Larry Benedictand the Challenge of Student Life

Interview by Scott Schneider andVikash Mansinghka

Though Dean for Student Life LarryBenedict has spent less time here thanthe senior class, he has been a quick stu-dent of MIT culture. We grilled himexhaustively on Orientation 2002, thefuture of dorm rush, and student-admin-istrator communication, and he relatedevery issue back to the underlying factsand ideas. This interview showed usDean Benedict’s instinct and talent forunderstanding students’ perspectives, aswell as his appreciation for the MIT cul-ture of autonomy and self-government.

Prometheus: I’d like to start by justasking you about your background andwhat brought you to MIT.

Larry Benedict: This is now my32nd year in student affairs and highereducation. In my last year of graduateschool, my funding ran out. I was work-ing at UMass Amherst on research meth-ods, evaluation methods, stats, that kind

of stuff. I needed money to get throughthe last year of graduate school. Thedean of students at that time was adver-tising for a research assistant to develop atelephone polling system on campus. Somy last year of graduate school was actu-ally the first year of the job that kept methere eighteen years.

PM: One of the major topics we’dlike to talk about is communication andinteraction between students and admin-istors. There’s been some controversy inthe recent year and it seems like therehave also been some improvements, andwe’d like to see that those gains don’t getlost. Can you tell me generally what aresome fruitful ways for students to com-municate with administrators? Is it gen-erally better to discuss overall goals orhave conversations about specific plans?

LB: I’m smiling because that’s anincredibly complicated question, espe-cially for MIT. In most places I’veworked, the lines of communication arepretty clear. A student government isusually elected by the student body, andit communicates with the constituency.

At MIT, I found out very quicklythere is no student government, per se.There are about 12 or 13 student govern-ments that I work with. We have the UA.We have 4 class councils, which for allintents and purposes are separate studentgovernments. We have DormCon, theASA, the GSC, and others. I try to meetwith those groups as often as possible, tolet them know what we’re working onand to find out what they’re working on.I meet every two or three weeks with thePresident and Vice President of the UA,the DormCon President, GSC officers,and the IFC Chair, and very irregularlywith the class council presidents.

You never seem to have met withthe right constituency. For example, TheTech criticized the UA last year for not

communicating well with all of its con-stituencies. I think again, this year, theUA could have done a better job. Thesame problem happens with the IFC: theIFC Chair goes back and talks to thepresidents, but the presidents forget to goback and talk to their houses. So there’salways communication gaps along theway.

How to improve that is an issue. Wetried town meetings, but you can only getpeople to show up who come about theparticular meeting issue, so you don’thave a chance to discuss broad things. E-mail letters are treated as spam; youmight as well just toss that off.

PM: I’m particularly interested inhousing and orientation. The IFC seemsto have a decent level of success in com-municating their needs for FSILG rush.DormCon and ILTFP are doing better inrecent months. What’s your impressionof what works and what doesn’t workthere? What are the fundamental obsta-cles to be overcome?

LB: I think the obstacles are what Iwas talking about. DormCon and ILTFPis a good example. DormCon has a cer-tain set of roles and responsibilites forwhat goes on in residence halls, to be thecommunication link with the administra-tion, and to lobby on behalf of the resi-dence halls to the administration.

However, when something came upa couple of months ago, all of a suddenILTFP shows up. We met with them, andwe got a lot of good work done. But thequestion I have is, wait a minute, why arewe forming yet another group when wealready have an existing, well- recog-nized, well-established group?

I think ILTFP came together arounda very specific message. It knew what itsmessage was and what it wanted to do. Ididn’t sense that same sense of cohesive-ness in DormCon, which is why I thinkthis other group got together.

Gifford House -- imagine President Vesthosting a picnic for MIT Corporationmembers during Steer Roast.

The next day, Bacow fired off anangry email, expressing his dismay withthe NQR, and his desire to end the eventbecause several students were injuredand required medical attention. A fewstudents, he claimed, were groped by thecheering crowds. “The combination ofconsumption of alcohol with a mad dashthrough an icy, hilly campus at night can-not continue,” he concluded.

The outcry was immediate, and itlasted at least a month or two into thebeginning of the next semester. Lettersto the editor, and endless Viewpointsappeared in the Tufts Daily, condemningBacow’s threat to take away the only realsource of school spirit and stress reliefthe school has left. While changes ofsome kind are likely next year, it is a nearcertainty the NQR will continue, despiteBacow’s best efforts to kill it.

On one level, one can hardly blamehim. If anything went wrong at the

Burning down the Bush

While these actions reveal Bacow tobe out of touch with students, he none-theless does the right thing in manycases. For example, former PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush came to speak atTufts this last February. Campus antiwaractivists were outraged, and questionedthe educational value his talk could offer.(These same voices found nothing amissabout Bill Clinton’s 2002 talk). Aftermobilizing several Boston-area activistgroups, hundreds of protesters marchedfrom Davis Square to campus, chantingslogans about the Bushes being warmon-gers who want to steal Iraq’s oil at thecost of millions of lives. There was sig-nificant worry (justified, it turns out) thatthe protesters would do something to dis-rupt the talk itself, so cops were out infull force, protecting the entrance withriot-gear.

continued on page 6

ALSO IN THISISSUE

Whose Democracy?... see page 4

Fetishizing Democracy... see page 5

What You Say !! The Use andAbuse of Rhetoric

... see page 3

What the hell is going on?... see page 8

continued on page 2

Larry Bacow and the Mantle of LeadershipTwo years ago, no one really knew

what to expect of President Bacow. Ingeneral, Tufts students were ignorant ofhis career at MIT, but as his second yearwinds down, we now have some idea.

Bacow is a man driven by politicalexpediency, who acts primarily with aneye to how alumni, trustees and donorsmight perceive any action he takes. Tosome extent, this is desirable and neces-sary for a job that features fund-raisingand keeping trustees happy. But toooften, Bacow is willing to allow injus-tices to go unpunished, or to crack downon innocent fun, as long as it keeps con-troversy to a minimum and keeps up allpublic appearances. I should stress thatby “too often,” I don’t mean “always.”Indeed, President Bacow has done theright thing for Tufts on numerous occa-sions; one only wishes, however, that thiscould have been more consistent.

Live nude girls (and boys)This past year, Bacow ran afoul of

Tufts’ most popular campus tradition (or,perhaps, vice versa). For severaldecades, students have celebrated the endof Fall classes in early December bydrinking adult beverages and runningaround the quad in the buff on the firstnight of study period. Several hundredstudents participate, and the revelrydraws the largest audience of any campusathletic event. President Bacow claimedto be ignorant of the tradition; he wasaway during the NQR of his first year.This December, he held a meeting withTrustees at the President’s mansion, Gif-ford House, the same night of the NQR.The quad is practically in the backyard of

NQR, between underage drinking, expo-sure to cold, and creepy townies takingpictures, it would not be hard for some-one to launch a lawsuit. Bacow probablyhas memories of Scott Krueger in mind.But again, rather than stand on the princi-ple of personal responsibility, Bacowacted so as to minimize any negativepublicity to the school. It was moreimportant to Bacow that things not lookbad than it was to allow students to takeresponsibility for themselves. Or to takeresponsibility himself: just who sched-uled his evening with the trustees on thenight of NQR?

More recently, Bacow raised irewith plans to remake graduation in hisown image. First, without putting it tothe students themselves first, he decidedthat starting this year, all diplomas willbe written in English instead of Latin.And far more controversially, startingnext year, if Bacow is successful, Tuftswill implement a more British-stylegraduation, which prohibits anyonewalking unless all of their graduationrequirements are met. This way, studentswho walk receive their actual diploma atthe ceremony instead of through the mailduring summer.

This may not sound so bad, but con-sider how this impacts people who havedegree programs that require summerinternships, or those on the cusp, whoneed one last class to be made up oversummer school. Worse, many interna-tional students will fall into either situa-tion. Obtaining a return visa a year laterand funding a trip all the way back theUS simply for a ceremony would beimpractical.

Page 2 PROMETHEUS May 2003

Tufts Has a Bacow

Bacow demanded in a campus email

that these efforts not go through, thatevery visitor to the campus had 1stAmendment liberties that, as a matter ofright and courtesy, students were boundto respect. Nevertheless, a few protesterssneaked into the talk, and on cue blewwhistles, held up a banner and an upsidedown flag obscenely marked with ducttape, and chanted antiwar slogans untilsecurity removed them, flipping Bush offas they were escorted out.

