in this issue we offer commentary on MIT’s new outside funder reviewprocess (Editorial, below) and a related Open Letter to the MIT Corporation (page 5);a remembrance of the March 4, 1969 Scientists Strike for Peace and MIT’sessential role (below); the results of the recent FNL Editorial Board election (page 4);and “Progress Towards an Improved First-Year Undergraduate Experience” (page 10).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXXI No. 4March/April 2019

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 12

From The Faculty ChairA 21st CenturyEducation at MIT

The March 4, 1969Scientists Strike forPeace: 50 Years Later

continued on page 6

Jonathan King and Aron Bernstein

I N R E S PON S E TO TH E extensive crit-icism of MIT’s ties to the Saudi regime,the Institute announced in April that itwould not engage in relationships withtwo Chinese corporations. At the sametime, MIT established a new committeestructure and process that would examinecertain “high risk” engagements, includ-ing those with Saudi Arabia. The encouraging part of this newreview is that it establishes, for the firsttime for MIT, adherence to human rightsstandards as a benchmark for evaluatingoutside partnerships, even though it doesnot commit to a real due diligenceprocess. The process also establishes amulti-level risk assessment procedureinstead of a one-stop approval, andinvolves faculty in at least one of thosemechanisms, the International AdvisoryCommittee (IAC). As a statement of

EditorialThe Proposed NewReview Process forOutside Funders andMIT’s GovernanceProblem

continued on page 3

1969 Science Action Coordinating Committee Office

I N ANTICI PATION OF TH E March 8,2019 MacVicar Day symposium, I wasasked to think about “What is importantto a 21st century undergraduate educa-tion and what should MIT do about it.” Ianswered more briefly along the follow-ing lines. A 21st century undergraduate edu-cation should be quite the same as anexcellent 20th or even 19th centuryeducation: a simultaneously broad anddeep education, exploring across sub-jects and burying deep in a few. At itscore, excellent education is about learn-ing how to learn – more about develop-ing habits of mind, more about bothdisciplined and imaginative inquirythan about particular substantive infor-mation, theories, or methodologicaltechniques. Ultimately, educationshould destabilize taken-for-granted

Susan S. Silbey

F I F T Y Y E A R S AG O , O N March 4,1969, much research and teaching at MITcame to a halt, as students, faculty, andstaff held a “Scientists Strike for Peace.”The strike protested the continuing U.S.war against the Vietnamese people, anduniversity complicity in those policies.Most of the day was spent in intensepublic debate and analysis of the relation-ship among universities, scientists, andthe prosecution of the war. It is still worthreading Nobel laureate George Wald’saddress that day (site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/SfHS/2005-05-23.htm). The MIT Press has republished itsaccount of the events March 4, ScientistsStudents and Society, which reprints keytalks, such as that by Noam Chomsky.Related activities were held at more than30 other universities. The organizers weredistressed, on the one hand, with the low

2

Vol. XXXI No. 4 March/April 2019

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Manduhai BuyandelgerAnthropology

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Christopher CumminsChemistry

Woodie FlowersMechanical Engineering

*Sally HaslangerLinguistics and Philosophy

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

*Ceasar McDowellUrban Studies and Planning

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ruth Perry (Vice Chair)Literature Section

Nasser RabbatArchitecture

*Balakrishnan RajagopalUrban Studies and Planning

Robert RedwinePhysics

Warren SeeringMechanical Engineering

Patrick Henry WinstonElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 10-335Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

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

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

01 The March 4, 1969 Scientists Strike for Peace: 50 Years Later Jonathan King, Aron Bernstein From The 01 A 21st Century Education at MIT Faculty Chair Susan S. Silbey

Editorial 01 The Proposed New Review Process for Outside Funders and MIT’s Governance Problem

04 FNL Elects Four New and One Returning Editorial Board Members

Letters 04 Public Forums at the Center for International Studies Richard Samuels, John Tirman 05 An Open Letter to the MIT Corporation

08 Open Access Task Force Draft Recommendations Hal Abelson, Chris Bourg

09 The Octopus Haynes Miller

10 Progress Towards an Improved First-Year Undergraduate Experience Ian A. Waitz

14 Update on the Academic Climate Survey Jonathan Schwarz, Lydia Snover 15 Undergraduate Admissions: A Recommendation Alan White

Letters 15 International Collaborations and Donations to the Endowment Ken Smith

M.I.T. Numbers 16 Faculty Responses to the 2019 Academic Climate Survey

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo Credit: Page1: Florence Hazeltine/The Smithsonian Archives

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

3

policy, this is a step in the right direction.However, as a process of due diligence it isstill highly problematic. Let’s examine three of the seriousproblems in the proposed new reviewprocess. The first is the listing of threecountries as “high risk” – China, Russia,and Saudi Arabia – without any explana-tion of how they were selected. Further, itdoes not reveal why other countries, orentities other than countries (companies,universities, foundations – including, forexample, the Blackstone Group, chairedby the College of Computing benefactorStephen A. Schwarzman) were notselected. A robust human rights due dili-gence must provide reasoning behind theselections, which this review does not do.In addition, will these selected countriesbe periodically reviewed to see if furthertightening or loosening of relations withthem are warranted? Listing ongoing federal investigations –against Huawei for example – is not asound basis for putting countries on asuspect list. Investigations are inherentlypolitical and unreliable. Unless there is ajudicial finding against a company or anofficial condemnation, for example by aUN body, there is little basis for puttingcountries on such a list, unless the MITadministration is willing to share informa-tion on how it arrives at these judgments. The second problem is that the three-step review process reflects the sameproblem described above: It is not suffi-ciently independent of the MIT adminis-tration and is full of loopholes. The firststage of review, the InternationalCoordinating Committee (ICC), consistsof the same individuals – the AssociateProvost or the General Counsel’s Officefor example – who will also be the thirdstage of review, the SRG (Senior RiskGroup). It’s hard to see how that consti-

tutes a different level of review. Besides,the process states that the ICC will workto increase the odds of the project’sapproval (thus showing its inherent bias),and will either recommend that theproject proceed (the process ends herepresumably) or refer it to the AssociateProvost (who is already a member of theICC) for additional review. The next stepis for action by the IAC, which may review“certain of these projects” (but not all)

referred by the Associate Provost. A keypoint to note is that IAC review is notmandatory, even for projects which comefrom one of the three “high risk” countriesin question here. On the whole, this ishardly what one could characterize as arobust and independent review. The third and final problem is that thisnew process “normalizes” MIT’s engage-ment with Saudi Arabia, making it appearas though the normalization results froma robust and ethically grounded process.Yet a large section of the MIT communityvocally believes that all engagements withSaudi government entities must ceaseforthwith and many others agree. This isan issue on which the administration doesnot have the standing to speak on behalfof MIT. Compared with China or Russia –which do have serious problems – SaudiArabia is far worse with regards to humanrights. As of the writing of this editorial,there are reports that Saudi Arabia hasexecuted 37 people in one fell swoop,most of them minority Shi’ites, includinga college student admitted to study in the

