MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XXVII No. 4, March/April 2015web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/274/fnl274.pdf · We recommend that faculty read the letter in this issue in opposition and the response

in this issue we continue the discussion of climate change and whetherMIT should divest from fossil fuel companies (below); offer commentary on therecent ICEO report, “Advancing a Respectful and Caring Community: Learning byDoing at MIT” (beginning on page 14); and report on the Institute’s plans tointegrate ORCID into MIT systems (page 23).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXVII No. 4March/April 2015

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 12

CampusConversation onClimate Change

Review Conferenceon Non-Proliferationof Nuclear Weaponsto take Center Stage

continued on page 6

Maria T. Zuber

O U R L E A D A R T I C L E S I N thisNewsletter tackle squarely issues of enor-mous global concern – the threat fromglobal climate change, and the threat ofthe use of nuclear weapons. The articlesby both Maria Zuber and Aron Bernstein(page 1) tackle the issues head-on.

MIT, with its national and global cachet,is uniquely positioned to play a leadershiprole in these debates. It is absolutely criticalthat the analyses not be softened, defused,or obscured in order to avoid the inevitablecontroversy and confrontation that may beinvolved. We should tackle and not putaside the debate over divestment of fossilfuels investment as Professor Zuberreports. We recommend that faculty readthe letter in this issue in opposition and theresponse (page 10).

Similarly, we should be explicit overthe increasing danger from the continu-

EditorialGlobal IssuesConfront Us All

continued on page 3

N UCLEAR WEAPON S AR E BACK inthe news with the negotiations with Iran.If an agreement is reached we anticipatesome strong opposition in Congress. The2015 Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)will be held from 27 April to 22 May 2015at U.N. headquarters in New York.Stormy weather is anticipated which islikely to lead to a great deal of press cov-erage. The large costs of modernizing thenuclear weapons complex will be a con-tinuing issue, even if this does not gener-ate as much news coverage, as well ascontinuing problems with North Koreadeveloping nuclear weapons andlaunchers.

The past few years have seen a resur-gence of scholarly activity in the study ofnuclear weapons and non-proliferationissues at MIT. In the Nuclear Science and

AN-11 Nuclear Bomb

Aron Bernstein

WHEN PRESIDENT REIF ANNOUNCED

the MIT Environmental SolutionsInitiative (ESI) last spring, he called for acampus conversation on climate change togain input as to what our communitythinks MIT should do to address the risk ofclimate change. This spring, as the MITClimate Change Conversation unfolds, Itake this opportunity to outline the factsthat form a starting point for theConversation, to explain the process so far,and to challenge you, my faculty colleagues,to engage and express your views, so thatMIT can choose a path to combat climatechange that reflects your wisdom, ideas,and values. We need every segment of theMIT community to participate in theConversation, and that is why I am person-ally reaching out to you.

Let’s begin with science. I will providea very brief summary of the scientific case

2

Vol. XXVII No. 4 March/April 2015

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Manduhai BuyandelgerAnthropology

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Christopher CumminsChemistry

Woodie FlowersMechanical Engineering

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

*Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Stephen J. Lippard (Treasurer)Chemistry

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ruth Perry (Vice Chair)Literature Section

*Nasser RabbatArchitecture

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 [email protected]

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

01 Review Conference on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to take Center StageAron Bernstein

01 Campus Conversation on Climate Change Maria T. Zuber

Editorial 01 Global Issues Confront Us All

From The 04 A Guide to Proposing, Revising, Faculty Chair and Terminating Curricula

Steven Hall

Letters 10 Why MIT Faculty Should NOT Sign the Petition to Divest from Fossil FuelsAlexander H. Slocum

Letters 11 Humanities and the Future of MIT EducationJean E. Jackson

14 Advancing a Respectful and Caring CommunityEdmund Bertschinger

16 In Support of the ICEO Mission StatementPaul E. Gray

17 Let’s Get to Work in “Advancing a Respectful and Caring Community” Thomas A. Kochan

18 The Faculty Role in Building and Sustaining CommunityPhillip L. Clay

Letters 20 Supporting the ICEO ReportLorna J. Gibson

20 Advancing a Caring Community ThroughEnhanced Student-Faculty InteractionsShruti Sharma ’15, Billy Ndengeyingoma ’15

21 Graduate Student Perspective on the ICEO ReportKendall Nowocin

23 ORCID Researcher Identifiers to be Integratedinto MIT Systems Beginning this SummerLydia Snover, Micah Altman, Robert E. Campanella

M.I.T. Numbers 24 MIT Campus Research Expenditures

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credit: Page 1: Wikimedia Commons; Page 12: Brendan Smialowski/Pool via The New York Times/Redux

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2015

3

ing deployment of thousands of nuclearweapons, with hundreds on hair trigger alert.We should make clear that the actual federalbudget mechanism which allows our nation toplan to spend a trillion dollars on modernizingour nuclear weapons and delivery systemsdepends upon cutting investment in domesticprograms – including housing, public transit,higher education, health care, NIH and NSFfunded research, food stamps, environmentalprotection, and infrastructure repair.