Bacow never apologized for hisactions. But neither did he act as a toadyto Bush. A Q&A directly from the audi-ence would have been impractical, so aswith the Clinton talk, students submittedtheir questions in advance, and Bacowread them to Bush. He picked hard ques-tions, about Bush’s handling of theKurds, support for Saddam in the 80’s,and similarly difficult questions designedto put the former president on the spot.Bacow has much to be proud of regard-ing this affair.

Carnage at the Cannon

In contrast to his vocal second year,President Bacow appeared at first to pre-fer a hands-off approach, wisely remain-ing above the fray of undergraduatepolitics. Two major defining controver-sies erupted almost immediately in fall of2001. The first centered around the then-senior Iris Halpern, who hoped to galva-nize students to the cause of janitor laborunions a la Harvard, by founding thenow-defunct Student-Labor ActionMovement, or SLAM. The group held afew rallies in front of the administrationbuilding, with the aim of coercing theadministration into intervening on sub-contracted janitors’ behalf in contractnegotiations. They failed - the adminis-tration ignored them, and so did students.At its peak, SLAM never had more than20 or so members (though, likely manymore sympathizers), out of a campus ofwell over 6000 undergraduates, andBacow took none of the actions SLAMdemanded.

The women of SLAM hoped todraw attention to their cause by wearingtight, revealing tank tops with “SLAM”emblazoned across. A cartoon in theSource indirectly lampooned the group’stank tops. The cartoon only showed abody, but no face or definitive character-istics were visible. Unfortunately, Iristook the cartoon, and jokes about tightpants to match the SLAM tank tops, to beabout her specifically, and brought

charges of sexual harassment against theSource.

At roughly the same time, theSource staff decided to paint the Tuftscannon, as per campus tradition, to markthe beginning of the war in Afghanistan.After painting the cannon in patrioticcolors, then-Source editor Sam Dangre-mond stayed behind to “guard” the can-non until the break of dawn, again, as percampus tradition (and sanctioned by thePachyderm, Tufts’ formal rules of con-duct). At roughly 4 AM, three of thecampus’s most notorious far-leftist agita-tors physically attacked him. Twograbbed him, threw him to the groundand held him there, while the thirddefaced the cannon with antiwar slogans.Sam stuck to his story about beingattacked, while the three offered incon-sistent accounts about Sam physicallyattacking them. The campus judiciary,while acquitting Sam and agreeing thatthe three initiated violence against Sam,gave the three radicals a slap on the wristwith a downgraded charge from Assaultto Harassment, and a punishment of Pro-bation I, which is essentially the samepunishment a student receives for beingcaught drinking a beer outside of hisdorm room. (As post-script - two of thethree leftists successfully appealed eventhat lenient punishment, having itreduced to Verbal Warning.)

These controversies ignited a fiercedebate about the Source. Some studentsdefaced copies of the Source with “Imag-ine a Campus Free of Sexism” stickers.The debate about the Source reached afever pitch when its last two fall printruns were stolen in their entirety by thePan-African Alliance, apparentlybecause they disapproved of an anti-affir-mative action article. Winter break didlittle to ease the tensions. No one wouldhave suspected the PAA, had an emailfrom the then-president Carl Jackson,boasting of their “dumping” campaign,not been unwittingly sent to the alumniparent of a Source member. When theSource revealed this evidence, a fire-storm erupted: not only was the Sourcesexist, it was also racist (despite havingnumerous African-Americans andwomen on its staff).

Where was President Bacow duringall of this? Good question - he offered nopublic comments about any of these con-troversies. Only when Louis Esparza,one of the leftist radicals who assaultedSam at the cannon, wrote a letter to theTufts Daily explicitly calling Sam a rac-ist, did Bacow finally weigh in. He wrotea mass email to the campus community,imploring civility in campus publica-tions, but reserving the balance of hiscriticism for the Source itself, equatingthe Source’s tradition of mocking cam-pus figures with the level of abuse theSource had received.

Bacow’s biggest failing here was hissense of proportion. A physical assault,a charge of sexual harassment so baselessit was thrown out, and mass thefts ofentire publication runs went withoutcomment from Bacow, but worries aboutthe tone of campus publications meritedhis personal attention.

Office hours arewage-slavery

Granted, by this time in the year,President Bacow already had his handsfull. While the Source controversiesbrewed, a more potentially dangerousconflict raged within the normally placidgraduate student community. In Decem-

ber, a campaign previously carried on insecret by a cabal of English graduate stu-dents exploded onto the scene: theUnited Auto Workers filed with theNational Labor Review Board to form anew labor union of Tufts graduate stu-dents, claiming enough signatures towarrant a hearing and election. Bacowlater recounted that the first he heard ofany union-movement was the day inDecember he received faxed legal docu-ments informing him that the NLRB hadreceived the union’s petition. He was notalone; at least half the graduate commu-nity was equally shocked by the news.

Graduate students suddenly foundthemselves polarized by the nasty unioncampaign, but Bacow deserves nothingbut praise for his handling of the situa-tion. Several factors helped him, not theleast of which being that his doctoralwork in economics was specificallyabout the UAW, but also that he is certi-fied to practice labor law. The UAWcould not have picked a worse nemesis.

Ever since a regional branch of theNational Labor Review Board authorizedthe first graduate student labor union at aprivate college (NYU) in 2000, therebyoverturning 25 years of national prece-dent, the UAW has fought to set up newlocals at private colleges nationwide.Tufts was only one of many battlefronts,like Brown, Cornell, and Columbia.Graduate students, already left of centerand many identifying themselves withthe proletariat against bourgeois adminis-trations, were tempted with visions ofhigher wages and benefits to be providedby union membership. The UAW arguedthat graduate students needed a union tobe respected for their work. The admin-istration would exploit grad student laborwith too few benefits and too little payunless grad students organized andforced the administration to bargain withthem.

But the reality of grad studentunions, particularly at private schools, ismore complex. Added to the unseemlynature of organizing a union against auniversity that pays its students to learn,unions offer a Faustian bargain, promis-ing the marvelous wages and workingterms that collective bargaining can bringin exchange for surrendering that bar-gaining power to union leaders. Unionsguarantee only mandatory dues to mem-bers and non-members alike that fundpro-union politicians and lobbying.Unions offer new layers of bureaucracyto already top-heavy administrations, andbecome mandatory third parties in stu-dent/department relationships. Contractnegotiations can take years to resolve;UC Berkeley, for example, went sevenyears without a contract, during whichtime pay and benefits are frozen accord-ing to the older arrangement. Anyincreases in pay have to come fromsomewhere, making it necessary forsome departments to cut the number ofTA-ships it offers to make up the differ-ence.

Worse, graduate “labor” is difficultto differentiate from graduate education,so in practice contract negotiations nec-essarily intrude on the autonomy ofdepartments to determine how educationis carried out. Since grads are, by defini-tion, transient, and because many gradstudents (without TA-ships) would not becovered by a union, a union cannot possi-bly act democratically, even if thenational UAW did not reserve the right todepose locally elected leadership orlocally negotiated contracts it disliked.(For example, the union at UMass

Amherst saw its leadership deposed bythe UAW in 1998 when it ruffled toomany feathers in Detroit.) Graduate stu-dents quickly become pawns between theunion and the administration.

As a member of the anti-uniongroup, I was often proud of PresidentBacow’s leadership. As the “manage-ment,” he faced legal constraints on whathe could argue to graduate students abouthow undesirable a union would be. Theunion, on the other hand, could legallypromise students the moon. But with onehand tied behind his back, Bacow effec-tively demonstrated the folly of laborunions for graduate students, and inevery forum he hosted, he ruthlessly shotdown every pro-union argument. He wasclearly in his element dissecting everyfallacy thrown his way. His one failingwas that he didn’t make more statementsand hold more public forums.

Whereas other presidents folded tounion pressure -- Cornell’s president, forexample, declined to contest the UAW’sright to hold an election -- Bacow heldfirm. His arguments were consistent:unions have an important role to play insociety, but this was the wrong contextfor them. Unions could only undermine,not improve, graduate education, andBacow could cite facts to prove it. Heheld firm to that principle, and may havesaved the autonomy of graduate educa-tion (and of grad students) at Tufts in theprocess.