U.S. Wouldn’t it be better for MIT to showthat it means what it says about humanrights being part of its values by immedi-ately suspending its cooperation withSaudi government entities? The flaws of this new review processstem from one problem: the absence ofrepresentative governance at MIT, and theresulting inability to collectively resolveintrinsic conflicts of interest and othersubstantive disagreements, or decide on

and affirm our values. The decision toestablish contractual relationships withthe Saudi monarchy was made by the MITadministration. The evaluation of thatdecision requires a body that is independ-ent of the administration. However, absenta faculty senate, or any other form ofauthentic representation of the faculty, alladministration-driven evaluations remainfraught with conflict of interest. The solu-tions might start with small steps, e.g., theChair of the Faculty chairing the facultymeetings. However, in most U.S. researchuniversities, faculty representatives to asenate are elected by the faculty alone.Detailed proposals moving in this direc-tion were last proposed by former Chair ofthe Faculty Raphael Bras (“Improving OurSystem of Faculty Governance,” MITFaculty Newsletter, February/March 2004),but no action was taken. In light of thecurrent situation, the Faculty Newsletterwill be reopening and revisiting this dis-cussion in future issues.

Editorial Subcommittee

Review Process for Outside Funderscontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

The third and final problem is that this new process“normalizes” MIT’s engagement with Saudi Arabia,making it appear as though the normalization resultsfrom a robust and ethically grounded process. Yet alarge section of the MIT community vocally believes thatall engagements with Saudi government entities mustcease forthwith and many others agree.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

4

To The Faculty Newsletter:

WE VE RY M UCH APPR ECIATE D thesuggestion of our nine History faculty col-leagues who recommended in theJanuary/February 2019 issue of theFaculty Newsletter that the Center forInternational Studies collaborate on aseries of public forums to address theissues surrounding MIT’s links to theKingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). TheCenter has often addressed issues of

human rights, war, and the U.S. role in theMiddle East, including the KSA, throughits Starr Forum and the Security StudiesProgram’s Wednesday seminars, amongother venues. In June, our newest Robert E. WilhelmFellow, Dr. Hala Aldosari, a Saudi activistand writer who has recently accepted theinvitation of The Washington Post tobecome its Jamal Khashoggi Fellow, willjoin us for a year to continue her researchon women’s rights and her outreach to

end the guardianship system in KSA. Weco-sponsored one recent forum on Saudihuman-rights abuses and, with Dr.Aldosari’s arrival, we intend to mountmore events that will constructivelyengage with issues pertaining to the Saudimonarchy.

Richard Samuels, DirectorJohn Tirman, Executive DirectorMIT Center for International Studies

lettersPublic Forums at the Center for International Studies

FNL Elects Four New and One ReturningEditorial Board Members

TH E M IT FACU LTY N EWS LETTE R ismaintained by a volunteer EditorialBoard, who are elected through anInstitute-wide, all-faculty election. In therecent election four new and one return-ing member of the Faculty NewsletterEditorial Board were voted onto theEditorial Board. The Newsletter EditorialBoard is the only committee of the facultythat is not a joint faculty/administrationcommittee. This often permits wider-ranging discussion of issues affecting MITfaculty, students, and staff, as well as rele-vant national and international issues.

The new FNL Editorial Boardmembers include: Profs. Sally Haslanger(Linguistics and Philosophy); CeasarMcDowell (Urban Studies and Planning);Robert Redwine (Physics); and WarrenSeering (Mechanical Engineering). Re-elected was Prof. Seth Lloyd (MechanicalEngineering). The election received over 1200 totalresponses, and more than 25% of the MITFaculty voted. This is particularly impres-sive considering the 3% quorum neces-sary for voting at monthly InstituteFaculty Meetings (a percentage which is,

sadly, not always achieved). Winning can-didates garnered between 73% and 47%of the vote, with percentage votes dividedvirtually evenly between faculty andemeritus faculty. Many thanks to MIT’s Office ofInstitutional Research (part of the Officeof the Provost) and in particular to SeniorProject Manager Gregory Harris. Theuser-friendly electronic election wouldnot have been possible without his assis-tance and skills.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

5

An Open Letter to the MIT Corporation

Dear Members of the MIT Corporation:

WE AR E M E M B E R S OF the MIT com-munity concerned about MIT’s relation-ship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabiaand its state-controlled subsidiaries. SaudiArabia is an authoritarian state with oneof the worst human-rights records in theworld. Its shameful record is by nowfamiliar from international press cover-age: thousands of deaths and millions onthe brink of famine in the Yemeni CivilWar since 2015; the 2018 assassination ofjournalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudiembassy in Istanbul; and the list goes on.Collaborative agreements with an author-itarian state with this record are antitheti-cal to the mission, interests, and values ofMIT and of open, democratic, societiesworldwide. MIT’s choice on this issueshould take into account the needs andinterests not only of researchers and stu-dents at MIT, but of those directly affectedby Saudi Arabia’s actions: civilians beingbombed in Yemen, women activists beingtortured for their efforts to secure basiccivil rights, and the millions of children atrisk of starvation.

After the assassination of JamalKhashoggi, President Reif solicited inputfrom the MIT community on MIT’sengagements with Saudi Arabia. A subse-quent report by Associate Provost RichardLester states that 74% of MIT faculty whosubmitted comments either stronglyobjected or leaned against continuingengagements with Saudi Arabia, alongside76% of non-faculty commenters. Yet MITcontinues to accept funding from theSaudi Arabian government and govern-

ment-controlled sources at the level of~$8 million per year. The Saudi Arabiacontroversy underscores the need to buildethical principles deeply and fundamen-tally into MIT’s international engagementpolicy.

