uni-versities, even those we would notdirectly consider our peers. However thestress indicators at MIT are at the verytop of the scale.

• Differences between men and women,and between tenured and untenuredfaculty members, are generally small,both substantively and statistically.Satisfaction levels are the greatest amongthe youngest and oldest faculty; however,there is a dip in satisfaction among thebroad middle-career group, aged 35 to 55.

• MIT faculty members who experiencethe greatest household stress includewomen, faculty with children of schoolage, the untenured, and the young. Ofcourse these demographic groupingsalso combine in important ways.

• Middle-career faculty members aremore likely to report stress associatedwith managing research and to believethat the resources provided by theInstitute for teaching and research areinadequate. The combinations of limitedsalary increases and the oppressive cost

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

6

of living in the local area – coupled withthe fiscal pressures of maintaining ahealthy and vibrant research programthat might ultimately lead to personalcareer advancement – result in a growingfeeling of “career stagnation” that resultsin the drop in satisfaction noted above.

• Traditional gender roles have notchanged appreciably among theyoungest generation of MIT facultymembers. Both younger and mid-careerfaculty members report that, on average,the female partner is responsible for agreater share of household duties. As aresult of the changes in the demographiccomposition of our faculty, the issues thatare raised by this distribution of tasks willcontinue to grow in importance.

• Faculty members who have an activesocial life and who get more sleep reportbeing more satisfied with their roles asfaculty members.

• It is very difficult for MIT facultymembers to afford a house where theycan take full advantage of theBoston/Cambridge cultural life and stillbe satisfied with the schooling of theirchildren.

On the whole, MIT faculty membersexpress a slightly greater satisfaction withtheir professional lives than with theirpersonal lives. We are busy and work longhours, but for many faculty this is whatattracted them to MIT in the first place.Sources of stress arise most commonly atthe juncture between the home and theInstitute and negotiating the frequently-competing demands of both. Most unfor-tunately, less than half of MIT facultymembers express satisfaction with effortsthat MIT is making toward increasingtheir quality of life. So, the general picturewe gather is one in which the faculty arevery satisfied on campus and at home, butvery dissatisfied with the extent of theeffort needed to manage the interfacebetween the two. We must therefore take aholistic viewpoint to the faculty’s qualityof life.

What can be done to help MIT facultymembers strike a better balance betweenlife outside the Institute and their roles asfaculty members? To the extent thatimprovements can be made at theInstitute in order to make the job of afaculty member more rewarding and lessstressful, what are those?

Based on our own committee delibera-tions, statistical evidence from the survey,and discussions with faculty members inthe eight focus groups, we recommendthat clear and concrete steps be taken ineach of five different areas. These areasare, in approximate order of importance;(1) housing, (2) professional support fortraditional on-campus roles, (3) extendedpersonal and family support beyond MIT,(4) the common faculty environment,and (5) adjustments to the career path.

Housing• MIT should immediately and substan-

tially revise its faculty housing program toassist faculty members of all ranks. Thefocus group sessions drove home thecommon observation that the greatestpersonal stress facing an MIT facultymember is finding a place to live that isconvenient to MIT. It was also widelyagreed that the high housing cost in theBoston area is the greatest competitivedisadvantage MIT faces in recruiting topfaculty members and graduate students.Both junior and senior faculty expressedthis sentiment, though junior facultymembers were more likely to express adesire to live very close to the Institute(i.e., in Cambridge or along the “RedLine corridor”).

• MIT’s housing program should consist of awell-integrated portfolio of options. Theseoptions should cover the spectrum fromdeveloping rental property that would beavailable at subsidized rates to MITfaculty members, through MIT-ownedapartments and condominiums close tocampus that could be sold and re-soldexclusively to MIT faculty, to subsidizedmortgage plans. Rental faculty apart-ments should be incorporated in all newconstruction of graduate studenthousing. The greatest interest is in subsi-dized mortgage plans, but it was also rec-ognized that faculty members intransitional situations (recently hired,undergoing divorce, experiencing newly“empty nests,” or nearing retirement)might find the options provided by well-equipped and new construction in closeproximity to campus very attractive.MIT should make every effort tosupport private third-party effortsaimed to address this lack of modernhousing options close to campus.

• Mortgage subsidy plans should bebroadly inclusive of existing facultymembers. It is tempting to begin a newmortgage subsidy plan by focusingbenefits on untenured and newly-tenured faculty members who areclearly most severely affected by thepresent cost of housing in the greaterBoston area. However, even facultymembers who were lucky enough tobuy their houses at the bottom of thehousing slump in the early 1990sbought into a market that was signifi-cantly higher than the national average.Therefore, many middle-aged andmiddle-career faculty members nowlive further from campus than theychoose, resulting in long commutes,less engagement with the campus, andless time with their families. Whilecompetitive pressures make addressingthe housing situation of new hires andnewly-tenured faculty members themost pressing, we predict seriousmorale problems among the faculty if anew mortgage subsidy programexcludes those who have been on thefaculty for more than 10 years.

Faculty Quality of Lifefrom preceding page

Steps need to be takenin five areas: housing,professional support,extended personal andfamily support, commonfaculty environment,and career path.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

7

• MIT’s housing programs should bedesigned to facilitate faculty membersliving “close” to MIT. “Close to MIT” is arelative term and open to further delib-eration, but there was positive sentimentexpressed in favor of MIT furtherenhancing its housing programs to espe-cially assist faculty living close by. In thelong term, MIT, the faculty, and the sur-rounding cities and towns will all gain ifInstitute faculty lived closer to campus,even those faculty members who boughttheir houses a decade ago.

Professional support• The provost should make available to the

Schools additional funds that will be usedto increase the level of professionalsupport available to faculty members incarrying out their core responsibilities asfaculty, in both teaching and research.The Committee encountered manycomments from faculty members tothe effect that the number ofsenior/professional staff membersavailable to help them do their jobs hassteadily dwindled over the past decade-and-a-half. The specific jobs these indi-viduals held vary across schools anddepartments, but generally go beyondsecretarial support towards the level oflab managers and senior technical/lab-oratory professionals, and grant-writers. It was also noted that althoughnumerous funds exist for developinginnovative new courses the first timearound, ongoing support for preparinglectures/demonstrations and develop-ing visual aids is often lacking. Oneoption we explored was providingfaculty members with an account thatcould be pooled with other like-minded faculty to purchase such assis-tance, but we met with firm resistanceto this idea from the faculty. The addi-tional managerial overhead over-whelms the perceived benefit. A betterstrategy would be for the Institute toprovide new funding, to be available todepartments and Schools, in order toexclusively hire new staff members whowould provide these services out of acommon pool.

Extended personal and family support• The Institute should provide dedicated

resources to assist new faculty members torelocate in the Boston area and to assistfaculty spouses in finding jobs close to theMIT campus. The recruitment of newfaculty members is a major source ofstress for department heads, who mustoften rely on their own wiles and ad hoccontacts to help with such things as realestate, schooling for children, andemployment for spouses and partners.The Institute should establish a singleoffice that would provide one-stop refer-rals to help with faculty recruitment.Such an office could also assist existingfaculty members. (The Center for Work,Family and Personal Life provides someof these services, but not all, and is notdedicated to faculty recruitment.)

• The Institute should take the lead in estab-lishing a new Massachusetts BayAcademic Opportunities consortium thatfacilitates the frequently frustrating,stressful, and time-consuming searchesfor postdoctoral/professional and aca-demic job openings by the spouses ofexisting MIT faculty members andfaculty candidates. Similar consortiaalready exist in both Northern andSouthern California.

• The Institute should actively and fully par-ticipate in external organizations in thelocal area that provide resources targetedat managing the work-family interface.These organizations include family-related operations such as “Parents in aPinch” in addition to professional-related activities such as PartnerJob.com.

• The Institute should work harder to publi-cize existing work-family policies (forexample, maternity/paternity leave,elderly care, and mental health policies)and also ensure that there are no penalties,real or perceived, for taking full use of suchbenefits.

• The Institute should provide a venue forsafe and fun activities for faculty memberchildren (and the children of otheremployees) on days when public schoolsare closed. An acknowledged point ofstress at the Institute for both faculty andstaff concerns “snow days,” when local

schools are closed, but the Instituteremains open. One source of stress isthat faculty members often have respon-sibilities that require their presence oncampus on such days. If the Institute isgoing to retain its tradition of remainingopen in all but the direst of weatheremergencies, then it should develop con-tingency plans for the care of children(for both faculty and staff members) onsuch days. Another interesting proposalregarding a weekly “MIT-night” wasraised in the last issue of the FacultyNewsletter by Prof. Jacquelyn Yanch(https://web.mit.edu/fnl/vol/173/yanch.htm).

Common faculty environment• The Institute should establish a real

Faculty Club as a common and centrally-located gathering place for faculty. Thenewly-established faculty lunch room inthe Stata Center is recognized as a majorstep in the right direction, by providing acomfortable, pleasant venue to socializewith colleagues. However, the lunchroom does not serve the larger set ofneeds that an actual Faculty Club wouldaddress, including a venue for smallmeetings and recruitment activities.

• The Institute should continue the supportof an independent medical center oncampus, available for faculty membersand staff. Aside from housing, the issuethe Committee heard the most concernabout was the perceived erosion of serv-ices at the MIT Medical Center. Many ofthese comments were focused on recentlosses in ob/gyn services, but the broaderconcerns went well beyond these. It waswidely recognized that having a full-service medical clinic on campus was amajor time-saver, for both facultymembers and the staff who work forthem. Closing or severely curtailing theservices of the Medical Center would beconsidered a major reduction in thequality of life of Institute facultymembers.

• The Institute should consider the need toprovide office space for emeritus facultymembers to be an integral part of gooddepartmental management. Both

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

8

younger and older faculty membersexpressed a desire that MIT take a morecomprehensive and generous stancetoward its emeritus faculty, in terms ofthe office space provided for them.Presently, the treatment of our emeritivaries greatly across the campus. Somedepartments have surplus space they canallocate to retired faculty members, butnot all do, and a successful recruitmentseason can wipe it out in an instant.Rather than being an afterthought, MITshould plan on its emeritus facultymembers retaining an office presenceand should provide that space on aregular basis. We considered, butrejected, the idea that MIT create aspecial center dedicated to providing theoffice needs of the emeritus faculty,because the greatest benefit of providingemeritus offices is in continuing depart-mental interactions and the mentoringof junior faculty.

• As the Institute continues to expand intothe City of Cambridge it should work hardto plan and consider its place and contextin the immediate environs. A vibrant,healthy local community with residentialbuildings (for faculty and students),cafes, markets, shops, and stores is tobe greatly preferred to a “biotechghetto” that is devoid of life outside ofbusiness hours.

Career path• The Institute should change its sabbatical

policy to allow the “banking” of leaves. Likemost universities, MIT’s sabbatical policyallows faculty to apply for a sabbaticalleave after 12 semesters of teaching. If thisleave is taken after a faculty member isentitled to it, the subsequent leaves arepushed back by a corresponding amount.Because of the added complexities ofmodern family life (e.g., the competingemployment constraints of two-careercouples) and the needs of departmentsfor their faculty to be flexible in takingleave, it makes sense to allow leaves toaccumulate, whether they are taken or

not. We envision a system in whichcredits are accumulated in proportion tothe number of classes and terms taught.In some cases, this will result in facultymembers waiting 12 years in order toearn a full year off at full salary. Webelieve it more likely that facultymembers would still take half-year sab-baticals, just at slightly more irregularintervals that serve their needs and theneeds of the department better. Theability of the Institute to compete withexternal market factors such as changesin sabbatical leave policies at other localuniversities can also be actively addressedthrough such a credit-based system.