Bacow battled the UAW not merelywith words, but also with law. NewEngland’s regional board of the NLRBordered an election for late April 2002,and it was held. Bacow and the adminis-tration appealed that decision to thenational board, so as soon as the vote washeld, the ballots were impounded,uncounted, pending the outcome of theappeal. The appeal, as of press-time, stillhas not been heard, though the nationalboard has agreed to at least examine (notnecessarily formally hear) the appeal.

The only disappointing turn fromBacow came from how he dealt with theunion aftermath. He promised that hewould work with graduate students in thecoming years to improve conditions.Most in the anti-union movementassumed he was vague because federallaw constrained his ability to make spe-cific promises, but in the year since theelection, he has yet to even send a singleemail to graduate students to inform uson the progress of the case or on what-ever improvements he has proposed forgraduate education. Hopefully, this willchange next year.

Instead of attacking problems facinggraduate education, former frat boyBacow prioritized fighting the NakedQuad Run.

Taken as a whole, Bacow has devel-oped a distinctive style of leadership. Ingeneral, he wants to avoid the appearanceof anything amiss at his school, espe-cially when taking action might exposehim or the school to criticism.

But Bacow is not quite as bad assome paint him. I know little of his ten-ure at MIT, but despite the poor judg-ment he has demonstrated on a fewissues, he also can act on principle whenhe puts his mind to it. As PresidentBacow gets more settled as president,one can only hope Tufts will see more ofthis morally courageous Bacow.

Jason Walker is a graduate student completinghis MA in philosophy at Tufts University, andis starting work on his PhD at the Universityof Wisconsin at Madison in fall 2003.

Letters to the EditorCover to Cover

I just read Prometheus cover tocover - a first for any MIT publication Ihave ever picked up.

Congratulations on a great firstissue. There was a great breadth of top-ics and each article was a quality piece

of writing.I especially enjoyed and appreci-

ated the interview with Prof. Vandiver; Ithink more get to know the faculty/administration articles would be a verygood thing for the MIT community.Will DelHagen ‘03

Good 0th IssueNice work guys - I’ve been trying

to convince The Tech that they needed asense of student advocacy for whilenow, but this should do it.Sloan Kulper ‘03

Prometheus staff

Editor in ChiefScott Schneider ‘00

Writers and EditorsKaren Anderson-Veal G (Harvard)Sheeva Azma ‘05Tess Diduch ‘06Aram Harrow ‘01, GOlivia Leitermann ‘05Vikash Mansinghka ‘04Paul Pham ‘03Jason Walker G (Tufts)

Graphic ArtistsEthan Hurdus ‘03Paul Pham ‘03Chris Possinger ‘05

AdvertisingSheeva Azma ‘05Danny Shen ‘05

LayoutTess Diduch ‘06

continued from page 1

ErratumIn our zeroeth issue, we allocated

too little space in a caption and a side-bar, cutting off some text. We willensure that we are more careful in the

May 2003 PROMETHEUS Page 3

What You Say !!The Use and Abuseof RhetoricBy Sheeva Azma

With over 400,000 words, the size-able vocabulary of the English languageshould be accustomed to exploitation inthe name of artistic license by now.Books keep being written and rewrittenabout things like love and politics, butthey recycle the same sentiments in awide variety of words and phrases.

So why don’t people stop saying thesame things in different ways? Societieshave dynamic vocabularies that adapt toeither include new concepts or revampwords that societies don’t like any more.So people get creative and start re-work-ing their old words.

The English language automati-cally adapts to verbal restlessness inmany ways. Slang eventually seeps intoour everyday lives, regardless of who weare. Even while thoroughly hosed andtooling on a pset, we may find ourselvesdropping MIT lingo into zephyrs amidstbouts of punting. This is one example oflinguistic experimentation induced byMIT culture.

But the main engine of languageproliferation is rhetoric, where the desirefor effective speech fuels preoccupationwith alternate expressions of a singleidea. Rhetoric’s power stems mainlyfrom its malleable nature. People canuse rhetoric to isolate and convey an ideawhile deemphasizing or avoiding unfa-vorable overtones. For example, in prep-aration to formally begin the war on Iraq,the Bush administration took great careto call the effort a “plan to disarm” thecountry. In his ultimatum, he rarely usedthe word “war” itself. The decision toeliminate the word from his speechesregarding it was arguably a response tonegative public stereotypes associatedwith war, a bitter reminder of the Viet-nam era.

Bush uses a euphemism for “war”to deemphasize or even omit its negativeassociations and to soften the tone of hisstatement. He has frequently usedeuphemisms like “a plan to disarm,”“coalition of the willing,” and “shock and

awe” to draw attention away from hismore violent agenda. The effectivenessof his words come directly from this -- heinsinuates his real plan, which can bededuced from the context of his actions,but he never makes that connectionexplicit himself.

Rhetoric doesn’t always have to be atool of deceit, though. Its purpose is tomake communication clearer and moreefficient. Skillfully wielded rhetoricsounds like simple, frank expression. Itcaters to its audience by matching thecontext of the audience’s background,making new ideas understandable. Tho-mas Jefferson is famous for the elo-quence of the Declaration ofIndependence: “When in the Course ofhuman Events, it becomes necessary forone People to dissolve the PoliticalBands which have connected them withanother...a decent Respect to the Opin-ions of Mankind requires that theyshould declare the causes which impelthem to the Separation.” His languageis passionate and direct, and the conno-tations of his words reinforce his callfor revolution, making it clear, candid,and indeed “self-evident.”

Though rhetoric can be useful, itcan still spin out of our control. Whenthis happens, accumulated connotationscan obscure the real meanings ofwords. Negative connotations associ-ated with loaded words come fromexternal forces, not something inherentto the words themselves. Conse-quently, these connotations are oftendifficult to destroy. For example, wordsinfused with racial content, such as“black” and “white,” evolve into newwords that multiply when they becomeas racially charged as the old ones.Replacing a word charged with nega-tive connotations is difficult becausethe connotations will eventually catchup with the meaning. On the otherhand, neutral words are periodicallyreplaced with polarized words that maysound awkward or silly: “freedomfries” come to mind.

This sneaky business of linguisticswitcheroos can aid rhetoric greatly.Ambiguities and vague connotationsgive speakers and writers the benefit ofthe doubt when trying to appease many

audiences. In this way, rhetoric candevelop positive connotations, as peopleextract the meanings most pleasing tothemselves. The word “community,” afavorite of the MIT administration, is onesuch abstraction. Though this conceptmay have started out as a concrete plan tobring togetherness to the school, it nowrepresents an ethereal bond that justifiesalmost any policy regarding student life.

Of course, the danger of vague com-munication is developing buzzwords.Buzzwords are hazards to communica-tion because they are so broadly definedthat they are meaningless. Words like“democracy” and “liberty” evoke posi-tive mental images, but their concretedefinitions are debatable and, sincethey’re so broadly interpreted, may evencontradict each other. Those are exam-ples of real words gone stale, but evenworse are the artificial ones, the barelymeaningful sounds used as placeholdersfor vivid language: “pro-active,” “para-

digm shift,” “sea change,” and hundredsof others. Buzzwords are spawned whenrhetoric goes too far and ends up contrib-uting to the problem it is supposed tosolve.

If language is so muddled and con-tains so many insinuations and cliches,how does anyone know what’s true orfalse any more? Indeed, people do userhetoric to put a convincing spin on thetruth, and although rhetoric can be apowerful tool for honest communica-tion, it can also be abused by those whodeliberately lie or deceive. To knowwhat someone is really saying, you haveto pay attention to not only what she issaying, but also how she says it. At thatpoint, you have the ability to distinguishbetween the use and abuse of rhetoric --and so long as verbal shenanigansabound, you’re going to need it.

Sheeva Azma ‘05 (sheeva@mit.edu)writes good.

Fine Thai Cuisine

Congratulations to the Class of 2003

Book a tablefor your party today

and get a 15% discount

Live Latin every Friday night 9:30 - 1 a.m. Live Jazz every Saturday night 7:30 - 11 p.m.