Given the gravity of Saudi Arabia’s humanrights violations, we urge the Corporationto heed the judgment of a significantmajority of those who weighed in, and toend MIT’s relationship with the Kingdomof Saudi Arabia.

We call upon MIT to:

1. Terminate all sponsored research pro-grams, partnerships, investments, andfinancial engagements with SaudiAramco, SABIC, and KACST. These arestate-controlled entities that do notserve a primarily educational mission.MIT’s relations with these entitiesimpugn the good name of the Instituteand, by association, lends its prestige tothe Saudi regime and risks beingcounted among its allies.

2. Provide a transparent justification forwhy continuing any other relationshipwith the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia isconsistent with the values of the MITcommunity. This should take the formof a clear, detailed, and publicly accessi-ble account of MIT’s relationship witheach remaining major Saudi sponsor,university, or donor, with avenues forMIT community input. We ask thatthe MIT Faculty Policy Committee, incoordination with the MITInternational Advisory Committee, be

charged with this task. If no such justifi-cation is possible, end the relationship.

3. Provide funds and resources to fullyreplace Saudi funding for any facultymember or student reliant on it.Continue to welcome students andresearchers from Saudi Arabia to ourcampus, as we would students andresearchers from any other country, andprovide financial aid as appropriate.

4. Present to the MIT community a com-prehensive statement on MIT’s “Ethicsof Engagement”. This statement shouldaddress both research partnerships andendowment investments. It shoulddescribe the decision-making processregarding the ethics of investment inand engagement with companies, gov-ernments, and individuals; identify theMIT offices and individuals who areresponsible for making such decisions;and clarify what avenues the broaderMIT community has for providinginput on these decisions.

MIT has power to make a difference in theworld, but not only through its ability tosupport science and engineering. It is apowerful symbol of credibility andintegrity. We object to MIT’s ongoingrelations with the Kingdom of SaudiArabia in our name.

Editor’s Note: At press time the aboveletter had been signed by 233members of the MIT community. To addyour name to the list of signatories goto: https://www.mit-ksa.org/.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

6

ways of seeing to provide multiple lenseswith which to encounter the world. We could, of course, talk about educa-tion even more boldly, as MIT likes to say,“To make a better world.” But, I am notpersuaded that that is the best message forthe students, even if it appears to bepopular with generous philanthropists.Claiming such a bold agenda seemscounter to the sort of humility thatprompts the deepest sorts of learning andgrowth in our students, ourselves, and theinstitution as a whole. To be sure, there is a risk of being toonarrow in our ambitions. Personally, Iwish we would push back also against thetemptation to turn undergraduate educa-tion into professional or occupationaltraining. Such an agenda is not even prac-tical, for there is abundant evidenceshowing that there is not much of a con-nection between a student’s college cur-riculum and her eventual career. Ten to 15years after graduation most students willnot be doing what they studied in college,whether they were engineering or historymajors. (Those who lead the way in anoccupational bubble may be rewarded forhaving picked – and stayed in – theproverbially “right” field, but when thebubble bursts – as it always does once thefield is saturated – those who instrumen-tally chose a learning path to follow theherd will not experience the career bene-fits, while the general lack of correlationbetween college training and eventualcareer persists across the longer timespans.) Further in this vein, I wish we wouldalso push back against the impulse to turnall topics and subjects into “problemsolving,” as if life were a series of testsdemanding that we produce the right orefficient answer. When it comes down toit, I do believe we “make a better world”through an MIT education, but simplybecause the best reason for getting an edu-cation at MIT or anywhere else is thateducation is a valuable end in itself, notjust for the careers it enables or the imme-

diate problems it solves. It is better to beeducated rather than not to be, not simplybecause income and life chances arehigher for those with a college education(although that is true) but because educa-tion recasts human beings’ ways of beingin the world and that, in and of itself, hastransformative potential. An excellenteducation creates new instincts in theindividual; a habit of looking for newmeanings; of questioning comfortablethoughts; of being able to see multiplepoints of view at the same time; of perpet-ually playing with and fighting about the

meanings we assign to events and textsand phenomena so that we can under-stand them more deeply and in their fullcomplexity. It is about making each oflife’s experiences slower – as those eventsare apprehended as more layered andmultidimensional, their contexts and con-sequences more fully appreciated. Anexcellent education creates citizens whoexperience the enduring quality of thepresent while recognizing in it the legaciesof the past. This is not a new vision ofeducation but a very old one.

A Fundamental EducationUnfortunately, the commitment to funda-mental education (even in science andengineering) is being challenged bymarket pressures that encourage studentsto see the world through one set of valuesand meanings to the exclusion of others. Ifwe are not careful, students become con-ditioned to value and pursue only thatwhich the current market values andpursues (disruptive innovations, profit)more than truth, critical thinking,empathy for differences, and learning howto learn. Across the nation, there are pre-dictions about the demise of the humani-ties precisely because of this. Colleges anduniversities are closing departments to

pursue more training – few seem to sayeducation – in computation and algorith-mic reasoning. People call this the conse-quences of computing and the digitaltransformation of everyday life; or, is itinstead the consequence of us losing focuson the true meaning and value of a goodeducation? Fortunately, at last month’s celebrationof the founding of the MIT SchwarzmanCollege of Computing, I heard somethinghopeful. I heard repeated calls for morehumanistic education, for greater under-standing of social processes, and moral

challenges. I heard the same at the 2019MacVicar celebration too. This may be MIT’s moment in history.I have also heard this from colleagues hereand across the nation. As part of the delib-erations on the possible shapes of theCollege, we have been reaching outwidely. Although we are behind someother universities that began such adven-tures years before MIT and that arefurther along in developing new curricu-lum, research collaborations, and organi-zational units, I am told that whateverMIT does, we will be watched carefullyand taken as a beacon and a benchmark.This is quite a challenge. A beacon and a benchmark can be aheavy burden and special responsibility.Such ambition feeds persistent worries Iharbor about MIT’s own transformationover the last 20+ years from a modestinstitution that at times did extraordinarythings, to an institution that regards itself(and is apparently regarded by others) asextraordinary. It is why I sometimesworry about the bold claim “to make abetter world.” If we aren’t careful, that self-image could turn to hubris – couldencourage self-pride and insularity, afocus on nourishing the brand rather thanthe product itself (education and