• The Institute should experiment with “re-entry post docs,” to allow former facultymembers or research staff to re-enter aca-demic life after a time off for family con-siderations. One of the ways the “careerpipeline” leaks is when women facultymembers leave the academy to have chil-dren. Having left, it is often impossible tolocate an appropriate “on-ramp” forreturning to the academy in fast-movingfields. One of the most interesting ideasbeing tried in the University ofCalifornia system is “re-entry post docs”that allow individuals who have beenaway from the academy for familyreasons to regain a footing back on theacademic track. MIT should learn fromsuch experiments and decide in the nearfuture whether to adapt such anapproach for this campus. A number ofother novel ideas including the option ofvariable 10-year tenure clocks are dis-cussed by the ACE in their report on “AnAgenda for Excellence: CreatingFlexibility in Tenure-Track FacultyCareers” (http://www.acenet.edu/book-store/pdf/2005_tenure_flex_summary.pdf).

• The Institute should re-establish fundsthat allow faculty members to “re-engi-neer themselves.” The Institute has anumber of funding sources that allowfaculty members to innovate in teachingand research (e.g., the D’Arbeloff Fund),but few sources of funds in smalleramounts to allow moderate-scaledadjustments to one’s own career. Forinstance, funding and support appear

hard to come by when faculty memberswant to upgrade their classes in an incre-mental way, or when they want to travelto conferences or take classes in new andemerging fields in which they are notprofessionally active. To remedy this, theProvost could, for instance, establish afund that would provide $1,000 tofaculty members who wanted to travel toa conference or workshop, not to presenta paper, but to partake of the program.Or, a fund could be established by theProvost to provide one-semester teach-ing relief for faculty members who wishto revamp course materials in a signifi-cant, but not revolutionary way.

In conclusion, we would like to thankall of those faculty who have participatedin this process so far, including all of youwho completed the survey and those whoattended the focus groups. We alsoencourage you to respond to these sug-gestions by e-mailing the committee atfql@mit.edu. The quality of life chal-lenges facing the MIT faculty are notalways unique, but our attention to thechallenges should be unique. The oppor-tunity, should we seize it, is to be a leaderin addressing these important work-family challenges that face faculty in alltop research universities. Being a leader inthis domain will provide the doublebenefit of advancing the quality of life ofMIT’s faculty and enhancing our com-petitive position in recruiting the bestfaculty in the future.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Faculty Quality of Life

Angelika Amon is an Associate Professor of

Biology (angelika@mit.edu);Lotte Bailyn is a Professor of Management

(lbailyn@mit.edu);Gareth H. McKinley (co-chair) is a Professor of

Mechanical Engineering (gareth@mit.edu);Daniel G. Nocera is a Professor of Energy and

a Professor of Chemistry (nocera@mit.edu);

Ann M. Pendleton-Jullian is an Associate

Professor of Architecture (annpjull@mit.edu);Charles Stewart III (co-chair) is a Professor of

Political Science (cstewart@mit.edu).

Faculty Quality of Lifefrom preceding page

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

9

Theodore A. PostolAn Open Letter to the MIT FacultyWhen Everything is Secret, There is No Truth

I N N OV E M B E R 2 0 0 2 , ProfessorEdward Crawley recommended a fullinvestigation of my allegations of fraudin Lincoln Laboratory’s evaluation of acritical National Missile Defense (NMD)test that was aimed at determiningwhether the NMD would ever be able totell the difference between warheads andsimple decoys. For two years, the MITadministration took no action on therecommendation despite its implicationsfor academic integrity and national secu-rity. Then, as a parting gesture, PresidentVest declared in December 2004, that theinvestigation could not proceed becauseit depended on classified informationthat the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)would not let MIT use – even thoughthe information was already held byLincoln Laboratory.

In addition, MIT says it cannot providethe names of the individuals it claims tohave “identified” for its “ongoing” investi-gation, nor can MIT explain why itsongoing investigation has no mechanismto review and assess information alreadyin-hand and available. MIT can also notexplain why the investigation process isnow secret and opaque, nor can it demon-strate that the process is being imple-mented with impartial and independentinvestigators, or even that there is aninvestigative process.

The basic facts are either known, oravailable, to MIT investigators and couldbe used to investigate this matter usingopen, transparent, and peer-reviewedmethods, rather than those that havebeen adopted.

In his play,“All My Sons,”Arthur Millerdepicts Joe Keller, a World War II manu-

facturer of aircraft engines who know-ingly ships defective engines to combatunits. As a result, 21 planes and their pilotsare lost, and one of Keller’s sons, a servingcombat pilot, kills himself when he learnsof his father’s deception. Joe Keller’smorality placed his short-term financialinterests above his duty to country.

MIT’s unwillingness to investigate itsown role in concealing fundamental flawsin the National Missile Defense systemraises the same moral issues; what isMIT’s obligation to the country when itknows that the Institute may have liedabout a defense that is supposed to protectthe nation?

In what follows, I will address the ques-tion whether there is sufficient evidencethat could be used by MIT to determinethat Lincoln Laboratory misled federalagents during an investigation of possiblefraud in the National Missile Defensesystem that is now being deployed by theBush Administration.

The document that initially caused meto conclude that federal investigators weremisled by Lincoln Laboratory manage-ment and staff was produced by Lincolnduring the summer of 1998 to support afederal investigation of possible fraud by a

defense contractor, known as TRW.Lincoln was supporting the investigatorsin its statutory capacity as a FederallyFunded Research and DevelopmentCenter (FFRDC). The title of the reportLincoln produced for the investigators isan “Independent Review of TRWDiscrimination Techniques.”

The statement of work (SOW) that setout the tasks for the study required thatthe study “be done in cooperation withthe . . . Department of Defense InspectorGeneral” as well as with various defensecontractors and agencies associated withthe Ballistic Missile Defense Organization(now known as the Missile DefenseAgency). The basic tasks for the LincolnLaboratory-led study was to “review the . . . [ability of computer algorithms to dis-criminate between warheads and decoysusing] . . . the data from [the] IFT-1A[experiment] and [to] evaluate(s) the[accuracy of claims about performance] . . .reported by TRW to the government . . ..”

At issue was the Baseline Algorithm (orBLA). The algorithm was designed toexamine signals collected by an infraredsensor that had been launched into spacefrom the Lincoln Laboratory-run missiletest site on Kwajalein atoll in the SouthPacific. The experiment was to test theability of infrared sensors to observemock warheads that are accompanied byballoons and rigid objects that could serveas decoys to fool the infrared hominginterceptors that are being used in what isnow the Bush National Missile Defensesystem. If this experiment, and the closelyrelated IFT-2 experiment, could notdemonstrate that the “Kill Vehicle” could

continued on next page

Letters that MIT have in hand . . . show thatLincoln repeatedlyfailed to comply withrequests for informationfrom the lead federalinvestigator.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

10

discriminate between the mock warheadand these simple decoys, the NMD systemwould have little or no chance of workingin real combat.

The Baseline Algorithm was supposedto work in a way that is roughly analogousto computer programs that are designedto “recognize” text on printed pages.

An obvious requirement for recog-nizing the text is a good prior knowledgeof the geometry and variations in geom-etry of the letters and symbols that thecomputer program is trying to “recog-nize” (or more accurately, match). In thecase of the Baseline Algorithm, thedistant objects to be “recognized” appearas dots when observed at hundreds ofkilometers range. The objects are recog-nized by first making careful physics-based calculations to determine theinfrared signals from the objects whenthey are in space. These calculations arethen used to create “templates” thatpredict the “color,” brightness, and twin-kling of the signal from each object asseen by the sensor. In order to make amatch, the sensor must be able to accu-rately measure the color and brightnessof each object. The predictions of howeach object looks to the sensor must beaccurate and closely match what thesensor actually sees.

In March of 2002, the GeneralAccountability Office (GAO) issued twoinvestigation reports that found that sensorin the IFT-1A had lost calibration due tothe failure of its supporting cooling system.

Without calibration, red dots mightlook green, green might appear yellow,and the colors of the other dots wouldalso be distorted. Without information

on how to correct the color and bright-ness distortions, there was no way tomatch what was seen to what wasexpected. In turn, it was not possible todemonstrate that the Baseline Algorithmcould select the right objects. In spite ofthis situation, the GAO reported thatLincoln Laboratory had told the federalagents that the Baseline Algorithm hadworked well.

Prior to the GAO report, I had writtento MIT’s then Chair of the Corporation,Alex D’Arbeloff, warning him that thesensor in the IFT-1A had lost calibrationand that Lincoln’s claims to the federalagents could not possibly have been true.Provost Robert Brown acknowledged mywarning in a letter to me dated February11, 2002. When the GAO reports confirm-ing my warning were published weekslater, I provided MIT with carefully anno-tated versions of the reports. As a result,MIT was informed of the problem andthe issues with Lincoln Laboratory evenbefore the GAO issued its reports con-firming my warnings.

Letters that MIT have in hand betweenthe Defense Criminal Investigative Serviceand Lincoln Laboratory show thatLincoln repeatedly failed to comply withrequests for information from the leadfederal investigator. The particular infor-mation that was requested from Lincolnwould have immediately and distressinglyindicated that fraud had occurred at TRW.

For example, the lead federal agentbelieved that there were 60 seconds ofdata from the experiment. When he askedLincoln about the first 30 seconds of data,he was not told that there was no data forthis period because the sensor had mal-functioned. When he asked about the last11 seconds of data, he was not told thatthe Baseline Algorithm had incorrectlyidentified a two-foot diameter inflatedballoon for the warhead. When he askedabout a 16-second time interval in theexperiment that Lincoln claimed to beanalyzing, he was not told that the tem-plates for matching the expected signals tothe measured signals had been altered tomake it appear that the warhead was cor-

rectly selected. In other words, documen-tation that MIT has in hand shows thatLincoln not only did not reveal criticalinformation to the federal agents, butmade claims to the agents that could notpossibly be true.

Over the past four years I have spokennumerous times with the federal agentwho led the investigation at Lincoln. Hehas repeatedly told me that he was notinformed by Lincoln of the problems withthe sensor, the loss in calibration, nor thedramatic increase in noise that obscuredthe signals in some cases and distorted thesignals in others. I provided MIT with thename and contact information for thefederal agent nearly three years ago; as yetno one from MIT has contacted him.

Independent investigators will need toexamine MIT’s own interim inquiryreport, which was provided to me roughly15 months after this matter was broughtto the attention of MIT’s then PresidentVest, and four months after the GAO hadissued its two damaging reports.

Information from the MIT interimreport and from discussions I had withthe then Chairman of the Senate ArmedServices Committee Senator Carl Levin,and with one of his aides, indicate that inthe spring of 2001 a five-member team ofMIT Lincoln Laboratory managementand staff, including an assistant divisionhead, went to Washington to brief SenateArmed Services Committee members andstaff. The Lincoln briefing, which wasunknown to me at the time, was aimed atdebunking allegations I had made in awidely-publicized letter to the WhiteHouse about scientific fraud in the inte-grated Flight Test 1A (IFT-1A).