Visit our website at www.Jaseminekendall.com

Delivery, Private Party, Catering, Take Out and Dine In

1 Kendall Square, Building 300Cambridge, MA 02139

(Broadway and Hampshire Street)

Your comments go here

E-mail fire@mit.edu

Dear Prometheus,

I enjoyed reading the first issue of your publication.I am glad to see that someone is finally coveringthese issues with an eye to the underlying ideas.Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,Transparent Stooge

don’t see how that could be an issue of responsibility but not

@&#$ING PRETENTIOUS IDEOLOGUES WHO COULDN’T REASON THEIR WAY OUT OF

I was interested in what you guys are doing.

“Poppycock.”

Hey! I want to write about Go and how it’s like physics:

I was wondering if you guys had thought of writing

I don’t have any ideas right now, but can I join your discussion list?

failed to take into consideration, so your point doesn’t hold.

about this whole "community" thing and howit doesn’t really mean anything.

"Make everything as simple as possible, and no simpler."You said you’dtake anything well-written, so...

when are your meetings!hey, you guys messed up a reference to the RSIT Sprometheus - please include a notice about our

committee meetings in your back page"What the hell is going on?" section... it’s not for everyone but some students might like it.

Prometheus, I read your article suggesting we change oure have actually been considering such a change in light of

for interested students to attend and help craft a new policy.

Dean of DS

j00 r /\/0+ 31337

Thanks,DEAN Ch

MIT Buzzword Bingo

foobar punting IAP BINGOeast

campus

westcampus

TEAL Lobdell FSILG HASS-D

smoot 26-100 community RBA Brass Rat

zwrite millenials znol tooling hack

SIPB 001Course

XIXsquatting Fred

Page 4 PROMETHEUS May 2003

Whose democracy?By Aram Harrow

“O people of Baghdad, remember that for26 generations you have suffered understrange tyrants who have endeavored to setone Arab house against another ... This pol-icy is abhorrent to Great Britain and herallies,... Therefore I am commanded toinvite you, through your nobles and eldersand representatives, to participate in themanagement of your civil affairs in collabo-ration with the political representatives ofGreat Britain who accompany the BritishArmy, so that you may be united with yourkinsmen in North, East, South, and West inrealising the aspirations of your race...”

-Stanley Maude, British General,1916

“What’s going to happen the first time wehold an election in Iraq and it turns out theradicals win? What do you do? We’resurely not going to let them take over.”

-Brent Scowcroft, national securityadviser to President George H. W. Bush,2003

Democracy in Iraq has been amuch-touted goal of the Bush adminis-tration ever since its case for stoppingIraqi weapons of mass destruction beganto flag. And for good reason. Eventhough Iraq’s economy and infrastructureare currently in ruins, their oil reservesand well-educated population mean thata strong Iraqi democracy has the poten-tial for cultural, economic and politicalleadership in the region. On the otherhand, if democracy fails in Iraq, then werisk a further destabilization of the Mid-dle East, more young men who turn toterrorism for lack of any peaceful politi-cal outlet, and decades more of povertyand misery for millions of people.

But before we roll up our sleevesand start translating the Bill of Rightsinto Arabic we should pause to considerhow we got into this situation in the firstplace. Although our problems with theArab world may seem recent (how oftenhave we heard that 9/11 “changed every-thing?”), many of them have their rootsin British regional involvement nearly acentury ago.

The British were far more experi-enced in the early 20th century at run-ning an empire than the U.S. is today.However, things eventually went sour forthe British in ways that are starting tolook disturbingly familiar. If we want astable, prosperous Iraq 50 years fromnow then the safest strategy is to let theIraqis choose their own government andnot pretend that we know best how to runtheir country. Any American involve-ment beyond installing police and infra-structure risks shaping Iraq according toAmerican and not Iraqi priorities, withpredictably tragic consequences.

British colonialism in theMiddle East

The British legacy in Iraq beganwith a pair of conflicting promises. In1915 they gained Arab support againstthe Turks by promising them indepen-dence after the war. A year later, how-ever, the British signed the Sykes-Picottreaty with the French, dividing up mostof the Ottoman empire between the twosuperpowers even before the war wasover. This treaty was kept secret until theBolsheviks seizedpower in Russia in 1919and published the secrettreaties of the Tsars,including Sykes-Picot.When the League ofNations made Iraq aBritish “mandate”(meaning that the Brit-ish were to “guide”them until they werecapable of self-rule) in1920, a popular rebel-lion broke out whichwas brutally suppressed

using the new military technology of thetime: airplanes.

The British soon realized that theyneeded to rule from a distance, setting upwhat foreign secretary George Curzondescribed as an “Arab facade ruled andadministered under British guidance andcontrolled by a native Mohammedan and,as far as possible, by an Arab staff.”They wrote a constitution, installed thepro-British King Faysal and immediatelysigned treaties with Faysal reconstitutingmost of the terms of the Mandate andgranting an extremely lucrative conces-sion for the Turkish Petroleum Company(a British company, later renamed theIraq Petroleum Company).

In the interwar years, as Britishimperial and economic power waned,other Western nations were able to getpieces of the Iraqi oil market, until it waseventually shared by British, French,Dutch and American companies. Iraqiunrest continued, until the Britishgranted “independence” in 1932, whilekeeping King Faysal in power along witha treaty granting them two air bases andthe right to unilateral intervention. Eventhis nominal independence lasted onlyuntil 1941 when coup leaders threatenedto join the Axis powers in order to obtainfreedom from the British. Britain rein-vaded Iraq and maintained its occupationfor over a decade, declaring martial lawin 1948 to crush protests over Israel’sfounding and the expulsion of the Pales-tinians. In 1954 all political parties wereoutlawed.

It was from this background that theBaath party emerged. Moderates whoruled Iraq from 1958-1963 had failed tohold the country together, in part becauseof the ethnic divide and rule policies ofthe British. By ruling through the minor-ity Sunni Muslims, the British hadensured that Iraqis would be unable togovern themselves without British sup-port. Even the borders of Iraq had beenchosen in 1916 to contain a fractiousmixture of ethnicities---Shi`ites, Sunni,Kurds, Assyrians, Turks and others---

designed to be difficult to hold togetherwithout force.

Thus, a generation of young Iraqishad been disillusioned by the idea ofdemocracy because they had experienceddecades of British promises of progressand liberation as meaning no more thaninstability, poverty and exploitation.

The reason this history is relevant tothe well-intentioned Americans today isbecause what has been such a disaster forIraq was not due to British malice, butsimply the logical response of the Britishto the geopolitical pressures they faced.

Initially, the main British rival inIraq was the French, so they took Sykes-Picot seriously and not their promises tothe Arabs. Later they feared Iraqi auton-omy, and worst of all, losing control overIraq’s oil. Hence their reliance on divideand conquer rule and trying to keep asymbolic distance from the Iraqi govern-ment while maintaining oil ties.

This crucial point is this: colonial-ism is inherently anti-democraticbecause it involves one people beingruled by another. The British acted intheir own interests, to protect Britishfinancial and strategic interests in theregion. Since Iraq was a profitable Brit-ish protectorate, they were interested inits “stability” so that they could continueprofiting from it, but their interests werefundamentally different from Iraqi inter-ests.

In trying to learn from the Britishexample, we need to realize that theirfailings were not because they were evilracist imperialists, or because they weregreedy or short-sighted. The results ofBritish colonialism were inevitable con-sequences of the priorities that began theproject. Similarly, if Americans are ableto set the rules for Iraqi democracy orhelp their favorite candidates, then theywill do their best to guarantee that Iraq isrun for American, and not Iraqi, benefit.

The American mandate inIraq

Admittedly, it is sometimes diffi-cult to guess the goals of U.S./U.K. inter-vention in Iraq; was the war aboutterrorism, or WMDs, or projectingAmerican power in the region, or remov-ing an enemy so America could drawdown its forces in the Middle East, orsomething else entirely?

Regardless of which tactical deci-sions are made, a fairly reliable way ofguessing overall U.S. strategy is to exam-ine the powerful interests that set U.S.priorities. The Bush administration, forexample, owes favors to oil and defensecompanies, among others. Futureadministrations will want to avoid unsuc-cessful wars, economic decline, beingblamed for a major terrorist attack, orbeing associated with scandals.

Recent events seem to be confirm-ing these guesses. Before the guns werecold, Halliburton and Bechtel had beengiven lucrative contracts for rebuilding

Iraq in what can onlybe described as back-room deals. A billwas introduced toCongress proposingAmerican CDMA asthe new cell phonestandard in Iraq, withthe idea of hedging

against European GSM’s domination ofthe rest of the Middle East. France com-plained that its companies were excludedfrom the reconstruction, and the Demo-crats complained that their corporatesponsors didn’t get to bid for contracts,while no one holding power spoke forIraqi interests.