A 21st Century Education at MITSilbey, from page 1

An excellent education creates citizens who experiencethe enduring quality of the present while recognizing in itthe legacies of the past. This is not a new vision ofeducation but a very old one.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

7

research). When MIT was less celebrated,we were willing to stand aside from ourneighbors and peers. Recall that in the1950s, MIT refused to supply the names offaculty whom some members of Congressregarded as threats to the nation, andagain in the 1990s MIT refused to consentto federal anti-trust charges of collusionwith the Ivy universities (known as theoverlap case) in setting financial aid onthe basis of need without considering astudent’s merit or trying to compete withthe others for admitted students. In 1999,MIT shared with the world its study doc-umenting widespread gender discrimina-tion in the School of Science. Immediatelyupon seeing the report of this historicconfession in the New York Times, some ofMIT’s peer institutions published vehe-ment denials that such reprehensiblepractices could be found at their universi-ties. According to their spokespersons,neither Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, norYale practiced such gender discrimina-tion. Or perhaps none had the humilityand courage to take that hard, close lookMIT did. The Courage to Make Difficult DecisionsDo we have the courage today to makesuch difficult decisions again? Will theSchwarzman College become the impetusfor MIT to offer a truly excellent educa-tion? I hope so. To educate a truly newkind of critical-thinking technologist,with a broad as well as deep education,computing will need to be integrated withjust about every other subject at MIT. ForMIT graduates to leave with the knowl-edge and resources to be wiser, more ethi-cally-competent as well as technologically-competent citizens demands that studentshave more rather than less immersion inthe humanities and social sciences. Thesecannot be requirements to get past – asthey are often treated. Nor can attentionto social organization, culture, andpublic policy be treated superficially assomething everybody knows, ignoringthe knowledge and expertise that charac-terizes the notoriously mislabeled “softsciences.”

We all seem to acknowledge that ourcontemporary digital world reflectscertain fundamental misunderstandingsof and disregard for human behavior andsocial organization, resulting from theactions and oversights of both its inven-tors and its objects/subjects (i.e., users).By ignoring human variation, socialorganization and context, tools that weredesigned to connect people across theglobe in the open exchange of ideas andinformation have been turned into anefficient machine of incessant surveil-lance, a seemingly insatiable engine ofprofit at the expense of other values, aplatform for organized hate, and a possi-ble catalyst for the destruction of repre-sentative democracy. A well-educatedtechnologist with greater understandingof the importance of context, of cultureand its variations – a technologist with theability to understand institutions andorganizations – we hope would be lesslikely to make these kinds of mistakes. If we, across the Institute, especially inthe humanities, arts, and social sciences,take up the challenge, we may actuallycreate that 21st century education I hopefor. But, this cannot be achieved by simplywishing it to be so. Without doubt, itrequires a redistribution of the currentallocation of resources. Of course, we are auniversity built primarily on science andengineering; MIT’s special mission is thefoundation of all of our work here. Wewill not, however, be able to make thatbetter world nor repair the problems thattechnologists have created if we do notprovide more abundant resources for thehumanities and social scientists to partici-pate more fully imagining, developing,and critiquing technological inventions. In the spirit of greater concreteness, Iconclude this column with an examplecirculating around the Institute aboutostensibly responsible innovation to illus-trate a short sighted versus more capa-cious vision of a better world. Research groups have been thinkingabout programming autonomous cars sothat they will make “ethical” and “respon-sible” decisions when confronted withinformation demanding a distributive

choice, an adaptation of the canonicaltrolley problem. Faced with a choice ofhitting a trolley filled with people orkilling a single person (perhaps a preg-nant woman, a person pushing a baby car-riage, perhaps a fat man whose weight canstop the car), what should the algorithminstruct the car to do? More recent discus-sions claim to have advanced in sophisti-cation by moving from the dilemmasphilosophers have been exploring formore than a century to questions of liabil-ity – who should bear the monetized costsof the accident? And yet, in all these proj-ects the more significant question con-cerning the responsibilities of AI isignored: why are we designingautonomous cars in the first place? Indeed, this is precisely what I wasreferring to earlier when I said a goodeducation should destabilize taken-for-granted ways of seeing, should providemultiple lenses through which toencounter the world. Why are we devotingtalent and resources – including valuableand limited teaching and learning time –to this question rather than focusing onclimate change, the rising seas, environ-mental degradation or – perhaps closer tothe specific issue of moving persons fromone place to another – the lack of reliableand effective public transportation here inBoston or the nation (e.g., high-speedrail)? Of course, I know the answer. Well-heeled philanthropists and corporationssuch as Google, Amazon, Uber, and Lyftare willing to pay for this research as partof long-term business strategies predi-cated on the reduction or elimination oflabor costs. Where is MIT’s public andhistoric responsibility? Where is ourresponsibility as educators to see theworld through multiple lenses, to destabi-lize our own taken-for-granted ways ofseeing, and to pass these habits of mindonto our students? Is MIT leading or fol-lowing the nation?

Susan S. Silbey is Leon and Anne GoldbergProfessor of Humanities, Professor of Sociologyand Anthropology, and Professor of Behavioraland Policy Sciences, and Chair of the Faculty(ssilbey@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

8

Hal AbelsonChris Bourg

Open Access Task Force Draft Recommendations

TH E OPE N S HAR I NG OF products ofscholarship promises to quicken the accu-mulation of knowledge and insight andenhance opportunities for collaboration.It also aligns with MIT’s mission. At theInstitute, we are “committed to generat-ing, disseminating, and preserving knowl-edge, and to working with others to bringthis knowledge to bear on the world’sgreat challenges.” We currently manifest that mission viathe open sharing of educational materialsthrough Open-CourseWare and MITx,and by openly sharing faculty research viathe MIT Faculty Open Access Policy. Inaddition, as MIT makes bold moves toaddress the challenges and opportunitiespresented by the prevalence of computingand the rapid advances in artificial intelli-gence, our efforts in these areas willdepend on the open availability of large,diverse, and inclusive sets of data in allformats. Since 2017, the Ad Hoc Task Force onOpen Access to MIT’s Research(https://open-access.mit.edu/) hasexplored ways for MIT to remain a leaderin this realm, by strengthening our activi-ties in support of open access to MIT pub-lications, data, software, and educationalmaterials. Large proportions of MIT’sresearch and teaching outputs are stillunavailable for open dissemination. Thisincludes the vast majority of faculty

journal articles published before theadoption of the faculty OA policy in 2009,and more than 50% of faculty articlespublished since then.