We hope these articles, as well as the onesdescribed below on MIT’s internal culture,will pave the way for continued critical dis-cussion and analysis within MIT of issuesupon which our futures depend.

* * * * *

The ICEO Report

Professor Edmund Bertschinger, who wasappointed head of the Institute Communityand Equity Office in 2013, released hisreport, “Advancing a Respectful and CaringCommunity: Learning by Doing at MIT,” inFebruary of this year. The report focuses onMIT’s “community and culture,” andincludes a wealth of insights about thecurrent MIT environment, and a range ofrecommendations on how to change it.

The report states three specific goals. Thefirst is to develop a plan for the MIT com-munity to deepen the sense of inclusionbased on shared values and to help commu-nity members benefit from diversity. Thesecond is to present specific achievable goalsfor advancing community and equity alongwith means for assessing progress towardthese goals. The third is to define the role ofthe ICEO. The report presents a specific planfor fostering change in community, equity,and structural areas (iceoreport.mit.edu).

Professor Bertschinger writes in thisissue to summarize the research, findings,and recommendations of the report (page14). Also included are letters from facultystrongly supporting the report, as well ascomments by student leaders (beginningpage 16).

Bertschinger’s bold and thoughtfulendeavor can play a transformative role inshaping MIT’s culture. A clear strength ofthe report is its comprehensive approach. Itreflects the understanding that the entirecommunity: faculty, staff, administration,and students, must be engaged, and thatchange must be fostered in the variousrealms of Institute life. However, he has beencharged with examining and proposingsolutions to quite a range of tough prob-lems. Section 7 of the report, for example,lists five challenges of the ICEO’s missionand vision: unconscious bias and micro-inequities; discrimination and harassmentbased on race, gender, sexual orientation,etc.; abrasive conduct; sexual assault; andexcessive stress. Each one of these challengesis informed by a distinct and complexhistory, and by a web of root causes, incen-tives, and cultural dynamics. Each onerequires a unique approach.

Shifting the culture of stress at MIT maybe difficult, but it is certainly more straight-forward than transforming the forces thatlead to discrimination and sexual assault.Humanity and kindness are critical valuesthat should be embodied in our community,but the problems of unconscious bias, andof disparate opportunity, access, representa-tion, and resources, will require differentand more complicated policies and prac-tices. Clearly, there is much work to be donein the area of equity. Too often we still hearthe issue of diversity framed in terms of achoice between excellence and inclusion.Too often we fail to question the myth thatour society and our Institute operate as mer-itocracies, despite clear evidence of disparateadvantages, opportunities, and resources,and despite demonstrations to the contraryby studies on the workings of bias, both con-scious and unconscious. And MIT’s surveyof students on sexual assault was dismayingin its revelation of the prevalence of violencetowards women and the persistence of igno-rance and misunderstanding. Inequality andsexual violence cannot be tackled withoutaddressing issues of privilege and power.

The ICEO’s support of the Black LivesMatter forum and silent protest were impor-tant steps in demonstrating an institutionalcommitment to student activism and racial

justice. These events, in concert with a bur-geoning and largely youth-led protest move-ment that has taken shape across thecountry, have provoked attention to and dis-cussions about race at MIT. Often missingfrom these conversations, however, has beenan analytical framework regarding the his-torical, political, social, and economic con-texts that produce and sustain inequity andinjustice. While interacting in caring andrespectful ways is integral to the process ofchange, much of the work involved in dis-mantling discrimination, bias, sexualassault, intimidation, and harassmentinvolves the discomfort of and pain of self-interrogation, of wrestling with inheritanceand privilege, of confronting institutionaland structural obstacles to access andjustice. The most challenging work before usis to convey to those who are not troubled bythe realities presented in the report why it isin their interest, indeed, in our commoninterest, to shift the social order of our aca-demic community and our society.