It seems likely that Iraqi reconstruc-tion will mean handsome profits for afew well-connected American companiespaid partially by the American taxpayer,and partially by Iraqi oil revenues. Sincetheir owners and priorities will be outsideof Iraq, the profits and control willremain outside Iraq.

In contrast, when Saddam Husseindecided that Iraq needed to modernize inthe late 1970’s so he could stay in power,Iraq’s economy and quality of lifebecame the envy of the Arab world.Even though Saddam’s rule was moreoppressive than any colonial regime,

when he decided that he needed Iraqiprosperity to stay in office, he found thewill to move Iraq forward. An outsidepower will have no such incentivesbeyond maintaining their influence andmaking sure the oil continues to flow.

If the economic and strategic powerof oil are the carrots that encourage thosein power, what are the sticks that theBush administration fear? A quagmire(a.k.a. the “Q” word) is high on the list.Being stuck in Iraq for years, with theattendant deaths and embarrassment,would be a nightmare. A new Iraqi gov-ernment opposing U.S. interests wouldobviously also be unwelcome.

Again, we can predict U.S. actionsby judging U.S. priorities. It seemslikely that we will attempt to installsomeone pro-American with an Arabface, like Ahmed Chalabi. We will prob-ably remove troops quickly, but leaveskeleton crews in a few bases (since ournewly agile military no longer needs tostation large garrisons to project power)and favorable trade ties. Already thePentagon has changed the name of the“interim Iraqi authority” to the “transi-tional government” suggesting that theyintend to ease their chosen leaders intopower gradually. A similar maneuverplaced Hamid Karzai in charge ofAfghanistan (or at least Kabul), wherefunctioning democracy is seemingincreasingly remote.

This might strike some as need-lessly cynical. After all, aren’t we doingthe right thing? Building democracy andgetting out quickly? Not quite. First ofall, Americans know that you don’t haveto support your favorite candidate withmilitary force - campaign contributionsare enough to keep him in power. Weseem to be tilting towards Chabali’s IraqiNational Congress with financial andother support that will give the party aheavy advantage without actively sup-pressing the opposition.

Second, if we give in to temptationand exclude religious leaders from thepolitical process than we risk a situationlike that in Algeria, where the 1991 localelection results were annulled after fun-damentalists won, plunging the countryinto a bloody decade-long civil war. Onthe other hand, there is currently a powerstruggle within the Shi`ite clergy in Najafbetween moderates and conservativesover whether to have Sharia law or sepa-ration between mosque and state. Ifthese moderates were to emerge withoutthe taint of American influence, then theymight be able to help Iran liberalize inways that America never could directly.And even if the Iraqis make the “wrong”choice about religious leadership, thisdoes not have to mean the end of democ-racy; just ask Turkey, where Islamicleadership has been a force for economicand political liberalization.

When asked his opinion of Westerncivilization, Mahatma Gandhi repliedfamously that “it would be a good idea.”Unless American priorities dramaticallychange, it seems likely that for the fore-seeable future, Iraqi democracy will like-wise remain a good idea.

Aram Harrow ‘01 and G prefers cigars fromCommie stooges to those from imperialiststooges.

Excluding religious leaders from the politicalprocess risks a situation like Algeria’s, wherelocal election results were annulled afterfundamentalists won, plunging the countryinto a bloody decade-long civil war.

May 2003 PROMETHEUS Page 5

Fetishizing DemocracyBy Scott Schneider

As American troops fought theirway into Baghdad, the world was alreadyfiercely debating the government thatwould replace Hussein’s regime. Presi-dent Bush pledged, “We will stand withthe new leaders of Iraq as they establish agovernment of, by, and for the Iraqi peo-ple.” Skeptics said that America shouldlet the Iraqi people choose their own gov-ernment, free of American influence.Despite their differences, everyoneagrees that Iraq must have a democracy,and pronto.

Yet amidst all the talk about how toseed a democracy in Iraq, virtually noone has questioned whether this ought tobe our primary goal. Perhaps forming astable, incorrupt government that pro-tects Iraqis’ rights to life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness should not merelybe instrumental to creating a democracy,but should be our essential goal. Byfocusing on democracy as an end ratherthan a means, we lose sight of what istruly important.

Nonetheless, the debate about Iraqidemocracy goes on. Will the U.S. createthe framework for an Iraqi democracyand help them administer it, phasing outtheir role over the next few years? Orwill they convene a constitutional con-gress in Baghdad, and walk out of theroom, and the country, as the meetinggets underway? If America’s role informing the new Iraqi government isunclear, the end result is doubly so. Per-haps this is because the central goal,“democracy,” is so poorly defined.George Orwell, writing at another timewhen creation of new governments was ahot issue, took a rather disparaging view:

“The word democracy has several differentmeanings which cannot be reconciled withone another... Not only is there no agreeddefinition, but the attempt to make one isresisted from all sides. It is almost univer-sally felt that when we call a country demo-cratic we are praising it: consequently thedefenders of every kind of regime claim thatit is a democracy, and fear that they mighthave to stop using that word if it were tieddown to any one meaning.”

-George Orwell, “Politics and theEnglish Language”, 1946

Is democracy essentially govern-ment by the majority? This definitionhas the appeal of simplicity, but fewadvocate unchecked majority rule. Isdemocracy an egalitarian system of gov-ernment that puts power in its citizens’hands? This definition sounds pleasantenough, but doesn’t really mean any-thing. How is the government egalitar-ian? Does power lie with individuals, orwith groups that act through the govern-ment? Most definitions of democracydance around this essential question: ifgroups exercise their power against indi-viduals, in what sense is democracy stillegalitarian?

Let’s take a look at some of the pos-sible outcomes in Iraq, and see what weconsider an acceptable form of democ-racy.

The People’s State of Iraq

Unless Arabic translations ofLocke’s Second Treatise on Governmentand The Federalist Papers suddenly top

Iraqi bestseller lists, Iraq is unlikely toestablish an American-style democracyfor itself. The two biggest questions arehow much religious freedom the Iraqigovernment will permit, and how closelythe Iraqi government will regulate andcontrol its economy, especially its oil.

Extreme theocracy is one worst casescenario. No one wants to see a Shi’iteMuslim majority vote itself into power inIraq and proceed to oppress Sunni Mus-lims, Christians, and Kurds. A majoritythat turns minorities into second-classcitizens is not the sort of democracy thatmodern-day America or the world wouldtolerate.

The tricky thing about a moderatetheocracy is keeping it that way. IfShi’ites favor their own religion (byteaching it in schools, building their

mosques out of public coffers, or man-dating forms of worship), Sunnis andChristians will naturally resent it. Oncethe means of promoting religion throughgovernment are established, minoritiesthat gain power can dismantle these toolsor turn them to their own advantage.Either way, they win the ability to prac-tice their religion freely; if they use thesetools, they can further their own agenda.This temptation will be particularlystrong if they see it as compensation orretribution for past repression. Knowingthis, the dominant religious faction willbe afraid to ease religious restrictions ina way that might allow minorities to gainpower.

Aside from the practical difficultiesof moderating a theocracy, there are alsothe limits on religious freedom. ThoughAmericans sometimes think of all thoseMiddle Eastern countries as a pile ofArabs with different dialects (and a hand-ful of Jews in the middle), Iraq is an eth-nically diverse nation, so a theocracywould necessarily harm the religiousfreedom of a large segment of Iraq’s pop-ulation.

Will any element of religion in thenew Iraqi government ruin the wholeproject? Probably not, but religion mustbe at most a minor influence in an Iraqidemocracy.

A complete command economy(like the Soviet Union’s) is another worstcase scenario. Iraq is rich in oil

resources, but would be slow to developthose resources without foreign invest-ment. Even then, Iraq would not havethe finances to bankroll a worker’s para-dise. And the history of the SovietUnion, Cuba, and developing Africannations such as Tanzania has shownworker’s paradises to be anything but.

A heavily centralized economy withan extensive welfare state would placemany obstacles in the way of economicdevelopment. Corporations hesitate todo business in a nation that might nation-alize their investments or tax and regulateaway their profits. Those that do willlobby the Iraqi government for assur-ances that their property will remainsecure and for special privileges. Theymight also lobby the U.S. government fordiplomatic help with their investments.