Among those briefed by the Lincolnteam were Senator Jack Reed, the thenchairman of the Subcommittee onStrategic Forces, and staff members whoworked for Senator Levin. The LincolnLaboratory team told the audience thatthe allegations of fraud were bogus, andthat the NMD would have no seriousproblems telling warheads from decoys.When the Lincoln team presented itsanalysis of why the allegations of fraudwere bogus, they failed to inform the

There is No TruthPostol, from preceding page

The Baseline Algorithmhad incorrectlyidentified a two-footdiameter inflatedballoon for thewarhead.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

11

audience that the data from the IFT-1Aexperiment was corrupted by a failure of acooling system, and that the experimentcould not possibly have been used toprove their conclusion.

As Senator Levin explained to mewhen we later talked about the Lincolnbriefing, “I have one MIT professor whotells me that the NMD system has prob-lems, and a group of MIT professorsfrom Lincoln who tell me the systemwill work fine.”

An MIT investigation could surelydetermine, without access to secret infor-mation, why Lincoln personnel pro-duced a misleading briefing for seniormembers of the Senate, who told them todo it, and how they were mistakenlytaken for MIT faculty.

The MIT interim report asserts thatevery material fact central to whether ornot Lincoln was involved in a cover-up ofcontractor fraud contradicted the factsreported by the GAO. Since the GAO hadobtained almost all of the technical mate-rial for its investigation at LincolnLaboratory, the GAO followed its normalprocedure of providing Lincoln with itsfactual findings so that any inaccuraciescould be corrected. Before I was allowedto see the MIT interim report, the MITfact finder provided it to the same man-agers and staff at Lincoln who hadreviewed the GAO report for accuracy. Yetthe facts in the MIT interim report con-tradicted those in the GAO report. Inaddition, the interim report was alsoreviewed by MIT legal counsel before itwas provided to me. I provided MIT withan extensive analysis of the interim report,pointing out specifically where the reportappeared to indicate fraud in the manage-ment of MIT’s internal investigation, butMIT has yet to review and respond to thematerials I provided. These materials arenot secret and need to be reviewed in anindependent investigation of this matter.

Further post-flight documentationavailable to MIT provides detailed tem-perature records of the malfunctioningcooling system during the IFT-1A test.

Other post-flight data shows that a fewtens of seconds after the failed one minute

attempt to collect data on the objects inspace, the sensor was turned to look at thebrightest infrared star in the NorthernHemisphere, Arcturus, a red giant with avery strong and well known spectrum.This star sighting would provide data on aknown object that could then be used toimprove the precision (or calibration) ofmeasurements made on the mockwarhead and decoys.

The post-flight data from the starsighting shows that the observation of thestar was swamped with noise. In addition,infrared data from the mock warheadshows that it too was swamped with veryhigh levels of noise. The large amounts ofnoise in the data from the mock warhead,and from Arcturus, would have immedi-ately indicated to researchers that theexperiment had failed, since the precisedata needed to derive results from theexperiment was not obtained. The failureof the experiment would also have beenimmediately evident to the researchersmonitoring the flight of the sensor,because the temperature of the sensortransmitted from the space experimentshowed that there had been a failure in the

cooling system. All this information isavailable to MIT, but has yet to be exam-ined or evaluated.

So MIT’s assertion that it cannot accessinformation necessary to investigate thismatter is simply not supported by even acursory review of the extensive body ofinformation that is already available toinvestigators. This matter can be resolvedwithout access to secret information. Toargue otherwise impairs the credibility ofthe Institute.

MIT’s new president, Susan Hockfield,has the authority to reverse this ill-consid-ered policy. She should do so in the inter-est of our nation’s security and theintegrity and reputation of academicresearch at MIT.

Editor’s Note: We have asked the MIT admin-

istration to respond to Prof. Postol’s article

above and the one he wrote in the previous

issue of the Faculty Newsletter. We hope to have

their response for the next issue.

Theodore A. Postol is Professor of Science,Technology, and National Security Policy(postol@mit.edu).

In the near-vacuum of space there is no aerodynamic drag to cause light objects to slowup relative to heavy ones. Such light balloons and rigid objects can easily be made tolook like warheads. As a result, an attacker can use such “decoys” to greatly reduce theeffectiveness, or completely exhaust such “high-altitude” defenses.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

12

Olivier de WeckProfessors of the Practice:Bridging Industry and Academia

TH I S I S TH E S ECON D ARTICLE in aseries on non-traditional faculty appoint-ments at MIT. In the first article (MITFaculty Newsletter, Vol. XVII No. 3,November/December 2004) we discussedhow Professors of the Practice are bring-ing a sense of the Real World to MIT,thanks to their extensive professionalexperience. In this article we discuss inmore detail the complex relationshipbetween academia and industry, andargue that Professors of the Practice areable to act as a unique bridge betweenMIT and industry.

Industry and Academia: ComplexInteractionsSome may say that it is futile to map theintricate web of relationships betweenacademia and industry because of thedynamic nature of interactions. Othersmay argue that close ties between industryand academia are undesirable becausethey create conflicts of interest (of a pri-marily financial nature) and rob the uni-versity of its freedom to pursue “pure”research independent of economic inter-ests. Although everyone is entitled to theiropinion, a close association between aca-demia and industry is undeniable, both infact and tradition. This is particularly truefor MIT:

• MIT maintains strategic researchalliances with a number of corpora-tions such as Microsoft, Ford, andDupont, among others.

• MIT has strong internal organiza-tions that foster collaborations andexchange of personnel, research ideas,and results, as well as licensing of newtechnologies: the Office of Corporate

Relations, the Industrial LiaisonProgram, the Technology LicensingOffice, and the IndustrialPerformance Center.

• MIT features educational programsfocused on mid-career to executivelevel students: the Leaders forManufacturing Program, the MITSloan Fellows program in Innovationand Global Leadership, and theSystem Design and Managementprogram.

• MIT’s research is funded by industryon the order of $60-80 million peryear, which has historically repre-sented between 11.4% (2004) and19.7% (2000) of the Institute’s totalresearch expenditures.

• A 1997 study conducted byBankBoston revealed that MIT grad-uates have founded 4,000 companies,creating 1.1 million jobs worldwideand generating annual sales of$232 billion.

• MIT has the ability to appointexceptional industrial leaders asProfessors of the Practice. This givesthese individuals the ability topursue a second career in academiawith rights and obligations equiva-lent to a tenured faculty member.But what’s in it for MIT?

How does MIT interact with industrialfirms?The primary purpose of industry is todesign, produce, and sell goods (products)and services for a profit. In order to do thisthey hire a workforce, consisting of scien-tists, engineers, and managers, amongothers. These graduates are primarily pro-

vided by the Institute through the educa-tional process, which transmits to them abody of knowledge about the workings ofthe physical world and, perhaps moreimportantly, methods and tools to designand produce better goods and services. Inthe messy reality of industrial practice, sit-uations frequently arise which are notproperly addressed by existing methods,tools, or technologies. It is the existence ofthese real-world problems which gives theimpetus for new research, fueled directlyby industry funding, and in some casesindirectly via government funding. MIThires faculty to educate admitted studentsand conduct research which will producenew methods, tools, and technologies toaddress important problems. Occasionallytechnologies are licensed by industry for aroyalty in order to infuse them in new orexisting goods and services.

The figure on the next page shows therelationships between MIT and industryin a simplified fashion as an ObjectProcess Diagram. In this view rectanglesare objects and ovals represent processes.Various links connect objects to processesand objects to objects.

What makes MIT different from manyother universities is that both teachingand research are derived from real-worldproblems and the desire to have an impacton industrial practice. In this context,Professors of the Practice can play a cat-alytic role as members of our faculty. Asformer decision-makers and leaders, theyhave an in-depth understanding ofcurrent, past, and potential future prob-lems that industry is facing. They cantransmit years of experience and hardlessons learned to our students. They can

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

13

act as messengers for the Institute andcarry new research results back to indus-try with credibility and increased aware-ness of new thoughts and ideas born inthe less constrained world of academia.What follows is a brief perspective on twoof our colleagues, Prof. Chris Magee andProf. Debbie Nightingale.

Prof. Christopher MageeChris Magee sees parallels between funda-mental research in engineering scienceand research in large-scale systems, whichare often designed and/or operated byindustry and government. His back-ground in materials science taught himthat the properties and behavior of amaterial are not only a function of itsmolecular structure, but also shaped bythe processes (e.g., heat treatments) thatare applied to it throughout its life.Similarly, he sees intricate relationshipsbetween form and function in complexsystems and products, which also exhibitstrong path dependencies, which areintroduced during the product develop-ment process.

Despite early opportunities to join aca-demia in the 1960s and ’70s, Prof. Mageedecided to make his career in industrywhere he saw more of an opportunity to

make a real-world impact. After joiningFord Motor Company in 1966, he startedin a fundamental research position inmaterials science. As he gradually movedto greater levels of responsibility in thecompany, his work also became moreapplied. This included nonlinear finiteelement modeling, the use of lightweightmaterials in car bodies and crashworthi-ness, among others. Finally, in 1981 hebecame the manager of advanced vehicleand concept development at Ford. Duringthe 1980s and 1990s he led the technicaldevelopment of major new vehicle pro-grams such as the Explorer, Mondeo,Focus, F-Series trucks and the newTaurus, among others. At the end of 2001,he retired from Ford, but wanted toremain active as an academic to continueto learn and to share his insights with stu-dents and others operating at the intersec-tion of industry and academia.

At MIT, Prof. Magee enjoys the intel-lectual stimulation he gets from teachingboth at the graduate and undergraduatelevel (in Mechanical Engineering and inthe UPOP program) as well as the abilityto pursue his research. He is helping shapean intellectual agenda for the field ofEngineering Systems, e.g., through thedoctoral seminar ESD.83. This course

focuses on doctoral-level analysis ofscholarship on key concepts such as com-plexity, uncertainty, fragility, and robust-ness, as well as related areas such assystems engineering, systems dynamics,agent modeling, and systems simulations.

Prof. Magee candidly admits that someaspects of being a Professor of the Practiceare challenging; one of these is the slowpace of decision-making in academia.Whereas decisions in industry are madefrequently, with only partial informationand under considerable time pressure, thisis rarely the case in a university setting. Ata place like MIT, the power of individual,executive decision-makers is replaced bythe need for extensive deliberation andconsensus building among the faculty.This can be frustrating at times, but it isalso essential for the long-term survival ofthe university.

Dr. Magee has a PhD in Metallurgy &Materials Science from Carnegie MellonUniversity and an MBA from MichiganState University. Among his areas ofexpertise are vehicle design, systems engi-neering, application of computer-aidedengineering, and computer-aided design.The application of materials, vehiclecrashworthiness, manufacturing-product

continued on next page

MIT

Educating

Researching

Industry

Graduates

Scientists

Engineers

Managers

Faculty

Licensing

Methods

Tools

hires

Students

has

Technologies

Royalties

admits

Goods

Services

Designing

Producing

Selling

needs

Real World

Problems

Funding

infused

hires

collects

Object-Process-Diagram of MIT-Industry relationships. Nomenclature according to Object Process Methodology (Dori 2002)

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

14

interface, and all aspects of the productdevelopment process are also areas of sig-nificant personal experience and knowl-edge. Dr. Magee is a member of theNational Academy of Engineering, aFellow of ASM, and a Ford TechnicalFellow. He is currently a Professor of thePractice with dual appointments betweenthe Department of MechanicalEngineering and the Engineering SystemsDivision. He is director of the Center forInnovation in Product Development(http://cipd.mit.edu).