The ICEO report is an important step innaming the problems before us, and inbeginning to foster meaningful change onour campus. We should also be committedto preparing and inspiring our students totake their expanded understanding andcommitment regarding equity, respect, andcaring into their work, community, andfamily lives once they leave MIT, and toengage with the issues raised in the ICEOreport as socially involved citizens. Thereport states: “Most MIT reports presentideas to change the world. This one presentsideas to change MIT.” This is a worthy goal.Ultimately, though, we must deliver themessage that changing the world is also theresponsibility of our MIT community, andthat this mantle pertains not only to creatingscientific and technical innovation, but toenacting social change.

Editorial Subcommittee

Global Issues Confront Us Allcontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXVII No. 4

4

Steven HallFrom The Faculty ChairA Guide to Proposing, Revising, and Terminating Curricula

AT M I T, O U R S H A R E D governancesystem means that the faculty play animportant role in setting educationalpolicy. Overall, the role of the Institute-wide standing faculty committees is towork with proposers and the administra-tion to ensure the continued strength ofour educational programs. The role of theFaculty Chair is to facilitate collaborationand dialogue, particularly at the level ofdegree programs.

The committees usually see multipleproposals for major curricular changeseach year, and try to ensure such propos-als reflect common standards. Whilecommittees attempt to expedite theprocess as much as possible, the commonexperience is that significant curricularchanges, such as a new degree program orminor, can take several months to movethrough the system. Thus, as part ofnormal planning for a new academicyear, the committees request that propos-als for new programs or for significantchanges to existing programs be submit-ted for review as soon as possible duringthe fall term. (The committees will startworking on proposals for 2016–17 duringthe Fall 2015 term.)

As former chair of the Committee onthe Undergraduate Program and nowFaculty Chair, I have seen the ways thatthis impedance mismatch (to borrow anengineering term) between proposers andthe governance system can be surprisingand frustrating to proposers. One aspectthat can surprise proposers who areengaging in the process for the first time isits iterative nature. There is a naturaltension between the role of governance toapply past experience as part of a carefulvetting, and the forward-looking evolu-tion of our curriculum.

Because our system brings togetherfaculty from different parts of theInstitute and sees proposals from allunits, committee review is intended toprovide a broad, Institute-wide perspec-tive. In many cases, committees will raisequestions based on comparative experi-ence, and in fact, it is unusual for com-mittees to approve a proposal at themeeting in which it is first presented. Forproposals that must be voted on at afaculty meeting, committees also want tohelp proposers resolve issues that mightotherwise put the proposal at risk of anegative vote.

Below, I briefly describe the processesfor the approval of curricular changes. Allof the processes have defined timelines tohelp ensure that proposals can be fullyvetted and made effective at the requestedtime. Except for individual subjects, it isdifficult to approve proposals initiated inthe spring in time for the following aca-demic year.

In reviewing proposals, committeeslook for several core elements, such aseducational rationale and studentdemand. In the case of minors and degreeprograms, sustainability, oversight, andresources are equally important consider-ations. In all cases, the committees expectthat proposals have been discussed withand approved by both the sponsoringdepartmental and School bodies, as wellas any department or School on which theprogram will depend for continuingsupport.

SubjectsSubjects are the building blocks of thecurriculum, and any significant proposalwill require approval of any new subjectsrequired for the program.

The faculty has authorized theCommittee on Curricula (CoC) to actwith power on proposals to create, revise,and eliminate undergraduate subjects,including freshman advising seminars,ROTC subjects, and for-credit IAP offer-ings. The Committee also reviews propos-als for subjects that may be used to satisfyGeneral Institute Requirements (GIRs),and acts with power concerning subjectsthat satisfy the Restricted Electives inScience and Technology Requirement(REST) and the Laboratory Requirementwithin the General InstituteRequirements.

Depending on the type of subject, pro-posals may be reviewed by other commit-tees. Any proposals that involve significantchanges to undergraduate educationalpolicy, particularly related to the GIRs,will be referred to the Committee on theUndergraduate Program (CUP).Proposals to add or delete Science Coresubjects require approval of the fullfaculty. Prior to final review by the CoC,the standing subcommittees on the HASSRequirement and CommunicationRequirement review proposals for sub-jects that will satisfy the HASSRequirement, or that will receive aCommunication Intensive (CI-M, CI-H,or CI-HW) designation.

Jurisdiction for proposals to create,revise, or eliminate graduate subjects sitswith the Committee on GraduatePrograms (CGP). The Committee workswith CoC to review proposals for under-graduate subjects that meet with graduateversions.