The effect of this uncertainty is to dis-courage investors who simply want tocharge a fair price for their work and tomake lobbying that is quasi-corrupt (atbest) an essential part of foreign invest-ment in Iraq.

This moderate socialism also limitsIraqis’ incentives and ability to be self-reliant. If the state provides freehousing and medicine, why shouldIraqis work for them? And if thestate doesn’t deliver, what can anIraqi do? Furthermore, what aboutIraqis who would like to go into businesson their own, providing goods and ser-vices beyond what the state offers? Sud-den growth in the welfare state might putthem out of a job and on the dole.

Just as a completely secular govern-ment is not the only alternative to theoc-

racy, laissez fairecapitalism is not the onlyalternative to socialism.A mixed economy mightavoid these problems,depending on how it’smixed. Heavy regulationand intervention in theeconomy could sustainsevere corruption in anation where jobs werepassed out as patronage,based on loyalty to Sad-dam and sons. On theother hand, straightfor-ward taxation and mini-mal regulation woulddeprive corporations ofmany lobbying opportu-

nities, leaving them to compete for Iraqioil based on the price and service theyoffer.

Sanity check!

Now that we have some idea ofwhat democracy in Iraq might mean, let’stake a step back and consider why wewant Iraq to have a democracy.

“It has been said that democracy is theworst form of government, except for all theothers that have been tried.”

-Winston Churchill

Most alternatives to democracy --dictatorship, monarchy, aristocracy, plu-tocracy, and foreign rule -- are so obvi-ously awful that they do not need to berefuted. However, since American rule isthe obvious alternative to Iraqi democ-racy, and since a transition to Iraqidemocracy implies American supervi-sion in the interim, let’s consider theimplications of foreign rule.

British imperialism had its upsides.In 1833, Great Britain abolished slaverythroughout its empire, having freedslaves within Britain several decades ear-lier. British economic influence moti-vated the Union to issue theEmancipation Proclamation.1 Pax Bri-tannica (the “British peace”) lasted fornearly a hundred years after the battle ofWaterloo, and owed as much to Britain’s

low trade bar-riers (whichgave its trad-ing partners

an incentive for peace) as to its navaldominance.

Around the beginning of the 20thcentury, colonies became vital to Brit-ain’s economy as other industrializingEuropean nations adopted protectionistpolicies. Britain’scommitment tofree trade erodedas it scrambled tokeep up with itsincreasingly pow-erful and ambi-tious neighbors.The Sykes-PicotAgreement of1916 reflects this.It split the Mid-dle East betweenBritain and

France, and assured that other Europeanpowers would not close the world’s oilsupply to Britain. In part, Britain wasforced into colonialism. This does notjustify British double and triple-dealingin the Middle East; it simply explainstheir incentives for imperialism.

Those same incentives do not exist

today for the United States. Americadoes not have to contend with tsars, kai-sers, and emperors for trading rights.Even OPEC does not keep George W.awake at night -- Saudi Arabia realizesthat huge nominal profits do them littlegood when a slowed world economyhurts their purchasing power.2

There certainly are incentives forAmerican mischief. Today’s politiciansalways have their debts to repay. (Halli-burton, anyone?) The sums promised tocorporate sponsors in back-room dealsmay be huge, but America today does notshare Britain’s driving need in 1916 tosqueeze colonies for every drop of oil.There are many arguments against per-petual American rule of Iraq -- Americanbureaucracies may entrench themselves,or American foreign affairs prioritiesmay change -- but America’s incentivesdon’t preclude the possibility of a transi-tion period followed by real Iraqi inde-pendence.

Put it together

These are the possibilities for anIraqi democracy: On the religious axis,Iraqis might create a repressive theoc-racy, a moderate theocracy with unmod-erating tendencies, or a mostly (orentirely) secular government. And onthe economic axis, Iraqis might chooseextreme socialism, moderate socialismwith lobbying levers aplenty, or a mixed/free economy. Furthermore, thoughAmerican supervision would have itsproblems, it would not doom the goal ofeventual Iraqi democracy.

If we surrender the fate of Iraq to afledgling democracy, it would take anuncertain and possibly disastrous direc-tion. On the other hand, if our primarygoal is to create a stable and prosperousgovernment for Iraq and foster individualIraqis’ well-being, the choice is clear.We must aim, first and foremost, toestablish a sound and just Iraqi govern-ment, and phase out American involve-ment as the Iraqi people demonstrate thattheir appetite for national self-govern-ment will not ruin their chance for pros-perity and individual self-government.

Scott Schneider ‘00 wastes his vote onthird party candidates.

1) http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/EmancipaP_PurposeoftheProclamation.asp2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12711-2003Mar11.htmlhttp://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn30839.htm http://abcnews.go.com/sec-tions/business/DailyNews/opec_masterman000704.htmlGoogle for “Saudi Arabia oil prices”, and youwill find a slew of articles about Saudi Ara-bia’s efforts to keep oil prices constant.

The tricky thing about a moderatetheocracy is keeping it that way.

Democracy, according to theAmerican Heritage Dictionary:

1. Government by the people, exer-cised either directly or through electedrepresentatives.2. A political or social unit that hassuch a government.3. The common people, considered asthe primary source of political power.4. Majority rule.5. The principles of social equality andrespect for the individual within acommunity.

Might Iraqi democracy simplytrade one dictatorship for another?

America today does not share Britain’s driving needin 1916 to squeeze colonies for every drop of oil.

Page 6 PROMETHEUS May 2003

Benedict on in loco parentis, REX

PM: I know that the motivation forsome people in forming ILTFP was thatthere have historically been complaintsthat the UA doesn’t adequately representvarious communities. That’s in part dueto its organizational structure, which ismodeled after a governing body, asopposed to a lobbying body.

LB: It’s good to see you point thatout.

PM: What do you think about thatin relation to the difference between theissues that the UA, DormCon, and ILTFPhave unsuccessfully tried to address?

LB: ILTFP had a very focusedmethod and a very focused agenda, andacted very cohesively. I did not sensethat from some of the other constituen-cies with whom I’ve met. By contrast,IFC tends to have a very focused mes-sage. It has a very focused body. It tendsto speak for its body more than someother organizational units do. And so, asyou look at them, they know exactlywhat they want. Their leaders are theirleaders. And so, when we talk to theirleaders and vice versa, we get the pictureright away. Whereas if I meet with UA, Imay not get the DormCon view. If I’mwith DormCon, I may not get the ILTFPview, and vice versa. In fact, I will saythat I don’t. If I meet with the three dif-ferent groups, I will get three differenttakes, all representing an undergraduateresidence, to one extent or another. So

part of it has to do with who’s generatingthe message, how they’re generating it,and who the message is for. So I thinkILTFP was so successful this springbecause it has a very narrow agenda, avery narrow focus, and was very articu-late about it.

PM: Do you think people shouldadopt similar strategies in future issues,or do you think that some effort shouldbe made to reorganize existing governingbodies to be more effective?

LB: (pause) That’s a very interest-ing question, and I’m not going toanswer it quite that way because I’d pre-fer to see a governance body that canplay this role. Otherwise, every time anissue comes up, you generate a different

group with whom we work, sometimesmore successfully, sometimes less suc-cessfully. And so you have all these adhoc groups coming and going and theyrepresent maybe a large group, or maybeonly twenty people, but you don’t know.

One of the things we’ve gotten introuble with here is that I’ve met withcertain one-issue or two-issue groups,only to find out after we’ve had negotia-tions and discussions and come up with acompromise that that compromise is notacceptable to the next group down theway. And so I end up like Henry Kiss-inger, running around all the countries inthe Middle East. You end up caught inthe middle, and it’s a very uncomfortableposition for me or any dean to be in.

It would be really helpful to us, andit would really help communication, ifthere was a clear governing structure oncampus. But that’s not the MIT way. Isee that across the board. I think facultyare in a similar situation. You go to afaculty meeting and maybe thirty facultycome out of, what, nine hundred faculty?I don’t think those thirty faculty speakfor all nine hundred faculty, and so whensomething actually happens there arebound to be faculty who say, “Wait aminute? I didn’t agree to that. What’sthis crazy new policy they’re putting inplace?” You’re always behind the eightball on the communication front.