Prof. Deborah NightingaleDeborah Nightingale contends that insome cases industry is actually ahead ofacademia. One area where this mightapply is Integrated Product and ProcessDevelopment. Industry has incorporatedcollaborative development processesinvolving design engineers, manufactur-ing engineers, suppliers and customerslong before we began teaching thisapproach in university courses. Shouldacademia and MIT, in particular, give upany research activities in such areas?

Quite the contrary, says Prof.Nightingale. Her philosophy is to useindustry as a laboratory, as a researchtestbed, so to speak. This has been themain thrust of the Lean AerospaceInitiative (LAI) which is now headed byNightingale as co-director. The LeanAerospace Initiative was born out of prac-ticality and necessity, as declining defenseprocurement budgets collided with risingcosts and military industrial overcapacityin the 1990s, prompting a new defenseacquisition imperative: affordabilityrather than performance at any cost(http://lean.mit.edu).

Over the last several years, LAI’s effortshave been broadened beyond manufac-turing to include applying lean principlesto the entire enterprise, including productdevelopment, supply chain management,software development, and enablingadministrative processes such as IT,human resources, and finance. It is often

at the interfaces of these enterpriseprocesses that the key opportunities andresearch issues lie. The dominant researchparadigm in LAI is the case study method.In this context, however, Prof. Nightingalecontends that traditional academia isoften working in the “silos,” rather thanacross organizational boundaries. Also,conventional research is primarily focusedon documenting and collecting data onhistorical facts and describing pathologiesin current industrial settings. Her ambi-tion and research methodology go beyondthis by (i) creating new enterprise operat-ing models, (ii) identifying pockets inindustry and government where theseoperating models can be implemented asprototypes, (iii) observing and measuringthe impact of these new operatingmodels, and (iv) feeding the resultinginsights back to key decision-makers andinto future projects.

The results of this research also flowinto her teaching at the Institute. Hercourse ESD.61J “Integrating the LeanEnterprise” addresses some of the impor-tant issues involved with the planning,development, and implementation of leanenterprises. This course started in 1998 asa seminar in Aeronautics and Astronautics,and has since expanded to include stu-dents in various graduate programs in the

Engineering Systems Division as well asother engineering disciplines. People,technology, process, information, andleadership dimensions of an effective leanenterprise are considered in a unifiedframework. This kind of broad learningexperience is particularly popular withstudents who possess prior work experi-ence (e.g., those in the System Design andManagement program or the Leaders forManufacturing program). Since most ofMIT’s students go into industry positions,Professors of the Practice can also serve asrole models and mentors to both graduateand undergraduate students.

Prof. Nightingale holds a PhD inIndustrial and Systems Engineering fromOhio State University, and MS and BSdegrees in Computer and InformationScience. Prior to joining MIT, she headedStrategic Planning and Global BusinessDevelopment for AlliedSignal Engines.Prior to joining AlliedSignal she workedas a researcher in the Human EngineeringLab at Wright Patterson AFB. Dr.Nightingale is a member of the NationalAcademy of Engineering and a Past-President and Fellow of the Institute ofIndustrial Engineers.

Professors of the Practicede Weck, from preceding page

Olivier de Weck is an Assistant Professor ofAeronautics and Astronautics and EngineeringSystems (deweck@mit.edu).

Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

15

GOODBYE TO THE ORCHARD

Beautiful from the get-go, we wereincarnations of the new, and pure sex.I’ll miss that, along with the unicorns.The organic bower of our garden grewinto anybody’s memory of a bedor a mattress, in a shack near a lake.Mistakes, like love, are to be made,you said. I hadn’t thought of that.

That first autumn was easy, the liquorof decay headiest at noon. And the orchard,let’s face it, had begun to resemble a casino,all its tables rigged in our favor. The yokeof being cared for is what cast us out,not that immense, bearded librarian,our curator, and not our having learnedhow to get on one another’s nerves.

Goodbye to the orchard: greenone day, the next day blood. We knowto stiffen at a voice; how to tell the truthfrom an untruth; what’s sweet, what stinks.Behind each sleeping dog, another to let lie.Who knew an innocence taking ages to perfectcould fall so short when time came to live?You knew, and then you let me know.

MIT Poetry

by Steven Cramer

Steven Cramer taught in MIT's WritingProgram in 1982-83 and in the LiteratureSection in 2000-02. He currently directsthe MFA Creative Writing Program atLesley University. His fourth book of poetryis Goodbye to the Orchard (2004), fromwhich these poems are reprinted.

SINGER

I knew trouble and endured it,grief and desire my companions.In winter my enemy attacked.The better of the two, I was boundin rope made from my own sinew.All that has passed, and so may this.

There was a man condemned to liveoutside the city he loved – even deathmeant less in exile – and a womanwho dreaded the child inside her.Her dreams were dreams of drowning.All that has passed, and so may this.

If the mind becomes a wolf ’s mind,it will force misery on misery,make cowards heroes. If courtierswant the kingdom overthrown, yet failto speak, they will remain courtiers.All that has passed, and so may this.

At first doom sees, wherever it turns,more doom. Then, in time: joy.I’ll say this about myself: my namewas a name you knew, and I sanguntil another singer took my place.All that has passed, and so will this.

after the Anglo-Saxon poem, “Deor”

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

16

Barbara StoweA Retrospective Look at The Campaign for MIT

TH E E N D OF TH E CALE N DAR YEAR

marked the conclusion of the Institute’sseven-year capital campaign. Reachingour $2 billion goal with another $53million in change to our credit, TheCampaign for MIT brought an importanttransformation in private support to MITand set the stage for a new level offundraising in the years to come.

Back in 1994 when Chuck Vest and Ifirst began quiet conversations about acampaign, we were only two years outfrom the completion of the $710 millionCampaign for the Future. But Chuck wasvery concerned about the federal fundingclimate in Washington and it was increas-ingly clear that MIT required additionalfinancial wherewithal for undergraduatescholarships, graduate fellowships, facultychairs, and renewing the campus infra-structure. And so began a parallel processof assessing the demand and supply sideof MIT’s agenda. Then Provost Joel Mosesled the deans and faculty in a review of themost critical institutional needs while thesenior leaders in Resource Developmentanalyzed MIT’s fundraising history andthe current trends that would inform howambitious we could be in seeking supportfrom our donor constituency.

Historically, and in contrast to the IvyLeague schools, MIT has relied heavily onsupport from corporate and foundationdonors. But in 1997, we knew that tosucceed with a campaign that met MIT’sneeds would require turning to ouralumni in unprecedented ways. As we setthe stage for a $1.5 billion campaign, weknew we would need to raise at least $1 billion from individual donors – whichat that time was twice the cumulativegiving of all of MIT’s living alumni. With astrong economy and Chuck’s optimismand leadership, we set forth on a coursethat took us from the height of the market

in the late ’90s through the uncertain eco-nomic and political landscape that fol-lowed shortly thereafter. Happily, ouralumni and friends more than met thechallenge. When we reached our originaltarget two years early, we took a deep breathand raised the goal to $2 billion, and indoing so joined the ranks of a small numberof topflight fundraising institutions.

MIT, of course, is a younger institutionthan many of those with which wecompete and compare ourselves. And ourfundraising program reflects our originsand an evolution that spans 55 years andfive capital campaigns. The Mid CenturyFund, launched in 1949, raised $25million, three-quarters of which camefrom corporations and foundations.During the next three campaigns, thisconstituency continued to provideroughly 60% of our fund-raising dollars.In recent years, as we greatly expandedand strengthened engagement with ouralumni, we shifted the balance dramati-cally, and in the just completed campaign66% of our gifts – $1.35 billion – camefrom individual donors.

During the course of The Campaignfor MIT, we found ourselves in the selectcompany of just nine other universitieswith campaign goals of $2 billion. Mosthad alumni populations considerablylarger than ours; most had large profes-sional schools – like medicine and law;many had big-time athletic programs. Allof these factors shape an institution’sfundraising culture. If you calculate thesecampaign goals on a per alumnus basis,MIT’s tops the list at $19,976 per graduate,which is an extraordinary achievement inthis peer group. [See chart, next page.]

Overall, the campaign benefited fromthe generosity of some 65,000 individualdonors. Fifty-four percent of our alumniparticipated in the campaign; and gifts of

$1 million or more from 208 alumni andfriends totaled $1 billion. Members of theMIT Corporation contributed $425million – 21% of the campaign, and ourcorporate and foundation constituencyadded $650 million.

We did extremely well in meeting someof our goals and wish we could’ve done abit better in some other areas. But at theend of the day, one-in-five faculty chairswere endowed during the campaign, and275 new scholarship funds and 345endowed and expendable graduate fel-lowships were created. The campaignhelped to support the addition of nearlyone-and-a-half million square feet ofspace in five new buildings. And cashgiving to MIT on an annual basis morethan doubled over these seven years. [Seechart, next page.]

These results naturally involved closecollaboration among the staff in ResourceDevelopment, the Alumni Association,and our school-based fundraising col-leagues. They also reflect the generousparticipation of many faculty across theInstitute who worked with us in a wholerange of ways. Our alumni volunteers alsomade important contacts and contribu-tions to the effort and we all owe a greatdebt of gratitude to Ray Stata and Alexd’Arbeloff, both of whom turned inyeoman service meeting alumni allaround the country on MIT’s behalf.

Above and beyond the dollar anddonor metrics we use to measure a cam-paign’s success, there are two additionalfactors that will give shape to MIT in theyears ahead. First, we are reminded timeand again about the importance of long-standing relationships. Having been amember of the MIT community fornearly 25 years, I was privileged to havethe opportunity to work with Jim Killian,Jerry Wiesner, and Howard Johnson in the

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

17

early 1980s. And it was a great pleasure forme to see gifts arrive all these years laterfrom people who were brought closer toMIT through their efforts. Many of our

most generous donors in the last 7 yearsare alumni whose real engagement withthe Institute began during the last cam-paign through the efforts of Paul Gray and

my predecessors, Glenn Strehle and SamGoldblith. And the number of peoplewhose respect and regard for MIT greweven greater during Chuck Vest’s 14-yearpresidency is beyond calculation. AsSusan Hockfield begins her tenure at MIT,she inherits a legacy of strong leadershipand a wonderful community of Institutesupporters which will serve MIT well inthe years to come.

Another of the less tangible but vitallyimportant by-products of this campaignis the new level of confidence it gave all ofus in MIT’s ability to attract high-levelgifts and to appeal to a broad constituencyof supporters around the country andaround the world. Taken together, thislegacy of leadership and generosity com-bined with a heightened confidence setsthe stage for an ambitious and bold nextchapter in private support to MIT.