Two points of clarification are note-worthy. First, departments may developand offer special subjects at any timewithout CoC or CGP review; however, the


5

CoC must approve any such proposals forwhich either GIR or degree credit is to beawarded. Second, in terms of changes toexisting subjects, either CoC or CGP mustapprove changes to units, title, descrip-tion, status, enrollment limitations, equiv-alency relationships (including joint andmeets-with subjects), and special gradingpolicies.

Additional information about thesubject review process, including thegeneral timeframe for review and how thecommittees are addressing the use ofdigital content, is available on theRegistrar’s Website (web.mit.edu/registrar/general/instructors/subjectproposals.html).

Departmental ExchangesCurrently, departmental exchanges forundergraduate students are routedthrough CoC. Depending on curricularcontent and impact on the general educa-tional program, CUP and the standingsubcommittees may also be involved. TheOffice of the Provost should be consultedearly in the process and plays a role in finalreview. While such proposals are relativelyrare even within the committee system,they tend to raise unique, cross-cuttingconsiderations. The normal deadline forsubmitting such proposals is the first weekin December.

MinorsMinors were first established in HASSareas in 1987 and expanded to other areasin 1992. There are now three types:departmental minors (reviewed by CoC),HASS minors (reviewed by CoC andSHASS), and interdisciplinary minors(reviewed by CoC and CUP). All consistof 5–7 subjects, with the objective of pro-viding a depth of understanding in anarea outside of a student’s major.

In reviewing minors, the committeeslook for cohesiveness, solid governanceand advising, and evidence of interdisci-plinarity (where appropriate). They willconsider dependencies or overlap withother programs, with the expectation thatappropriate consultations have takenplace. Committees will look at compliancewith existing policy and rules and, of

course, focus extensively on curriculum.In most cases, committees will prefer tosee that a good portion of subjects havebeen offered successfully in the past.

Again, the typical starting pointfor review of minors is CoC. A pro-posal template and full guidelines areavailable through the CoC Website(web.mit.edu/registrar/subjects/cmtes/coc/proposals.html).

Degree ProgramsChanges to undergraduate majors may beproposed to, and authorized by, CoC;graduate proposals go through CGP.Depending on the scope of changes, com-mittees may request that the proceduresfor new degrees be followed.

The same paths apply to proposals toterminate existing curricula. In this case,the committees look to ensure that cur-rently enrolled students can completetheir requirements and that reasonablenotice is given to other departmentswhose curriculum may be impacted.

By far the most comprehensive reviewprocesses are reserved for new degree pro-grams. The mechanisms for reviewingnew programs are based on guidelines forthe approval of undergraduate degreeprograms, which were presented to thefaculty in May 2003.

The typical path for undergraduateproposals begins with a review of thecommunication component of the pro-posed program, after which it runsthrough the Committee on Curricula, theCommittee on the UndergraduateProgram, and the Faculty PolicyCommittee. Graduate proposals begin inCGP, then move to the Faculty PolicyCommittee. Templates are availablethrough CoC and CGP; the undergradu-ate template and instructions are alsoavailable on the Faculty ResourcesWebsite (web.mit.edu/faculty/gover-nance/degree.html).

All proposals are reported to theProvost and Academic Council. The finalstep is to seek the approval of the faculty.This typically involves presentations attwo consecutive Institute faculty meet-ings, the first to introduce a motion to

create the program, and the second to voteon the issue.

Both undergraduate and graduate pro-grams require an outline of the curricu-lum, including required and optionalsubjects. Undergraduate degree proposalsrequire thoughtful roadmaps for how stu-dents might enter the curriculum at dif-ferent points in their educational careers.

Degree proposals can also raise biggerquestions. For undergraduate proposals, itis important to consider how a newprogram will fit in the overall array ofdegree programs. Given the essentiallyfixed size of the undergraduate body, thecreation of a new program may draw stu-dents away from other programs. In somecases, new programs may have embeddedresource requirements, such as specialclassroom facilities or additionalCommunication instruction. A new grad-uate program, on the other hand, has thepotential to add to the overall campuspopulation, impacting areas such ashousing, student services, and funding forstipends.

Because new degree programs (espe-cially graduate programs) can have signif-icant impact on resources, whether aprogram is viable or not depends onresources available, and commitmentsmade by the administration at the depart-ment, School, and Provost level. Whilefaculty committees cannot make deci-sions about resource allocation, they aresensitive to the fact that the success of anew program depends on adequateresources, and therefore ask proposers toobtain letters from the appropriateadministrators that delineate theresources that will be available.