On March 18 – 10 years to the daysince the MIT faculty passed the OApolicy – the Task Force released a set ofdraft recommendations that aim to helpMIT researchers increase open sharing.They were available for comment untilApril 17. The recommendations include ratify-ing an Institute-wide set of principles foropen science; broadening the faculty OApolicy to cover all MIT authors; adoptingan OA policy for monographs; and askingdepartment heads to develop discipline-specific plans to encourage and supportopen sharing from their faculty, students,and staff. Over 18 months, the Task Force gath-ered input from experts across campusand beyond to better understand local,national, and global practices and policies

related to open access. At MIT, the TaskForce hosted two community forums andmet with the five School councils, theTechnology Licensing Office, the

Committee on Intellectual Property, theVice President for Research, and others.Members also consulted with representa-tives from Google, the Gates Foundation,Creative Commons, and the ScholarlyPublishing and Academic ResourcesCoalition (SPARC). The MIT community offered feed-back on the draft recommendations at apublic forum, via the task force ideabank, on the open publishing platformPubPub, and via email to the Task Force(openaccesstaskforce@mit.edu). Final rec-ommendations are expected this summer.

Hal Abelson is the Class of 1922 Professorof Electrical Engineering and ComputerScience, Co-Chair, Open Access Task Force (hal@mit.edu);Chris Bourg is Director of Libraries, Co-Chair,Open Access Task Force (cbourg@mit.edu).

Since 2017, the Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access toMIT’s Research has explored ways for MIT to remain aleader in this realm, by strengthening our activities insupport of open access to MIT publications, data,software, and educational materials.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

9

Haynes MillerThe Octopus

TH E R E AR E A N U M B E R OF initia-tives active around the Institute thatrespond to the ever-increasing incursionof the methods of Computer Science intojust about every discipline representedhere. Principal among them, of course, isthe creation and dominance of the“College of Computing.” But this was pre-ceded by others – notably, the creation ofa spate of mixed majors involving Course6. These include:

6-7 Computer Science and MolecularBiology6-14 Computer Science, Economics, andData Science

There are rumors of more in theworks; at the Institute faculty meeting inNovember 2017 the Provost suggestedthat there might be 25 more such mixeddegrees! It seems to me that these joint majorsrepresent an ill-conceived, even retro-grade, response to the increasing penetra-tion of computer science methodologyinto other disciplines. They represent astructural response to a transientproblem. I’m not suggesting that the relevance ofComputer Science methodology willsubside. On the contrary, it’s here to stay,and its integration into intellectual endeav-ors of all sorts will only increase over time. But as these new methods get estab-lished, the faculty will adjust. Comfortlevel with the project of constructingundergraduate pathways includingCourse 6 subjects, or parallel subjects invarious Courses, will increase. The temp-tation to outsource control will decline.

Jointly controlled majors will come to bean annoyance, an albatross. This evolution is going to be acceler-ated by the birth of the College ofComputing. This cataclysm in the politi-cal landscape at MIT will have many con-sequences, most of which we can’t see yet.A sensible course of action would be todeclare a moratorium on authorizing newjoint majors of this sort. Mathematics found itself in this posi-tion long before Computer Science. Therewas a time when engineering and otherdisciplines were much less dependent onmathematics than they are today. As themathematical requirements of variousfields has grown, the various Courses atMIT have added Course 18 subjects totheir requirements or generated andtaught subjects with significant mathe-matical content themselves. These latterdevelopments have often been painful tothe Mathematics faculty, which, naturally,feels that they have the best perspective onthese subjects. But we recognize thereality: Course 18 does not have a monop-oly on mathematics education at MIT. Establishing joint majors such as 6-7and 6-14, and the others, has the effect ofremoving from the non-ComputerScience partner the responsibility ofadapting to this new environment inwhich Computer Science is ubiquitous. It provides the partner departmentswith an easy way out. They don’t have tomove, through hiring for example, toincrease their own Computer Sciencecapabilities. It seems to me that this repre-sents a serious danger in the long run.These arrangements institutionalize acertain co-dependence between the

Computer Science Department – whichnaturally wants to maintain control of asmuch Computer Science instruction aspossible around the Institute – and thepartner departments, which see this as away to avoid any realignment of theirfaculty appointments. Less questionable options have beenadopted by several departments. Formany years the Mathematics Departmenthas offered two distinct majors: 18Mathematics and 18C Mathematics withComputer Science. This second major hasalways included several Course 6 subjects(though exactly which ones has beenchanged rather frequently over the pastfew years in response to successive curric-ular reforms within Course 6). Manycourses are cross-listed between the twodepartments, and teaching them oftenalternates between the two departments. A second example is represented by theexemplary (though poorly named!) 14-2Mathematical Economics. This majorrequires students to take several coursesoffered within the MathematicsDepartment, but it’s not “14-18,” and cer-tainly not “18-14.” The major itself is entirelycontrolled by Course 14. It specifies severalmathematics subjects, including a choice ofone of three of our UndergraduateSeminars. These requirements ensure thatthese students will have genuine mathemat-ical experiences, and interact closely withCourse 18 majors and faculty. It is to be hoped that going forwardmodels closer to these will become thenorm.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

Haynes Miller is a Professor in theDepartment of Mathematics(hrm@math.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

10

Ian A. WaitzProgress Towards an Improved First-Year Undergraduate Experience

The CUP (Committee on theUndergraduate Program) experiment forthe Class of 2022, which was designedto investigate ways to promote greater intel-lectual and personal exploration by stu-dents, is giving us crucial quantitative andqualitative data. I detail below some prelim-inary findings from the experiment.