# Alumni Goal $Goal/Alum Dates Status $ Achieved

MIT 100,372 $2.0B $19,926 1997-2004 Completed $2.05B*

Univ. ofChicago

114,993 $2.0B $17,392 2000-2006 $1.12B

Johns Hopkins 118,619 $2.0B $16,861 2000-2007 $1.59B

Duke 125,897 $2.0B $15,886 1996-2003 Completed $2.36B

USC 179,619 $2.0B $11,135 1993-2002 Completed $2.85B

UCLA 233,037 $2.4B $10,299 1995-2005 $2.65B

Columbia 221,747 $2.2B $9,921 1990-2000 Completed $2.79B

Harvard 269,497 $2.1B $7,792 1994-1999 Completed $2.60B

Univ. ofWashington

267,179 $2.0B $7,486 2000-2008 $1.22B

Univ. ofMichigan

401,418 $2.5B $6,228 2000-2008 $1.60B

$192.1M

$122.6M

$87.7M

$194.7M

$852.3M

$313.9M

$268.9M

$21.4M

128%

61%

70%

56%

136%

70%

269%

$150M

$200M

$125M

$625M

$350M

$450M

$100M

$100M $200M $300M $400M $500M $600M $700M $800M $900M$0

Faculty Chairs

Scholarships & OtherUndergraduate Aid

Undergraduate Education& Student Life

Graduate Fellowships

Research & EducationPrograms

Construction &Renovations

Unrestricted

Pending Designation

*MIT’s $ Achieved as of 12/31/2004

$2B Comparative Campaigns [as of 11/30/2004]

Barbara Stowe is Vice President for ResourceDevelopment (bstowe@mit.edu).

Campaign Total by Campaign Priority; Total Commitments: $2.05B [as of 12/31/2004]

$ Committed

Original Goal

Revised Goal

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

18

Barun SinghStudent Leaders ReportImproving the Graduate Student Academic Experience

H OW D O G R A D UAT E S T U D E N T S

rate MIT faculty support for academicand professional advising? Are they learn-ing the skills and getting the training andadvice they need for future success?Where can we do better?

The Graduate Student Council (GSC)has worked over the course of this year toactively engage students, faculty, and staffto start answering these questions, and weare now in the unprecedented position ofbeing able to do so in a meaningful way.Over 50% of all MIT graduate studentsresponded to the 2004 Graduate StudentSurvey in which the GSC placed a numberof questions related to graduate advising,training, and support. Over 85 faculty,students, and administrators from 25 aca-demic departments participated in focusgroups held by the GSC to discuss howMIT might be able to improve in theseareas. Both the survey data and focusgroup discussions show that while thereare many things MIT can be proud of,there is certainly room for improvement.This article highlights some centralthemes that have emerged.

The Advisor/Advisee RelationshipA student’s relationship with theirresearch advisor can often be the singlemost influential factor in their graduateand professional career.When asked whomthey turn to for support, the advisorranked higher in students’ responses thaneven their parents and family – only peersand spouses were more frequent sourcesof support. A positive relationship basedon trust, mutual understanding, open andhonest communication, and a shared setof goals allows a student to be inspired, to

learn, and to grow to their full potential. Anegative relationship can leave a studentfeeling isolated, unsupported, and, in theextreme, unable to succeed in their post-graduate careers.

The good news is that approximately85% of graduate students say they are sat-isfied with their relationship with theirresearch advisor. The bad news is thatnearly 1,000 current graduate students(15%) are dissatisfied.

The root of students’ dissatisfactionwith their advisors is almost always thelevel of personal attention, feedback, andmentoring they receive, and the quality ofcommunication between them. Howoften do you meet with your students? Athird of the graduate students at MIT feelthat they do not meet with their advisorsenough, and 56% report availability offaculty as an obstacle to their academicprogress. How much of your discussionwith your students revolves around whatyou expect of them, or what they expect ofyou? 44% of graduate students say thattheir advisor does not communicateexpectations clearly. Most striking of all,perhaps, is that over half of all MIT grad-uate students believe their advisor consid-ers them to be a source of labor to advancetheir own research.

The quality of an advisor/advisee rela-tionship is based on the personal interac-tion between those individuals, andcannot be dictated by the department,school, or Institute. There are, however,mechanisms which could do well to rein-force positive relationships. A commontheme to emerge from the focus groupshas been to emphasize the importance ofmentoring and communication in theorientation of new faculty. Well-respectedsenior faculty, or faculty members whohave demonstrated excellence in advising(e.g., Perkins Award winners) could playvital roles in such orientation programs.In addition, creating and enforcing somestandard format for evaluating studentresearch progress could go a long waytowards ensuring some basic level ofregular communication.

Skills, Training, and AdviceFor a student to reach their full potential,a good relationship with their advisormust be accompanied by training inessential skills and advice to assist withtheir professional development. In thetechnical arena, students fare well – 92%of graduate students who are planning tograduate by the end of the current aca-demic year feel that their critical thinkingskills have “greatly” or “somewhat” devel-oped during their time at MIT, and 85%say the same about their research skills.When it comes to the development of“soft skills” (communication, writing,leadership, teamwork, time management,etc.), however, there is considerable roomfor improvement.

Students rank soft skills to be asimportant as or more important than

The good news: 85% ofgraduate students aresatisfied with theirresearch advisor. Thebad news: nearly 1,000students are not.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

19

research skills; yet they are not able to ade-quately develop themselves in those skills.

• In the best case of soft skill develop-ment, 19% of MIT graduate studentsat the end of their programs will nothave learned the critical communica-tion skills they think they will needfor the future (i.e., they rank the skillas “very” or “somewhat” importantbut have developed “very little” or“not at all”).

• Students are least developed in ethicalissues – only 48% of those at the end oftheir programs have developed in theirunderstanding of ethical issues, while86% believe the topic to be important.

• Only 39% of students report havingreceived advice related to ethics.

It is important to note that while grad-uate students overall receive very littleadvice related to research ethics, thisnumber varies a great deal by school. Inthe Whitaker School, for example, 70% ofstudents reported receiving advice onethics. The Schools of Architecture &Planning, and Science, also provide moreadvice on the topic of ethics than theaverage. These schools are not doingbetter than the rest by accident – in eachcase some form of formal training is inte-grated into their curricula.

In the area of professional develop-ment, students are left wanting. Less than40% have received advice on how to find ajob, prepare a résumé, or develop profes-sional contacts outside of their program.We can, however, once again identify abest practice at the school level. Because ofa very conscious decision on the part ofthe Sloan faculty, nearly 70% of Sloan stu-dents report having received advice onhow to develop professional contactsoutside of their program.

It is clear that there are solutions tothe problems of how to teach studentsthe skills they deem important and howto give advice on topics essential to theirfuture progress. Best practices from oneschool or department should be exam-ined by others, and adapted in a way thatmakes sense given that community’s

culture and needs. In addition, the focusgroups emphasized the importance ofregular discussions – among faculty, stu-dents, and graduate administrators – toassess the state of advising and to seekout best practices from other depart-ments or schools.

Resources and the Importance ofPeer SupportThough there are many Institute resourcesmeant to improve student life and learn-ing, utilization of these resources varieswidely. Most self-service (e.g., library) andessential (e.g., health care) resources areheavily utilized (over 75%) while thenumber of students who take advantage ofresources such as MIT Mental Health(19%), Counseling and Support Services(11%) and the Ombudsperson’s Office(4%) is much lower. Among those who douse these resources, a large majority (over75%, and in many cases over 80%) rankthem to be of “good”, “very good” or“excellent” quality (except dining andparking, which fare much worse). It is dif-ficult to gauge exactly what a “good” uti-lization level is or should be for many ofthese resources. What is clear, based onthe focus group discussions, is that manyof these resources, particularly thoserelated to conflict resolution, couldbenefit from increased publicity of theirexistence and purpose.

On the departmental level, the sametrends can be seen (high satisfaction levelsand varied use of resources) but things arecomplicated by the fact that departments donot all offer the same resources and do notpublicize the resources they do offer to thesame extent. For example, one-in-five stu-dents does not have an academic advisordistinct from their research advisor, 40% arenot aware of the existence of a facultymember serving as graduate officer in theirdepartment, and only 21% of studentsknow of any sort of counseling or mediationservices within their department.Departmental resources can often play aneven more significant role than those offeredby the Institute, and should not be over-looked when considering how to providemore support for graduate students.

Finally, one must not forget that themost valuable resource for graduate stu-dents, and their primary source ofsupport, are their peers. In many cases, thebest way to support graduate students isto empower them to help themselves as acommunity. Among nearly all of theresources available to them, graduate stu-dents are most satisfied with their depart-mental graduate student groups andgraduate support groups. Beyond theirdirect effect, these groups also create asupportive community for graduate stu-dents throughout the department. Alldepartments should seek to encourageand foster peer support – this can occuron a variety of levels ranging from per-sonal mentorship to formalized media-tion programs that involve students. Foreach of these there are again a number ofbest practices to learn from.

How Do We Do Better?Improving the graduate academic experi-ence will require work to be done at alllevels. There are five primary areas inwhich we can be most effective. Theimportance of personal guidance andmentoring must be emphasized to facultythrough orientation and training pro-grams. We must do better at developinggraduate students in their soft skills, andlearn from best practices in doing so.Resources should be better publicized,and expanded where needed, particularlyin departments that are lacking. Peersupport should be very much encouragedand supported at the local level and in avariety of forms. Finally, departmentsshould perform regular assessments anddiscussions among faculty, students, andadministrators regarding the state ofgraduate advising. Overall, MIT is doingwell for its graduate students – but there isstill much work to be done in order for usto be doing as well as we could be doing toprovide the most rewarding graduate aca-demic experience possible.

Barun Singh is a graduate student in ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science; Presidentof the Graduate Student Council(barun@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

20

William C. Van SchalkwykMaking the Green Grade

What faculty members can do to advance the Institute’s sustainability objectives

H OW WO U L D M I T ’ S P R E M I E R

ranking for research and education excel-lence compute if metrics measuring aninstitution’s environmental performancewere included in the ranking equation?Would MIT’s performance in recycling,greenhouse gas emissions, and energy effi-ciency help or hinder our competitiveposition? Current efforts are moving us inthe right direction, but additional leader-ship and participation by facultymembers are essential ingredients toachieve more sustainable operations onour campus.

In a time of escalating resource con-sumption and unprecedented pressureson our ecosystems, the traditional metricsfor ranking institutional excellence maywell broaden to include a measure of aninstitution’s impact on the well-being ofthe environment, society, and theeconomy – typical measures of sustain-ability. A major challenge for MIT is tobring the same shared commitment thatwe have toward research and education toour sustainability performance. Achievingthis is a shared responsibility distributedamong our students, staff, and faculty,with each group bringing unique qualifi-cations to bear on the challenge. MIT’sfaculty have a key role in advancing theInstitute’s sustainability objectives,whether or not they are working in tradi-tional environmental disciplines.

In 2001, MIT pledged its commitmentto environmental excellence with theadoption of the MIT Environment,Health and Safety Policy by the AcademicCouncil. This Policy lays the frameworkfor simultaneously promoting excellencein research and education while minimiz-

ing the environmental and occupationalhealth and safety impacts of our opera-tions. President Vest said many times thatMIT’s operations should strive to matchour recognized leadership and excellencein research and education. We are makinggreat strides towards our sustainabilitygoals, but we have much to do.

In our operations, the installation ofan advanced electricity cogenerationfacility increased generation efficiency18% while reducing our regulated airemissions by 45% and our greenhousegas emissions by 60,000 tons per year. TheInstitute has partnered with and commit-ted to the City of Cambridge to advanceits bold and integrated approach toreduce the City’s emission of greenhousegases below 1990 levels. Innovative pro-grams to increase commuter options atMIT have significantly reduced local airpollution and the burden on Boston’scrowded roadways. Food compostingprograms on campus remove more than17 tons of waste per month from MIT’sexpensive waste stream and help returnhealthy soils to stressed agriculturalsystems. The Institute has adopted theCity of Cambridge’s aggressive recyclingtarget of capturing 40% of the total wastegenerated on campus and diverting it torecycling operations. To help addressexcessive storm water runoff into theCity’s sewer system, MIT has employedan innovative, state-of-the-art stormwater control and treatment system thatuses biofiltration. The technology allowsthis water to be recycled as toilet-flushingwater in the new Stata Center via solar-powered pumps, saving thousands ofgallons of water each month.