PM: Why do you think that hap-pens at MIT?

LB: (pause) I have no clue. I gothere two and a half years ago... that’s justthe way it is. You guys have been herelonger than I have and probably have abetter sense of what is going on here.

PM:Some peo-ple suspecthosage.

The semester is hectic. It’s insanely busyafter the first week, sometimes even then.But in some cases, major decision mak-ing meetings have fallen either right dur-ing the heart of midterms or right beforefinal exams. Even professors will saythat their lives get insane for the last cou-ple of months of every semester. So I’m

not surprised attendance is low in thosecases. This actually relates to an issue webriefly talked about earlier [see the on-line interview!]: if committees are sup-posed to be substantive channels of com-munication between students andadministrators --

LB: Exactly right.PM: -- they need to conduct their

meetings in contexts where students havean opportunity to thoughtfully present

their views and to thought-fully consider what’s beforetheir committee. My experi-

ence on the dining committee was thatthe structure made that very difficult. Thecommittee made several of its mostimportant decisions at meetings whenthere were four people in attendance, andmost people hadn’t done the reading.From speaking with people who wereinvolved in RSIT, I know there has beena lot of dissatisfaction with how thatcommittee interpreted its survey results.There’s been a lot of controversy, at least.I heard from somebody that studentattendance at the RSIT meetings wasremarkably low because the meetings, atone point, were scheduled for 9:30 on aFriday morning. Now maybe the studentrepresentatives should have been moreassertive. But I was wondering, have youheard of this sort of problem?

LB: This is thefirst I’ve heard of it,to be honest withyou. And I did nothear the criticism from the RSIT stu-dents. I heard just the opposite: they out-numbered the staff at some of themeetings. After the first year I did not goto the RSIT meetings.

PM: Grace Kessenich [formerDormCon President] told me that therewere always some students there, butmost students had problems making mostmeetings.

LB: I’m talking about the first year,when I was chairing it.

PM: Over the past few years, MIThas made several major changes in pol-icy, particularly student life, and somepeople think that this trend, which seemsto be echoed to varying extents aroundthe nation, is a move towards in locoparentis.

The now infamous Faculty Newslet-ter article that the Dean of Admissionswrote actually explicitly said that we asan institution have to acknowledge thatin loco parentis is part of our role, whenshe described millenials. And certainly,some aspects of the Scott Krueger deci-sion reflect that attitude from a liabilitystandpoint. What do you think about thatissue?

LB: At CPW, I had the opportunityto sit on-stage and talk to 200, maybe250 parents. I began my conversation bysaying to them, “We are not the parent.You are still the mothers and fathers ofyour sons and daughters that you’rebringing to MIT. I don’t want to be theparent of your children. I’m sure they’relovely children, but it’s not the role ofMIT to be the parents. And I have to tellyou, there has been increasing pressurefrom parents, here and across the nation,for us to play that role. We’re not goingthat way. MIT students are given moreautonomy for more aspects of their livesoutside of the classroom than any otherschool in the country, and we like it thatway. You as parents may not like it, ifyou think of some of the implications. Itmeans, for example, that I’m not going tocall you if your son or daughter gets introuble. I’m not going to call you if yourson or daughter goes to the hospital forwhatever reason. Unless their life isthreatened -- if their life is threatened,different story. I’m not going to call youif your son is found with a can of beerdown on the Lacrosse field or on theastroturf or whatever. I’m not going tocall you if your son flunks 8.01.” I alsosaid, “Now don’t you call me if you don’tlike the residence hall room they get,because we don’t assign them to rooms.

If your daughter is on a floor with a co-edbathroom, I don’t want to hear it, becausethat is not our responsibility. That is theresponsibility of your daughter and thehousing assignment chair.”

I think it’s important for you tounderstand, philosophically, where we’recoming from, at least where some of usare coming from, even if it doesn’talways look that way from the outside.

PM: I know a few years ago, Mari-lee Jones had a letter to the prospectivefreshmen saying, “I’m your mom awayfrom mom this weekend.” It’s prettyinfamous, and prefrosh were supposed towear wristbands identifying themselvesas prefrosh. I think some undergraduatesdressed up as sheep.

LB: Are you sure it wasn’t a hack?PM: Yeah, it was a hack.I remember, actually, that wrist-

bands were given out my year.LB: Interesting. I had not heard

about that.PM: There were some statements

like that. Have you read Marilee Jones’sfaculty newsletter? You can understandhow statements written in that are verydifferent than the attitude you justdescribed.

LB: I understand, but I’m not talk-ing about general trends in any particularcategory of students like milennials orboomers or anything like that. What’simportant to me is this -- and this is whythe philosophy of not moving to in locoparentis is important -- you’re going tolearn as much outside the classroom asyou are in the classroom. Many facultydisagree with me, but in terms of lifeskills, communication skills, collabora-tion skills, listening, negotation, andteam-building skills -- those are every bitas important whether you’re going to berunning your own dot com or on the fac-ulty. The fact is, these are the kinds ofskills you need, and these are the thingsyou learn outside the classroom. You’relearning a very important lesson by doingthese kinds of things, as if you were sit-ting in a lab. You come here for the aca-demic experience, no question about that.But your eduction is a lot more broadthan a pure academic experience.

PM: How to do laundry...LB: Silly things like that, but also,

how do you run a house government?How do you run the UA? How do yourun a club sport? Do you know howmuch experience you get running a clubsport, in terms of scheduling and orga-nizing, and team work and negotiating?

continued from page 1

It’s not the role of MIT to be the parents.

“Look, it’s your house.... You come back to usand we’ll talk about how we can help you.”

Regarding Orientation 2004, how can students goabout getting two uninterrupted days for REX?

May 2003 PROMETHEUS Page 7

It’s remarkable. Twenty years from now,if you come and talk to me, you’re noteven going to mention most of yourcoursework. You’ll mention a few fac-ulty, but you’re going to mention theexperiences you had with roommates,with classmates, with housemates, withwhatever team you might have been on.

The biggest pressures I get come fromsome of the athletic alumni, saying thatwas the most important thing that everhappened to them.

So you have to be sensitive to that,and in my position, you do not want tostructure things in such a way that you’remissing that opportunity. That’s a hugeloss if you miss. You go to... You go tocertain universities, and they tell whattime you can close the residence hall, thesex of guests you can have at certainhours. Talk about taking away the stu-dent learning and responsibility...

If I can leave you with one thought,though, the thought is that in locoparentis is not a governing philosophyhere. I know that freshman on campuswas a very, very difficult decision, andstill is causing ripples through the sys-tem, as you know. A lot of that stuff,from a student point of view, makes stu-dents say, “They’re taking our autonomyaway from us.” I don’t believe that.Look at the kinds of things we’re tryingto leave in place, like the housing assing-ment chairs. My life would be a lot eas-ier, my staff’s lives would be a lot easier,parents would be a lot happier, if wedidn’t have that. But we’re not going togo there. It causes me headaches, mostlyfrom parents, but, you know, that’s partof my job. I’ve worked where we actu-ally assigned every student to everyroom, and I’ve had more problems withthose systems than I’ve had with this sys-tem, in terms of roomate complaints,unhappy parents, and those kinds ofissues.

There are problems with this sys-tem, don’t get me wrong. I’ve had stu-dent leaders tell me that the old R/O wasthe worst experience of their entire lives.They won’t say it in public, but they’lltell me about it behind closed doors.There are some problems with it. Thereare some students who are hurt by thesystem the way it is. I’d like to work onfixing that part of the system rather thanchanging the entire system to try andtake care of a relatively small number ofproblems. I want every student to arrivehere and have a good first experiencecoming into the Institute. We’ve got aways to go.

PM: There’s another question ofwhether in loco parentis is a de facto pol-icy -- something that falls out of variousconstraints that you have and variousincentives that administrators at all levelshave. You can see some examples.Freshmen on campus is a huge con-straint. There’s also suggestions of man-datory dining. You could see why manyadministrators thought that it was a goodidea for reasons that had nothing to dowith in loco parentis, but that would havebeen an effect of that policy. What doyou think about that kind of de facto pol-icy, and do you do things to combat that?