A Look Back: Building on theMomentumI N TH E FALL OF 2017 (see “Designingthe First Year at MIT,” MIT FacultyNewsletter, November/December 2017),my office engaged with faculty, Schoolcouncils, and other stakeholders about howwe could enhance the first-year experiencefor our undergraduate students. As you cansee in the timeline (next page), we builtupon ideas and conversations that datedback to the 2014 Task Force on the Futureof MIT Education, (and in some cases,even drew from insights of several decadesago, such as the 1949 Lewis Report). Our recent efforts to enhance the firstyear were made possible because of theenthusiasm and dedication of the MITcommunity (see “A Collaboration inLearning,” MIT Faculty Newsletter,September/October 2018) – in particularour students. The idea that began theCUP Class of 2022 experiment gainedtraction in the “Designing the First Year atMIT” class. However, the rationale andneeds that the students described throughtheir classwork had also been identifiedseparately (and earlier) by faculty, mostnotably via the parallel work done by theCUP in studying major exploration byfirst-year students during the 2017-2018school year.

The CUP Class of 2022 experimentalso benefitted from a great deal of addi-tional feedback and positive endorse-ments in multiple forums, culminating inearly letters of support by the Schools ofScience, Engineering, HASS, andManagement, among many others, andlater support from the School of

Architecture & Planning. Of course, eventhose who were eager to experiment alsoraised important concerns and/or madehelpful adjustments to our proposal. Allwere shared with the CUP. Following this,there was debate within the CUP, buildingon discussions they had been having fornearly a year and addressing the relativemerits of specific policy features thatcould be implemented to limit anticipatedrisks. In short, it took a campus to createthe experiment.

Monitoring and Measuring Progress,Responding to ConcernsSince the experiment’s approval, we havebeen carefully monitoring how things areprogressing and have made an effort toshare our preliminary findings. Initialresults suggest that the experiment isenabling students to explore morebroadly, while many still continue to takescience core GIR subjects early in

their time at MIT. You can learn moredetails and see data online(https://ovc.mit.edu/fy/). We have been working to respond toongoing and new concerns as well. Forexample, to augment the experiment, myoffice has offered support to departmentsfor developing subjects to aid students in

exploring majors, minors, and concentra-tions. Further, we are considering impor-tant open questions about theexperiment’s current and longer-termimpacts, such as the effects of P/NRgrading (either in the first semester orthereafter) on performance in thoseclasses and in subsequent classes that relyon that material. There are, of course,risks in experimenting with an MITundergraduate education. Changes inpolicies, such as to P/NR, may not serve allstudents equally well. Even with all of its strengths, however,our educational model can be continuallyimproved. We agree with the recommen-dation of the Task Force on the Future ofMIT Education about how this can bestbe achieved: “. . . engage in bold experi-ments that will help us learn about boththe positive and negative aspects of peda-gogical and curricular innovations.”

We have been working to respond to ongoing and newconcerns as well. For example, to augmentthe experiment, my office has offered supportto departments for developing subjects to aid studentsin exploring majors, minors, and concentrations.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

11

Moving Forward: Class of 2023Experiment, plus an Advising PilotLooking ahead, an experiment for theClass of 2023 has been just approved byCUP (what we are calling Phase Two).Our initial findings from the currentexperiment indicate a need to encouragemore low-unit opportunities for discov-ery of majors, minors, and concentrationswhile continuing to enable more tradi-tional student practices of exploringmajors through introductory subjects.The Phase Two experiment is designed tobalance these two approaches. In draftingthe proposal we benefitted from manyinputs we gathered from the communityover the last six months, and most espe-cially from a thoughtful proposal by theFaculty Officers. We are also planning an advising pilotfor the Class of 2023. Motivated by feed-back from students and faculty, anddrawing on the work of the CUP in 2005and 2010-2011, the proposed pilot dividesadvising functions to a greater extentamong a small network, including faculty,

staff, and peers, rather than concentratingthe many functions in a single facultymember.

Finally, based on ideas from students inthe “Designing the First Year Experience”offerings, alongside recommendationsfrom many faculty and instructors, wehope to evaluate some “blue-sky ideas” tospark more curiosity and excitement aboutlearning in the first year. We intend to lever-age the flexible and personalized nature ofthe First-Year Learning Communities (i.e.,Concourse, Experimental Study Group,Media Arts and Sciences, and Terrascope)to pilot possible approaches.

Ultimately, the only way to know aboutthe effects – both positive and negative –of new policies and pilots is to try them;

and to try them in a way where we makesure we put students first and approachthe evaluation with rigor, so that our con-clusions can be based on substantive qual-itative and quantitative data. That is whatwe are doing now. I am very grateful to everyone who isproviding input and contributing to ourshared goal of creating the best first-yearexperience on the planet.

Chancellor’s Listening Tour

66 faculty

15-20 staff and instructors in DUE and ODGE

50 responses by email

UA and GSC student forums on academic priori es

CUP Choice of Major Study

250 first-year students invited

5 surveys

34 in-depth interviews

Prepara on for Designing the First-Year Experience

subject

Collabora ve data and resource collec on process

30 Mee ngs and talks

AMS Interviews with 39 students and 11 faculty

Designing the First-Year Experience subject

>150 people interviewed

118 needs iden fied

>700 concepts generated

Faculty Workshop: Educa on at a Crossroads

~100 faculty and instructors

CUP Experiment Phase One Approved

Dra emailed to all instructors for comment

OVC Community Engagement about Experiments

36 mee ngs and talks (so far)

CUP Experiment Phase Two Proposed

Dra emailed to all instructors and undergraduate students for comment

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

The Task Force on the Future of MIT Educa on

We should “engage in bold experiments in the MIT undergraduate program” to, among other things, “infus[e] greater flexibility into the core undergraduate curriculum, including the GIRs”

Febr

uary

1

Augu

st 3

June

14

FYE Ini a ves: Engaging the CommunityAugust 2013 - March 2019

~50 working group members

52% of faculty and 35% of other instructors responded

to instructor survey

39% of undergraduates and 35% of graduate students

responded to student survey

Finally, based on ideas from students in the “Designingthe First Year Experience” offerings, alongsiderecommendations from many faculty and instructors, wehope to evaluate some “blue-sky ideas” to spark morecuriosity and excitement about learning in the first year.