The Institute’s environmental pro-grams continue to improve every year. Wehave more than quadrupled the amountof waste we recycle in the past five years.The overall trend is very positive and ourrecycling rate today is approximately 26%,compared with about 5% in 1999.

In our classes, faculty members havedesigned and employed innovativeapproaches to investigate real-life oppor-tunities for advancing sustainability goals.A recent IAP course sponsored by theLaboratory for Energy and theEnvironment taught students how to usecommunity-based marketing techniquesto identify and develop practical projectsto help implement the City ofCambridge’s Climate Protection Plan. TheDepartment of Chemistry has developedan undergraduate course that examinesapproaches and methods for promoting“green chemistry” in laboratories. Thereare numerous other classes in diverse dis-ciplines that address environmental andsustainability topics.

However, for the Institute to make asignificant and lasting impact on the sus-tainability of our operations and beyond,additional actions and commitmentsneed to be made. Incorporating conceptsof sustainability into our teaching andactions into our operations can be drivenby a variety of equally important reasons:not only is it the “right thing to do,” butsustainability also is based on the efficientand rational use of resources, which canbe driven by a desire to minimize costs.You do not need to be a preservationist, aconservationist, or otherwise a “green”person to have a reason to behave “green”or to encourage more sustainable per-

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

21

formance at class, work, or home. Forexample, it costs the Institute approxi-mately 50% less to recycle our waste thanit would cost to dispose of the same wastematerials as trash. This translates into apotential annual savings to the Institute ofmore than $200,000 if we were to reachour current recycling goal of 40%.Employing double-sided printing wouldtake a sizable bite out of the over $900,000spent annually on office paper at MIT.Simply turning off computer monitors atthe end of the workday could savebetween $500,000 - $750,000 per year inenergy costs (based on EPA figures).

Purchasing more environmentallypreferable products not only promotesour sustainability goals but also can leadto significant cost-savings that accruedirectly to individual departments, labs,and centers. Simply switching from pur-chasing traditional office printer tonercartridges to refilled or remanufacturedcartridges could collectively save theInstitute upwards of $115,000 per year.In 2003, MIT purchased almost $380,000in conventional toner cartridges thatcould have been substituted with anequally performing and warrantedremanufactured equivalent. A typical30% savings on these purchases adds upto more than $114,000. This number willgrow as the availability of other recycledproducts increases.

Current initiatives to reduce MIT’senvironmental footprint are just scratch-ing the surface of efforts needed to createa truly sustainable enterprise. As we seekout opportunities beyond the “low-hanging fruit,” we will have to workharder, smarter, and more creatively. Weneed to enlist the help of all students,staff, and faculty, and deploy the creativeenergies that make MIT such a remark-able hotbed of innovation. Only then will

we be able to achieve a green ranking thatwe can consider truly leadership-qualityand on par with our research and educa-tion excellence.

What can faculty members do to helpin this effort? There are several ways toshow leadership and commitment, whilenot increasing the burden on people’sbusy schedules. These include:1. Commit and Communicate to

Conserve Resources. Simply making itclear to staff and students that youbelieve sustainable behavior is efficient,less wasteful, cost effective, and the“right thing to do” will go a long way.Faculty at MIT are perceived as thelifeblood and leadership of theInstitute, and you can influence theactions of many.

2. Adopt Sustainability Practices in YourDaily Work. Remember and act on theRs of sustainability: Refuse to use waste-ful products, Reduce the use ofresources and generation of waste,Reuse products whenever possible, andRecycle materials that can be recycled.For example:• Refuse to buy paper products with

little or no recycled content;• Reuse packing and shipping material;• Utilize the MIT Furniture Exchange,

Equipment Exchange, and thereuse@mit.edu e-mail listing forbuying, trading, and donating alltypes of reusable materials;

• Reduce energy consumption byturning out lights when you leave,turning off the air conditioning forthe weekend, and shutting downunnecessary computers and otherequipment;

• Recycle your discarded computersand electronics equipment by con-tacting recycling@mit.edu. Familiarizeyourself with what can be recycled atMIT by going to http://mit.edu/envi-ronment/pdf/flyer.pdf.

3. Put Your Sustainability-Related ResearchInto Action on Campus. Use MIT’s facili-ties and operations as a laboratory tocollect and study data and phenomena.MIT’s campus embodies all of the func-tions of a town or small city and is open

24 hours a day.4. Integrate Sustainability Into Existing

Course Work. Incorporate concepts ofsustainability and environmental stew-ardship into existing and future classesand curriculum. Develop teachingexamples that demonstrate sustainabil-ity concepts.

5. Develop New Green Classes andProjects. Develop new classes and proj-ects that specifically focus on environ-mental and sustainability themes. Thiscan be done in all disciplines andcourses.

6. Work with Student Groups. Engagecampus student groups that focus onsustainability issues, such as SAVE(Share A Vital Earth), and SfGS(Students for Global Sustainability) byintegrating shared activities or interestsinto course work; or help them shapetheir goals, objectives, and actions to bemore effective organizations.

7. Support Staff Efforts. Encourage yourstaff to become involved in theRecycling AmbassadorsPLUS programsponsored by the Working GroupRecycling Committee. For more infor-mation, go to http://web.mit.edu/wgre-cycling/ambassadors_plus.shtml.

8. Encourage use of the Department ofFacilities Resources. Request largeblue totes for paper recycling whenyour office or department conducts amajor file clean-out or relocation.Contact recycling@mit.edu for moreinformation.

9. Get Involved. Go to http://web.mit.edu/environment for more information oncurrent initiatives and ways to getinvolved. Please contact me in theEnvironmental Programs Office formore information. I can be reached at617-253-9492 or billv@mit.edu.

Note:This article was prepared with the assistance

of the Working Group for Recycling, MIT

Libraries, MIT EHS office, the Laboratory for

Energy and the Environment, and the MIT

Environmental Programs office.

William C. Van Schalkwyk is Director,Environmental Health and Safety Programs(billv@mit.edu).

Simply turning offcomputer monitors at theend of the workdaycould save between$500,000 - $750,000per year in energy costs.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

22

science and engineering. Given the topicof the NBER meeting I expected to hearSummers’ thoughts on this recent decline,or possibly innovative approaches tosolving well-documented problems thatdrive women from science and engineer-ing careers.

Instead, in what have become widelyknown comments, Summers offeredthree hypotheses to explain the absence ofwomen from the top of many profes-sions, including specifically academicscience, math, and engineering. As dis-cussed below, much of what he said fliesin the face of decades of research.Furthermore, research shows that theunfounded attitudes Summers expressedcan lower women’s expectations in theclassroom and the workplace, and nega-tively impact judgments about their per-formance and merit.

I walked out of Summers’ talk in per-sonal protest. As a molecular biologist andgeneticist for over 40 years who has spent10 years studying the under-representa-tion of women in the high end of thescience professoriate, I knew that many ofSummers’ remarks were factually wrong,contradicted by decades of research, anddeeply damaging to women. As a Harvardalumna (BA and PhD) I was personallyoffended. Later that day I happened toreceive an e-mail from a Boston Globereporter about an unrelated matter. At thebottom she queried: “PS: Did today’s con-ference turn out to be anything interesting?”I told her about Summers’ talk. Shetracked down other NBER participantsand gathered their responses to thespeech. On January 17th the Globe pub-lished her story. The news sped round theworld and has occupied front and edito-rial pages for more than eight weeks. OnFebruary 17, Summers published a tran-script of his remarks (http://www.presi-dent.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html)with a cover letter (http://www.presi-dent.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/facletter.html)modifying and apologizing for the com-ments. While gracious, the letter did not

explain why the comments were bothwrong and damaging. It also failed to allayunwarranted public concerns about aca-demic freedom.

Because of the media frenzy and publicmisunderstandings about this incident, theEditorial Sub-Committee asked me towrite a piece for the MIT FacultyNewsletter. I take this opportunity todescribe some of the background andresearch that may have caused Summers toapologize for his comments, and to explainwhy this incident is not about “politicalcorrectness” or “academic freedom.”

Why I was a speaker at the NBERconferenceI have been a professor of molecularbiology and genetics at MIT for 31 years.For 17 years my lab studied genes involvedin cancer. For the past 14 we have studiedgenes required for vertebrate develop-ment. I am a member of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, Institute ofMedicine, and American Academy of Artsand Sciences.

I entered science convinced that civilrights laws had eliminated gender dis-crimination from the work place, includ-ing from academia. However, I learned Iwas wrong. I gradually came to realize thatwomen and men who made equallyimportant scientific discoveries often werenot valued equally by our system. In 1994,as described in an article in this newsletterin 1999 (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html), I discovered that othertenured women faculty in the School ofScience at MIT had come to the same real-ization that I had. Then Dean of ScienceBob Birgeneau (now the chancellor atBerkeley) established a committee tostudy the problem systematically. Thecommittee, which I chaired, consisted ofsix tenured female faculty and threetenured male professors of science. Weinterviewed tenured and untenuredwomen faculty in Science and gathereddata on lab space, committee member-ship, salaries, etc. The resulting 150-pagereport presented vivid evidence of howwomen professors enter science believingthat gender discrimination is a thing of

the past, but, as they approach the age ofthe men in power, suffer marginalizationand day-in and day-out biases. Thesesmall inequities, as they accumulate, makedoing science and attaining top positionsmuch more difficult for women.

The committee report was detailedand personal, and hence needed to remainconfidential, but in 1999, then chair of thefaculty Professor Lotte Bailyn, asked ourcommittee to provide a narrative report ofwhat we had done and found, and howthe Institute had responded. Thissummary, which was published in aspecial edition of the MIT FacultyNewsletter [Vol. XI No. 4, March 1999],came to be known as the MIT Report onWomen in Science. A sentence thatPresident Vest wrote in comment provedto be of particular importance: “I havealways believed that contemporary genderdiscrimination within universities is partreality and part perception. True, but I nowunderstand that reality is by far the greaterpart of the balance.” The Report wascovered widely in the press and elicited anoutpouring of e-mail from women scien-tists in the U.S. and abroad noting thatthey too had experienced discriminationbut had been unable to get their adminis-trators even to acknowledge, much less toaddress, the problem.

Following publication of the MITReport, and with support from the FordFoundation, President Vest convened ameeting of presidents, provosts, deans,and leading female scientists and engi-neers from eight other leading researchuniversities. They met in January 2001,returned to their campuses to study theproblem, and met again in the spring of2004. Most universities analyzing theproblem found results very similar tothose at MIT, although five years after theMIT Report was made public, easilymeasurable inequities in compensationsor resource allocations to women havebecome relatively uncommon.

MIT also established a Council onFaculty Diversity, which Provost BobBrown and I co-chair. Its goal is to preventand eliminate inequities that arise frombias, to increase the flexibility in academic

Academic Responsibility and Gender BiasHopkins, from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

23

careers to help both male and femalefaculty better manage family and workgoals, to attract more minority students toPhD programs in science and engineer-ing, and to ensure that search committeesseek to identify outstanding women andminority candidates. Yet, despite realprogress at MIT and many other universi-ties, marginalization and unintendedgender bias remain a serious problem.