LB: (pause) That’s a very goodquestion. I can see from a student’s pointof view why some of these things wouldappear to be in loco parentis. Let’s takethe freshmen housing example: the deci-sion was made by the president thatfreshmen would live on campus. Beyondthat, how they actually end up living oncampus becomes as much a student pro-cess as an administration process. Forexample, we kept the housing assign-ment chair process. I don’t know of anyother school in the country where theysay, “Here are thirty freshmen. You putthem where you want to put them, anddecide how you want to put them there.”I think if we were really in loco parentis,we probably would step in and assignthem to rooms, make parents happy,maybe make some freshmen happy, andmake upperclass students unhappy. But I

think we’re respectful enough of the pro-cess and individual cultures of thehouses.

Now there are times we do float trialballoons. Dining was a good example.We ended up with a very active campusdining board, with student input. I knowattendance was up and down, but the fact

is I’m looking to thatboard to make recom-mendations.

Another examplehas come up: one of the unanticipatedoutcomes of FOC and Senior Segue andopening Simmons hall all at the sametime was the disproportionate number offrosh in Next House. I talked with NextHouse student government and reps, andthey’re looking for help. I basically said,“Look, it’s your house. You talk aboutwhat kinds of help you might want. Youcome back to us and we’ll talk about howwe can help you do that; rather than thedean coming in saying, all right, NextHouse is going to do this and that.” Atsome schools (ones that I’ve been at,actually), the administration would sim-ply go ahead and “fix the problem.”Well, what we decide is a fixed problem,you may not think is fixed. In fact youmay think it’s a worse problem.

The best experiences and most posi-tive for both sides were those wherewe’ve worked from the beginning withstudents to help develop policy. Thatdoesn’t mean we’ll always be able towork with students, and it doesn’t meanthat we’ll always have policies that stu-dents like.

There are, for example, some safetyconcerns, where we’ve got to play a littlebit heavier hand than we might other-wise. Just before I got here a number ofprocedual policy changes were madewith heavy push from the administration,again for health and safety reasons. Nowfrom one point of view you might thinkthat’s in loco parentis. Steer Roast is agood example. About the flaming toiletpaper to light the fire -- the fire depart-ment had some serious concerns aboutthat. Well, they worked with the stu-dents, and they’ve got some new contrap-tion and it works just fine. So the eventis still there, the students still run it, and Ithink everyone is relatively satisfied.

We’re not 100% successful, I’ll behonest with you. But we’re also not 0%successful.

A lot of parents don’t like this. Ihad an interesting letter from a fatherwho was not pleased that his son haddecided to move into a fraternity. Hewrote me and said, “I want you to knowthat I withdraw my permission for myson to live in a fraternity.” I wrote backand I said, “Thank you for sharing yourconcerns with me, but this is not mydecision. This is your son’s decision,and you need to tell your son you don’twant him to live there.” Well, the fatherhad told the son and the son decided hewanted to live there anyway. In the olddays, the dean would have stepped in andmoved him out, because he would havebeen acting for the parent. We don’t dothat.

PM: When we spoke to Dean Van-diver about the squatting issue in the con-text of Orientation, he said that one of theprimary concerns was that parents were alot more comfortable with the systemwhen they had some certainty, and thatthat certainty served some students aswell. What do you think about that --specifically, the significant role thatparental concerns played in that decision,

especially given the change in flexibilityand the implications for freshmen mov-ing in and looking around?

LB: I don’t think that parent satis-faction was the primary mover or shakerfor that. I can’t tell you for sure. TheBacow report said that parents did com-plain a lot, and they did complain lessthis year, that’s true. The issue is thatstudents need the opportunity to movearound and look around. I think thatreally is the key.

I think the in-house rush workspretty well. I wasn’t convinced of thatmy first year here.

Somehow we’ve got to come upwith a system that meets many goals,some of which are not exactly aligned.And that’s where we’re struggling,because I think students think the admin-istration has a secret plan. Let me tellyou, you give us too much credit. I went

to talk to one of the fraternities the otherday. This was my first question: “Howmany of you think the administration ispicking on you?” Every hand went up. Isaid, “How many think that the adminis-tration has a secret plan, that we’re tryingto get you?” Every hand went up. You

give us too much credit. Honest to god,you give us too much credit.

What we’re trying to do is to takethe principle goals in the [Bacow andStudent Life and Learning] reports, andput them into action. We don’t have all

the answers -- you know that. You don’thave all the answers -- we know that. Myhope would be that, working together, wecome up with the best fit, which won’t beperfect. So that’s my goal.

PM: ILTFP started talking with theadministrators in March and you’dalready scheduled some things...

LB: Orientation planning actuallystarts in August/September for the fol-lowing year, but for students, March isearly to get involved. From their point ofview, they’re months early, but from ourpoint of view, we’re well down the roadfor planning. So there were some con-

flicts there. I thinkwe resolved most ofthem pretty amica-bly and produc-

tively. There were tense feelings for awhile, but at this point everybody’s mov-ing forward on those issues.

PM: I know that before ILTFPunderstood that things had been sched-uled so early, some people wanted topush for even more time for Orientation2003 than we have now, and depriori-tized that when they realized that thingswere planned so far in advance. Myquestion is, regarding Orientation 2004,

how can students go about getting twouninterrupted days for REX?

LB: Kim Vandiver’s chairing a newcommittee on the academic component,and Julie Norman is on that committee,and a number of students. While theimmediate goal has to do with Orienta-tion for this August, they also open thedoor for a year from now, since wealready have people together working

there. It’s not too early to start. If wecan find students who are willing to workwith us this early on, that would be ter-rific. I would encourage them to do that.

PM: Do you think two uninter-rupted days is a reasonable goal?

LB: I can’t answer that right now.I’d have to look at allthe other kinds ofthings that need to hap-pen during Orientation

and if it can be squeezed in. The thing is,everyone wants a piece of Orientation:police, chaplains, career counseling peo-ple want to come and talk. Everyone hasthings to offer students and they want thestudents to know that in the first three or

four days of the semester. My experi-ence is that you overwhelm freshmenwith all these messages. There’s just toomuch information.

The schedule this year is full. With-out adding more days to the schedule, Idon’t know what you would take out tohave more time for REX. It’ll always bea compromise in the negotiation pro-cess. I think that it’s not too early tobegin those conversations.

PM: How can students talk to youone-on-one?

LB: There’s several ways you cando that. I have open office hours everyFriday at 10. I give my e-mail toall students, alumni, and parents --larryben@mit.edu -- and I check myemail every morning. I may not answerright away, but I will certainly acknowl-edge that you e-mailed. If you want totalk to me, you can call my assistantBonnie and make an appointment, or youcan invite me to talk to a group. So thereare a bunch of ways you can get access tothe Dean of Student Life.

Topics in this InterviewWe only fit half of this 90-minute interview in the printed version.Subjects in bold are transcribed here.Those in italics will be available at http://fire.mit.edu soon after publication.

• How did Benedict come to MIT?• The role of Residential Life Associates.• Communicating with a dozen student governments. + more• How is meeting information distributed to the student body?• Proliferation of student representatives.• Getting students to attend forums.• Orientation 2002 and the importance of dorm rush.• Defining and promoting community, and the role of academics.• In loco parentis• Who’s making the rules?• REX 2004 - How to change the future.• De facto in loco. Does it boil down to parenting styles?• Plans to keep crowding under control.• How to contact Benedict.

What the hell is going on?with my student reps?• Next year’s Undergraduate Association President and Vice President are Pius A.Uzamere II ’04 and Jacob W. Faber ’04.• Next year’s Dormitory Council officers are President Emily Cofer ’04, VicePresident Johnny Yang ’04, Rush Chair and Housing Chair Nikki Johnson ’04,Secretary Dominik Rabiej ’05, Treasurer Mike Childress ’05, and JudComm ChairJustin Nelson ’04.• The Committee for the Review of Space Planning (CRSP) has tentativelyapproved $500,000 for a renovation of the Reading Room, which would includerepairs and the addition of two soundproof group study rooms.

with Orientation?• The semi-recently resurrected student group ILTFP is involved in ongoing talkswith administrators about housing, orientation, and rush. E-mail iltfp for moreinformation, or blanche -a $user iltfp-forum.

with this feature?• E-mail fire@mit.edu if you know what the hell is going on.

You’re going to learn as much outside theclassroom as you are in the classroom.

I think students think the administration has asecret plan. You give us too much credit.

... so I ended up like Henry Kissinger, runningaround all the countries in the Middle East.

Page 8 PROMETHEUS May 2003