Ian A. Waitz is Vice Chancellor forUndergraduate Education (iaw@.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

12

level of political engagement of the scien-tific community, and more specificallywith the role of military research on uni-versity campuses. The previous year, April 4, 1968,Martin Luther King, Jr. had been assassi-nated, one year after his speech atRiverside Church where he made the con-nection between militarism abroad andpoverty and racism at home. Later thatyear Robert Kennedy was assassinated,ending the Kennedy family’s drive to pullthe U.S. out of Vietnam. Up to 1968, morethan 36,956 American soldiers had died inthe Vietnam conflict. In 1968, 16,988

more Americans died in the war. Thenational draft yearly continued to pullhundreds of thousands of primarilyyoung men into the military. Why was MIT the locus of the scien-tists’ strike? The MIT Physics Departmentfaculty had a long history of opposition tonuclear weapons. The scientific leaders ofthe Department were also leaders of thenuclear disarmament movement, includ-ing Profs. Viki Weisskopf, HermanFeshbach, Philip Morrison, AronBernstein (one of the co-authors of thisarticle), and Kosta Tsipis. Prof. BernardFeld was editor of the Bulletin of theAtomic Scientists, and future Nobel laure-

ate Prof. Henry Kendall was in the processof founding the Union of ConcernedScientists, which became the facultygroup helping organize the March 4actions. Their presence provided a basisfor institutional support. The practicalleadership came not only from Physicists,but also from well-known faculty anti-

war critics such as Noam Chomsky ofLinguistics, James Fay of CivilEngineering, Louis Kampf fromLiterature, and future Nobel laureateBiologist Salvador Luria, a refugee fromMussolini’s Italy and passionate anti-fascist and Democratic Socialist. In the years following, other facultystepped forward: in Biology EthanSigner joined Yale’s Arthur Galston invisting North Vietnam and their scien-tific community. David Baltimore wasalso a leading voice, supported by Luria,Annamaria Torriani-Gorini, and (theother co-author of this article) JonathanKing.

Of course also key, and the initiatingforce, were a cadre of undergraduate andgraduate student leaders, includingUndergraduate Association PresidentMichael Albert, Joel Feigenbaum, andJonathan Kabat, with dozens of others insupport. Earlier Pfc. Michael O’Connor, a19-year-old Army soldier, who had gone

absent without leave, was given sanctuaryin the MIT student center. Hundreds ofMIT students began a six-day around-the-clock vigil, led by Albert, andmembers of the recently formed ScienceAction Coordinating Committee. The March 4th Strike received nationalpress coverage, and led at MIT to thedivestment of the InstrumentationLaboratory (now Draper labs), the majoron-campus contractor for theDepartment of Defense. This lowered thebarrier to anti-war discussion and analysison campus in the 1970s, as the VietnamWar continued, and sharply raised aware-ness of the need to carefully analyze the

March 4, 1969 Scientists Strike for PeaceKing and Bernstein, from page 1

Why was MIT the locus of the scientists’ strike? The MIT Physics Department faculty had a long history ofopposition to nuclear weapons. The scientific leaders ofthe Department were also leaders of the nucleardisarmament movement . . . .

Members of the MIT Physics Department 1969

l.-r.: Profs. Viki Weisskopf, Herman Feshbach, Philip Morrison, Aron Bernstein, Kosta Tsipis

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

13

complicity of university faculty with gov-ernment policies that should be rejected.In the years following, opposition to mili-tary solutions to international conflictscontinued to broaden, as well as inengagement with other issues of socialand economic justice. The culminationwas probably the widespread calls for uni-

versities and other institutions to divesttheir endowments from investments incorporations doing business with theApartheid regime in South Africa. Today national needs once again callfor a Scientists Mobilization for Peace andJustice; we have a national governmenthostile to science and to democracy.Having invaded and contributed to thecontinuing disruption of civilian life inAfghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, our govern-ment currently enables the Saudi attackson the people of Yemen. The Presidenteven threatens military intervention inour own hemisphere, in Venezuela, hear-kening back to the days of U.S. gunboatdiplomacy in Latin America. ThePresident has announced pulling the U.S.out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forcestreaty with Russia, threatening a newnuclear arms race. The U.S. Congress sup-ports spending $1.7 trillion of our taxdollars on modernizing all three legs of

the nuclear weapons triad, which woulddecrease national security and underminethe desperately needed public investmentin our civilian economy. Last year theCongress appropriated more than $700billion for the Pentagon and weapons pro-curement, more than half the entireCongressional Discretionary Budget. In a

period when five million aging Americansare suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease,costing about $250 billion of the Medicarebudget, the NIH budget for such researchis in the range of a completely inadequate$1 billion. The increase in the Pentagonbudget was more than double the size ofthe entire NIH budget – funding researchon all disease plaguing our citizenry. Ironically, MIT is currently engaged ina debate with similarities to the earlier I-lab divestment controversy, over theInstitute’s agreement with the amoralSaudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman andhis regime. As happened 50 years ago, we needIntroductory Physics faculty to include intheir teaching of fission and fusion theconsequences of the dropping of nuclearbombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Weneed Geology and Earth Science faculty tointensify their lessons on the dangers ofnuclear winter, as well as the rate and con-

sequences of global warming. We needChemistry faculty to make sure their stu-dents understand the human toxicity ofdioxins and pesticides, and how chloro-fluorohydrocarbons damage the ozonelayer. We need Political Science faculty tomake clear that U.S. military support forthe Saudi Monarchy war on Yemen isabsolutely at odds with American consti-tutional and civic values. We needEconomics faculty to make clear that amajority of Americans are hurt whenhousing, healthcare, education, environ-mental protection, sustainable energydevelopment, and basic and biomedicalresearch are sacrificed to ensure the profitsof a limited number of corporations; cor-porations that profit from the bloateddefense budget at home, and profitabroad from the lucrative private con-tracts to service our hundreds of thou-sands of troops at more than 800 basesaround the world. Though the tradition of academics asvoices in the public interest has eroded,the struggle to press for science for peace,rather than war, is even more pressingtoday than it was 50 years ago. ThePresidential and electoral debates that willpenetrate public consciousness leadinginto 2020 provides an environment tospeak out for peace, diplomacy, and civil-ian economic development.

Editor’s Note: The above article is anexpanded version of the Editorial pub-lished in the March 1, 2019 ScienceMagazine, “Mobilize for peace.”