A further consequence of the publica-tion of the MIT Report was that I havereceived nearly 500 invitations to talk onthis topic at universities, research insti-tutes, and conferences. I have accepted 90.One was the NBER meeting.

A landmark report on women scientistsin Europe and research in psychologyhave documented the impact of unin-tentional gender biasTenured women faculty at MIT were notalone in identifying gender bias as abarrier to women trying to advance inscience careers. In 1997, a landmarkstudy by Wenneras and Wold openedEurope’s eyes to the magnitude of genderdiscrimination there (Nature 397, 341-343 (1997). Wenneras and Wold askedwhy a much smaller fraction of femalethan male applicants obtained postdoc-toral fellowships in biomedical researchfrom the Swedish Medical ResearchCouncil. They re-examined the merit ofapplicants using quantitative criteria ofaccomplishment. They examined appli-cants’ publication records using impactfactors of the journals the applicants hadpublished in, and the number of publica-tions and first author publications ofeach applicant. (They used legal meansto obtain the data since the grantingagency refused their request to provideit.) Wenneras and Wold’s stunningfinding was that a woman had to be 2.5times more productive than a man toreceive an equal score in scientific com-petence. This meant, for example, thatshe had to have published the equivalentof three more Nature or Science papers tobe judged equal to a man.

What is so striking about the Swedishstudy is that many people assume that

women often receive special advantages.While sometimes true, data show that inhighly significant ways, throughout theircareers, the opposite is more often true.How could this be? Importantly, whilethese studies were in progress, anotherline of research was advancing which pro-vided an intellectual basis for the surpris-ing findings of reports such as those fromMIT and Sweden. This research comesfrom the field of psychology. Much of therelevant work has been summarized inVirginia Valian’s book, Why So Slow.

Over recent decades, psychologistshave demonstrated that identical intellec-tual work performed by men and womenis frequently not valued equally. Forexample, if one xeroxes a manuscript andputs a man’s name on one copy and awoman’s on the other and sends the twoarticles out for review, the identical workreceives a higher score or more positivecomments if reviewers think it wasauthored by a man. Strikingly, it does notmatter whether the reviewers are men orwomen! Most of us – women and menalike – tend to under-value work if wethink it was performed by a woman. Itdoes not take research or imagination tounderstand the devastating impact on pro-fessional women, of having their workjudged inferior when in truth it is at leastequal in merit. The inability of most peopleto believe they are capable of such uncon-scious bias and unfair judgment is perhapsthe greatest obstacle to equality in theworkplace.

But there is some good news: Researchshows that unconscious bias can be allevi-ated by societal changes and by recogni-tion of the problem. Judgments ofwomen’s work have of late become moreequitable, presumably due to society’sacceptance of women’s competence in theworkplace. In addition, work by Harvardpsychologist Professor Mahzarin Banajiand others has shown that making peopleaware of their unconscious bias canreduce its magnitude.

Recently, NSF established a programcalled ADVANCE to address bias andother well-documented barriers towomen’s careers in science and engineer-

ing. The program has awarded $50million in grants over the past three yearsto support efforts at 19 universities aimedat institutional changes that might levelthe playing field for women, and also forminorities, who face some of the samebarriers as women in entering science andengineering fields. Women (includingminority women) are 50% of the U.S.workforce and minority males are anadditional 15% of the population. Infailing to draw on this pool, we squandertwo-thirds of the available science talentin America. Encouraging women andminorities to enter science and engineer-ing is deemed critical by the NSF to futureU.S. competitiveness.

President Summers’ NBER remarksIt was in the above context that Summersmade his remarks to the NBER audience.He was listed on the program as“Lawrence Summers, President, HarvardUniversity.” Summers’ remarks were ofparticular importance because the viewsand leadership of a President are critical tomaking significant progress in thisendeavor. Furthermore, women faculty atHarvard’s FAS had expressed concern lastyear that Summers may not understandthese issues. I had already discussed thepoor record in hiring female molecularbiologists in the FAS with Summers in thefall of 2004.

Summers told the NBER audience thathe would offer three hypotheses to explainthe under-representation of women intenured positions on the faculties ofleading universities, particularly in thefields of science, math, and engineering.As set forth in the transcript of hisremarks, the three, in order of impor-tance, were: 1. Women’s family responsi-bilities and unwillingness to work the80-hour week it takes to get to the top;2. Differences in “intrinsic aptitude”between men and women; and 3.Socialization and discrimination inhiring. Summers dismissed the thirdhypothesis as unimportant, saying that weoverestimate the impact of socialization,and that market forces would work to

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

24

remove gender bias in hiring within acade-mia. As Summers continued, I becameconvinced that these hypotheses were infact his personal beliefs. To those who workin this field, and to many women whoworked their way to the top of elite scienceor engineering, Summers’ comments wereastonishing because: a) they ignore decadesof research that have already disprovenmuch of what he said; and b) they embodythe very attitudes that constitute genderbias and that have been shown to holdwomen back. This man seemed to be usingthe power of his office to deny women theirfundamental fair treatment. One womanwho heard the talk told me she felt as if shehad been assaulted.

Below I explain what is factually wrongand what is right with Summers’ threehypotheses, according to current research.To summarize, research has identified twoimportant, and even related, barriers towomen striving to reach the top in scienceand engineering: greater family responsi-bilities, as Summers put forward inhypothesis #1, and socialization andgender bias, which Summers incorrectlydismissed. In contrast, and despitedecades of research, intrinsic differencesin aptitude that could explain the smallnumbers of women professors of scienceand engineering have not been found.

Hypothesis 1: As Summers proposed, thegreater family responsibilities that havetraditionally fallen to women vs. men havebeen a significant factor in causingwomen to opt out of high-poweredcareers in science and engineering.However, some women have always beenable to “have or do it all.” Furthermore,significant changes in recent decades haveimproved the situation for many morewomen. New expectations, goals, eco-nomic realities, reproductive technolo-gies, and the length and variability ofcareers have changed the picture. Todayyoung professional women and mendemand more equal involvement in bothfamily and work, and universities

compete to accommodate them. Still, Ipersonally believe that there is not yetenough change in universities or insociety to create equality for men andwomen in this regard, so I believe thatSummers’ hypothesis #1 has merit.However, I found his implication thatwomen are not willing to work hardenough to get to the top both insultingand wrong.

Hypothesis 2: “Intrinsic aptitude” differ-ences means genetic differences. Not oneshred of scientific evidence supports theassertion that women as a group aregenetically inferior to men in the math,science, or engineering ability required toattain the top of the profession. Nor is thisfrom a lack of research effort to find suchdifferences. Of course there are myriadbiological differences between men andwomen, including in brain and otheranatomy, hormones, etc. However, noneof these has been linked to any intellectualability which itself has a causal link toachievement at the highest levels in anyintellectual pursuit. In sharp contrast,decades of research demonstrate thatsocialization and bias are powerful factorsin determining career choice and aca-demic success, including differencesbetween men and women. To explain thedecades of research on this topic inbiology and psychology is beyond thescope of this article. However, several keyfindings that argue against significantgenetic differences in intellectual ability ofmen and women, as well as flaws inSummers’ argument and facts are below.(See also Nature Neuroscience 8, 253(2005) for an excellent brief summary.)1. Women’s demonstrated ability to

perform at a very high level in scienceand math has changed too rapidly to beexplicable by genetic changes. Forexample, the figure (next page) showsthe percent of women undergraduatesand graduate students at MIT each yearfor the past century. The percent ofwomen PhDs in science and engineer-ing nationally has increased similarly.

2. Summers asserted that research univer-sities only hire exceptional people, and

used as the measure of being excep-tional, math SAT scores. He said thatthere are more men out on the tail ofthe bell curve of math ability thanwomen, that this may reflect differ-ences in intrinsic aptitude betweenmen and women, and thus may explainthe under-representation of women onscience, math, and engineering facul-ties of elite universities. However, thetests he referred to are SAT tests takenby teenagers. By this age it is not possi-ble to differentiate innate ability fromthe impact of society and its expecta-tions on students’ choices or perform-ance. In contrast to tests of teenagers,tests of very young children have failedto detect significant differencesbetween the cognitive abilities of malesand females. Minor differences havebeen found, for example, in spatialrotation (favoring boys) and verbalskills (favoring girls) but even in thesecases, there are no correlations of theseskills to later career choices or success,and the differences detected are tinycompared to the impact of socialfactors.

3. Women near the high end of the SATbell curve take the same math classesas men in college and do equally wellin them. This was not true severaldecades ago, but has come about aswomen began to receive similarencouragement in school. Such arapid change in women’s math abilityagain argues against genetic changesand in favor of societal expectationsand how boys and girls are educated.These changes also make long-termstudies of high SAT scorers, whichhave sometimes been used to try tobolster Summers arguments, prob-lematic.

4. Some women have extreme mathability as traditionally measured. Forexample, there are female winners ofthe Putnam award now, although formany years there were none. This is anaward made to the top five college stu-dents in math in the U.S. and Canadaeach year. Strikingly, this year 4 of thetop 15 students in the competition

Academic Responsibility and Gender BiasHopkins, from preceding page

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

25

were women. This award is so elite thateven on the most elite math facultiesonly about 5 to 10% of the professorswere Putnam winners. Furthermore,while Putnam winners as a group areenormously successful academically,not all (or even most?) become aca-demic math superstars. Nonetheless,given that some women can perform atthis level, and thus must always havebeen capable of it, why has there neverbeen a tenured woman professor inmath at Harvard in its 369-year history(and only three ever at MIT)? I am toldthat three women have been offeredtenured positions in math at Harvardin recent years. I spoke to one who toldme she would not accept the job atHarvard or “in the math departmentsof any of those other elite east coastschools either” because of the genderdiscrimination. She said that in thesedepartments faculty think that onlymen can be great mathematicians andshe was not willing to work in such abiased environment. While anecdotal,such testimonies from women with thisability are important, and they arecommon among this elite group.

But could there be genetic differencesbetween men and women which wemight discover in the future and whichmight affect the ability or inclination ofmen vs. women to pursue certain fields?Yes. After socialization and bias are cor-

rected for, perhaps girls will prove to bebetter at math than boys. But we can’t usethese unfounded possibilities to explainthe lop-sided under-representation ofwomen (or minorities) on currentscience, math, and engineering faculties.Worse, it is actively irresponsible to do so,because evidence from research in psy-chology demonstrates that such attitudesnegatively impact performance and judg-ments of merit of those who belong tothe group that is seen as genetically infe-rior (see, for example the work of ClaudeSteele). It has proven difficult to dissoci-ate exceptional individuals from theirgroup stereotype.

Although there are obvious biologicaldifferences between the sexes, includinganatomical brain differences, making theleap from gross anatomical findings toexplanations of subtle cognitive functions,let alone to complex career choices andoutcomes is impossible (except perhapswhere disease or damage to the brain isinvolved.) Such simplistic, unfoundedleaps are junk science. Genetics has beenone of the most powerful tools in modernbiology. But so far, genetic analysis of evensimple behaviors in animals has been analmost complete failure. It will beextremely hard, if even possible, to identifymath ability genes, if they exist. Currently,to speak seriously of using genetics tojustify negative societal outcomes in intel-lectual pursuits for groups of people,amounts to academic folly.