The March 4th Strike received national press coverage,and led at MIT to the divestment of the InstrumentationLaboratory (now Draper labs), the major on-campuscontractor for the Department of Defense. . . . Todaynational needs once again call for a ScientistsMobilization for Peace and Justice; we have a nationalgovernment hostile to science and to democracy.

Jonathan King is a Professor in theDepartment of Biology (jaking@.mit.edu);Aron Bernstein is a Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Physics (bernstein@.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

14

Jonathan SchwarzLydia Snover

Update on the Academic Climate Survey

T H I S FA L L , W E I N T R O D U C E D theAcademic Climate Survey (ACS) in thepages of the Faculty Newsletter, and havebeen invited to share some early observa-tions of faculty data with FNL readers. We are grateful to all the members ofthe MIT community who took the time toshare their experiences with us in theAcademic Climate Survey. A response rateof nearly 70% is an indication that thetopic of workplace climate in academicdepartments and research units is impor-tant to MIT faculty. The public report ofoverall results from the ACS can be foundon the Institutional Research website(ir.mit.edu/ acs-2018). Overall, 89% of MIT faculty are satis-fied (very satisfied + somewhat satisfied)with their role at MIT. While the overallstory is positive, there are some indicatorsthat suggest room for improvement.

• At an Institute level, female facultyrespondents report higher levels ofstress than male faculty respondents.

• Underrepresented minority (Hispanicor Latino, American Indian or AlaskaNative, Black or African American)faculty respondents are more likely toagree with the statements, “I have towork harder than my colleagues to betaken seriously,” and “I feel called onto represent a social identity ordemographic group in my DLC(department, lab, or center).”

• Faculty who identify as lesbian/gay/bisexual/pansexual/other sexual-ity disagree that their DLC is diverse,

and report feeling isolated very oftenat higher rates compared to facultyrespondents who identify as straightor heterosexual.

For the first time, we asked respon-dents whether or not they have a disabil-ity. Data from faculty respondents who

identified as having a disability suggestthey feel less integrated in their depart-ments. For example, they agree (some-what agree + strongly agree) at a higherrate that they feel excluded from informalnetworks in their DLC and have felt iso-lated somewhat more frequently thanfaculty respondents who do not identifyas having a disability. We continue to be concerned aboutthe number and length of surveys oncampus. As the Council on Family andWork revises the quadrennial Quality ofLife (QoL) Survey, they are seekingopportunities to reduce the overall lengthof the QoL while incorporating the ACSas a module within that survey, which willbe administered during the 2020Independent Activities Period (IAP).

The culture of MIT is important – itbinds us together in our mission toadvance cutting-edge research andeducation. The Academic ClimateSurvey results show that not everyoneexperiences the same culture, andthrough the MindHandHeart initiativewe will be able to share innovation

across departments and better accessexpert campus resources. MIT remainscommitted to examining these issues sothat we can continue to grow andimprove. IR and MindHandHeart willcontinue to work with departmentheads and directors of centers and labsacross campus to leverage these data aspart of both new and ongoing efforts toensure that MIT is a welcoming work-place. For the ACS responses of faculty withregard to stress, see MIT Numbers (backpage).

Underrepresented minority (Hispanic or Latino, AmericanIndian or Alaska Native, Black or African American)faculty respondents are more likely to agree with thestatements, “I have to work harder than my colleagues tobe taken seriously,” and “I feel called on to represent asocial identity or demographic group in my DLC(department, lab, or center).”

Jonathan Schwarz is Assistant Director ofInstitutional Research (jschwarz@.mit.edu);Lydia Snover is Director of InstitutionalResearch (lsnover@.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2019

15

Alan WhiteUndergraduate Admissions:A Recommendation

EACH YEAR FACU LTY AR E invited toparticipate in the undergraduate admis-sions process and this year I decided to dothis. If you have been at MIT for a while it islikely you’ve been asked how a daughter,son, or friend might successfully apply forundergraduate admission. I now feel I canaccurately say to anyone who asks meabout being admitted, “It is practicallyimpossible.” Last year MIT received some 21,000applications and admitted approximately1500. How does MIT accomplish this task? Reading the applications is a humblingprocess and I felt “Who am I to decide on

such excellent applicants?” Fortunately,faculty inputs are only one of manyinputs. Most applicants are interviewed world-wide. This is accomplished by alumni vol-unteers. And then, a very impressive MITAdmissions staff takes over and committeemeetings are held to reach consensus oncandidates. Faculty who have read applica-tions are invited to attend these committeemeetings. The time commitment to participatein the admission process is minimal.Faculty attend a one-hour orientation andthen are asked to evaluate applications.The evaluation is accomplished on line.

I found the process gave me a newappreciation for MIT’s undergraduates.They are all remarkable in academicachievement, but their life stories arethe compelling differentiators. You areleft with a desire to get to know thembetter. I fully recommend faculty considerparticipating in the process. Like manyareas of MIT, you open a portal (in thiscase Undergraduate Admissions), andenter a new area of discovery.

Alan White is Senior Associate Dean andLecturer, Emeritus, Sloan School ofManagement (awhite@.mit.edu).

To The Faculty Newsletter:

TH E I N STITUTE I S N OW engaged inan important discussion on the topic oflarge international collaborations.Unfortunately, one aspect of those collab-orations has, until now, received no atten-tion. That element of these collaborationsis the matter of large donations to theendowment by the sponsoring entity.

In at least some cases, MIT’s participa-tion in these collaborations has been con-ditioned upon receipt of such a donation.I understand that the rationale is simplythat the usual cost accounting proceduresdo not adequately represent the true costof MIT’s participation and that a dona-tion is therefore required to make it possi-ble. I believe that this position has a greatdeal of merit. However, I also believe that

the existence of all such arrangementsshould be publicly acknowledged anddescribed in some detail so that we canmove forward in full possession of all thefacts.

Ken SmithProfessor EmeritusDepartment of Chemical Engineering

lettersInternational Collaborations and Donations to the Endowment

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXI No. 4

M.I.T. NumbersFaculty Responses to the 2019 Academic Climate Survey

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you over the past twelve months.

Not a Source of Stress Slightly Stressful Moderately Stressful Very Stressful