Hypothesis 3. As discussed above, social-ization and bias, including, importantly,unintentional bias, are powerful factorsthat shape and can limit the careers ofmen and women. While we have seenextraordinary changes in the status ofwomen and under-represented minoritiesin the past several decades, researchunequivocally documents that full equal-ity of opportunity has not yet beenattained for these and other groups at thehighest levels of our society.

This incident is not about academicfreedomWhile initial reports and commentaryfocused on Summers’ remarks, a secondwave of press tried to make the critics ofSummers’ speech the focus of this story.These individuals were accused of sup-pressing academic freedom. But this affairis not about academic freedom at all. It’sabout the role and responsibilities of aUniversity President, and secondarilyabout responsibility in research.

A university needs a president and itneeds one 24/7. Summers speaks as thevoice of Harvard every time he utters apublic word. So, is it acceptable behaviorfor the President of Harvard to makeundocumented, incorrect commentsoutside his field when such commentsdamage and demean half his con-stituency? Of course he has the freedom todo so. The question is whether he should.

continued on next page

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1901

1905

1909

1913

1917

1921

1925

1929

1933

1937

1941

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1901

1905

1909

1913

1917

1921

1925

1929

1933

1937

1941

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

Percentage of MIT Undergraduates Who Are Women Percentage of MIT Graduate Students Who Are Women

Source: Office of the Provost

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

26

The second purported issue of aca-demic freedom here is whether expertsmust stand up and argue with thePresident in a public forum in order toeducate him about a field in which hedoes not work. If they fail to do so, or dis-agree afterwards, have they infringed onthe President’s academic freedom? Theanswer is no, precisely because he isPresident. Were Summers merely a pro-fessor who wanted to advance the geneticinferiority of women to do math andscience at elite universities, the processesthat accompany academic freedom andenable the academy ultimately to dis-cover the truth, would kick in. Thespeaker would be required to presentdata, others would present contradictingdata, replication of experiments wouldensue: ideas would be tested and thosefound wanting would ultimately beweeded out. But the President is not aresearcher in the field, and the processesassociated with academic freedom offaculty to do research do not pertain whenhe speaks. Summers is the boss. His wordsare the pronouncements and opinions ofHarvard University. At no time during histalk did I doubt that these were thebeliefs of the President of Harvard. Givenmy knowledge of these fields, I felt amoral obligation to protest, and a desireto leave. I asked the women sitting toeither side of me if they thought weshould all walk out, but they were thespeakers following Summers and so,although one said she would like to, theyfelt they could not leave.

My critics in the pressI have been criticized in the national pressfor my role in bringing Summers’ com-ments to light. My critics seem to have adiversity of motives. The identity of someof the critics could have been predicted;for example, the ultra-conservativeIndependent Women’s Forum and associ-ated voices such as those of JudithKleinfeld, Phyliss Shafly, even CathyYoung. Some of these women have long

attempted to discredit the MIT Report,apparently for political or ideologicalreasons, and some have used deliberatelyfalse information to do so. So their reac-tions were not terribly surprising.

Harder to understand, at first, arecertain Harvard faculty critics, particu-larly our former colleague Steven Pinker,who has portrayed me in the press asbeing opposed to academic debate andinquiry (The New Republic, February 14,pg 15, 2005) and see http://www.thecrim-son.com/article.aspx?ref=505366. Whywould Steve imply such an obviousuntruth? Some Harvard faculty told methat Pinker and his popular-press bookThe Blank Slate were the source forSummers’ NBER comments. Having nowread the poorly reasoned and unsup-ported section on gender in Pinker’sbook, this seems likely. If so, Pinker’sdefense of Summers makes sense. In fact Ithink he owes Summers an apology. Buthe owes me one as well. Ironically,Harvard psychologist Professor ElizabethSpelke and I were scheduled to debatewith Pinker on the Charlie Rose showabout research in biology, genetics, andpsychology that debunks Pinker’s views,but Pinker backed out. The show was can-celled because, they told me, they couldnot find a psychologist to take Pinker’sviewpoint who was willing to appear.

But my most visible and also semi-mainstream critic was columnist GeorgeWill, who labeled me a “hysteric,” and didso before the text of Summers’ remarkshad even been released (http://www.wash-ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40073-2005Jan26.html). It was a classic maleresponse in many ways, since women whocomplain of gender discrimination havelong been told they are “difficult women,”even crazy. Will labeling me the old-fash-ioned female hysteric is how some menhave tried to gag women forever. I thinkthe explanation for his remarks issummed up well in a letter written by afemale reader to Will and cc’d to me:

“Do you have some kind of personalgrudge against Ms Hopkins, Mr. Will? Or is itjust women and their progressiveness ingeneral?… So Ms Hopkins got upset. So

what? Many women get emotional. Knowwhy?…When people don’t listen its frustrat-ing… By the way, would you have writtenyour piece had you been speaking of a Jewgetting upset about the Holocaust, or anAfrican American reeling over some injustice?I doubt it. But we ALL know that women arefair game, right??? THINK, Mr. Will.THINK…You (and many other controlling,power-hungry males) would find any way,any excuse to keep women down and fromgetting ahead – even when it’s in the bestinterest of humankind and the world.”

Hundreds of women who learned ofthe NBER incident from press reportswrote me to say, “Thank you, thank youfor your courage,” while only about twodozen women criticized my actions orwords. In contrast, I received fewer than30 e-mails from men supporting myactions and a couple of hundred thatecho Will: some say they can’t take meseriously because I’m a weak whiningwoman; some say they can’t take meseriously because I didn’t stay to arguewith Summers – as if centuries ofwomen had not argued with such menfor long enough. These men do notunderstand that leaving was my reply, orwhy it was important to tell the exacttruth when the Globe reporter asked mehow this speech had made me feel: howelse could I guarantee that those who donot understand gender bias would com-prehend the impact it has on those whousually have to bear it in silence? But ifeveryone understood gender bias, thiswhole affair would never have hap-pened. George Will shows us how farwomen still have to go to achieve equal-ity – and he seems worried enough towrite about it. Like Summers’ NBERcomments, he’s the problem.

OutcomesSo the Summers flap is not about someobvious hot-button items: suppression ofacademic freedom, quotas, or loweringacademic standards by admitting womento the top who don’t belong there (whichshould never be permissible at the facultylevel in universities). So what is it about?It’s certainly about trying to make people

Academic Responsibility and Gender BiasHopkins, from preceding page

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2005

27

understand that unintentional gender biasis real, that it keeps women from the top,and that it can be remedied. But still, giventhat so many people could care less aboutgender bias, why has this story held theinterest of the press and public for overtwo months?

I think the fascination with this story isthat we may be witnessing a skirmish inthe final battle – a battle to get to the top,the last step in a process that has gone onfor millennia. As Summers so accuratelynoted, women aren’t at the top of anypowerful profession in the U.S. It’s not just

the science or engineering faculties of eliteuniversities where they are under-repre-sented, but at the top of business, politics,law, the media – where the real powerresides. And no one could believe that SATscores explain why there has never been afemale president of the United States!

Men hold at least 95% of the institu-tional power in America, and it’s not easyto give that up. What many of us arewaiting to see in this symbolic struggle iswhether women are finally going toachieve equality or not. And I think it’snot only men who fear such an outcome. I

think many women do, too. If men andwomen shared power equally the worldwould be a different place. I for one thinkit would be better than anything we canimagine. But none of us knows for surewhat it would look like. Given this uncer-tainty, it’s easier to see why this story hastapped into so much fear, and provokedsuch anger and hostility – and amongsome of us, so much hope.

Ellen WeissMIT Retirement Programs

M IT’S R ETI R E M E NT B E N E FITS canhelp you build long-term savings andprovide you with sources of income whenyou retire from the Institute. Both theMIT Basic Retirement Plan and the MITSupplemental 401(k) Plan provide oppor-tunities for you to plan for your future.

The Basic Retirement Plan is adefined benefit plan that provides youwith monthly lifetime income at retire-ment. MIT pays the full cost of the Planand enrollment in the Plan is automatic.You are vested in the Basic RetirementPlan after you are employed by MIT forfive years.

The Supplemental 401(k) Plan is avoluntary plan that allows you to con-tribute a percentage of your pay. MITmatches your contributions up to 5% ofyour pay. Federal law imposes annualdollar limits on your contributions:$14,000 for 2005 if you are below age 50and $18,000 if on December 31st youare age 50 or older. The dollar limit willincrease to $15,000 (under age 50) and$20,000 (age 50 or older) in 2006.Similarly, it is important to note thatfederal law also limits the pay that canbe considered for pension plans, includ-ing 401(k) Plans. In 2005, MIT consid-ers only the first $210,000 of pay you

receive. You are always 100% vested inall 401(k) contributions made by youand MIT.

With the increased need for retirementplanning, it is important to know that theMIT Retirement Programs Office offersretirement counseling. Our goal is to assistfaculty in making informed decisionsabout retirement.

It is never too early to learn about theMIT retirement plans. The amount youcontribute to the 401(k) Plan and theinvestments you choose can make a differ-ence, over time, in your retirement assets.It is also important to understand invest-ment diversification, investment risk, andthe expenses associated with differentinvestment options. As you approachretirement, investment decisions youmade earlier may need to be reevaluated.The Retirement Programs Office coun-selors and Paul Gunning, a FidelityInvestment Counselor, are available forone-on-one counseling.

“When can I afford to retire?” and“When I retire, what benefit options areavailable?”

Invariably our response is contact us.Our retirement counselors are available toprovide you with information that willhelp you make informed decisions.

Are you within five years of retiring?You may want to meet with a retirementcounselor to discuss the full range of dis-tribution options available under bothplans and retiree health and welfare bene-fits. Our office can provide projected esti-mates of lifetime income options fromboth the Basic Retirement Plan and the401(k) Plan.

Have you decided to retire? It is impor-tant to meet with a Retirement Counselorto discuss payment options from the BasicRetirement Plan and the various distribu-tion options from the 401(k) Plan. Ourcounselors will help guide you throughSocial Security, retirement income strate-gies, and how benefits from the MITretirement plans can be structured tomeet your individual needs.

MIT Retirement Counselors arelocated at the Benefits Office in E19-215and can be reached at 617-253-4272.

Paul Gunning, the Fidelity Represen-tative, is also at the Benefits Office onTuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Tomeet with Paul, please call him directly at617-258-8872.

Ellen Weiss is Manager of RetirementPrograms, Department of Human Resources(eweiss@mit.edu).

Nancy Hopkins is a Professor of Biology(nhopkins@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 4

M.I.T. NumbersSatisfaction with resources that support research and teaching[from the 2004 Faculty Survey]

12.6% 26.6% 39.6%

Source: Office of the Provost

Neutral Somewhat Satisfied

Library facilities

Location of conference rooms for meetings

Computer facilities

Amount of office space

Quality of office space resources

IT/Network support at work

Professional support

Quality of conference rooms for meetings

Computer support

Clerical and administrative support

IT/Network support at home

Faculty Club

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

12.1% 26.7% 37.4%

16.1% 32.0% 25.8%

18.4% 35.1% 30.0%

19.5% 34.3% 29.2%

21.7% 34.4% 26.3%

31.1% 26.4% 16.4%

15.5% 33.8% 22.8%

18.5% 29.6% 22.1%

14.4% 30.6% 25.1%

26.2% 23.0% 16.5%

27.0% 8.1%

Very Satisfied

3.0%

Somewhat Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied (balance)