The goal of the faculty committees is tohelp departments maintain and initiatestrong academic programs for our stu-dents. My hope is that this brief guide willbe helpful to units contemplating newproposals. As always, please feel free tocontact me or the other faculty officerswith questions.

Steven Hall is a Professor in the Departmentof Aeronautics and Astronautics and FacultyChair ([email protected]).


6

for global warming. This is meant toinform subsequent discussion and not tobe an exhaustive justification. For thelatter you should read the scientific litera-ture, various climate reports [see, forexample, ipcc.ch and www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment], or talk toclimate scientists at MIT or elsewhere.

The science, brieflyThe world has warmed at various timesthroughout its history and it is warmingnow. Recent warming (Figure 1) is amatter of concern. The last 10 years repre-sent the warmest decade since at least the1880s, when global temperature measure-ments became available. On a globalaverage, the planet is about 0.8oC warmerthan it was in 1880 based upon dozens ofhigh quality, long records using ther-mometers worldwide, on land and sea(IPCC WG1, 2013).

The amount of CO2 in the atmospherehas also varied over geological time. Aparticularly long, high-quality recordfrom an ice core from Antarctica (Figure2) demonstrates the variability. The CO2content of the atmosphere has beenincreasing since the last ice age, but hasaccelerated since the dawn of the indus-trial revolution. The amount of CO2 inthe atmosphere now (400.26 ppm inFebruary 2015; see Figure 3) is greaterthan at any point in the last 800,000 years,the length of the measured record. (Thereare geologic and sediment records thatplace some constraint on CO2 fartherback than 800,000 years, but these recordsare considerably less accurate than the icecore data.) Virtually all scientists acceptthese observations as accurate.

The substantial increase in CO2during the industrial age is believed by theoverwhelming majority of scientists to beprimarily due to the burning of fossilfuels, and to be the cause of most of thecurrent warming of the Earth. Globalwarming is not a debate. What is legiti-mately debatable is the fraction of theincrease that is human induced. Equally

debatable are the environmental conse-quences of the continued increase of CO2and other greenhouse gases in the atmos-phere because not all climate forcings arewell understood. Some climate feedbackssuch as cloud changes in a warming worldare subject to uncertainty, as are scenariosfor future emissions. Climate models thatcontain different physical parameteriza-tions and make different assumptionsforecast outcomes ranging from grim tosomewhat troubling. [Check out the“Greenhouse Gamble Wheel” (globalchange.mit.edu/focus-areas/uncertainty/gamble) developed by theMIT Joint Program on the Science and

Policy of Global Change.] The latestNational Climate Assessment declaredthat effects of global warming are alreadybeing observed. Like many of you, I travelaround the world, and I am struck that theUnited States is nearly unique in notreadily accepting the threat of globalwarming.

That said, given the uncertainties, what,if anything, do we do about it? It’s really allabout risk. The overwhelming majority ofscientists regard global warming as pre-senting serious risks. It is certainly possiblethat most scientists are wrong, but are wewilling to bet the future that this is thecase? In other aspects of our lives when we

Campus Conversation on Climate ChangeZuber, from page 1

Figure 1. Annual global mean surface temperature anomalies relative to 1961–1990from three combined land-surface air temperature and sea surface temperature datasets (HadCRUT4, GISS and MLOST). (From IPCC, WG1, 2013).

Figure 2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide measured in air bubbles trapped in an ice corefrom Dome C, Antarctica collected by the European Project for Ice Coring inAntarctica (EPICA). Units are parts per million (ppm). Year zero is 1950 of theChristian Era (C.E.). (From: cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html#).


7

face risk we think carefully about the con-sequences of action and inaction andproceed accordingly. What would happenif we stopped pumping CO2 into theatmosphere right now? It would take morethan a thousand years to remove from thesystem the CO2 that we have added andfor surface warming to dissipate (Solomonet al., PNAS, 2009; 2010). If we wait untilwe understand all of the uncertaintieswhile continuing on a path of unabatedCO2 increase, we could be setting upfuture generations to deal with a globalcalamity. This is where science ends andvalues begin, because how we deal withrisks, particularly risks we may be causingnow that affect other people (in otherparts of the world, or future generations),is a question of values.

What are the attitudes in our community?Now let’s take the temperature ofmembers of the MIT community. This ismy assessment based on numerous meet-ings, discussions, and e-mail exchanges onthe topic of global warming. There aremany students, postdocs, and youngalumni who are worried that we adults are

ruining their planet. There are facultymembers who study climate changewhose research has been vilified andpoliticized by individuals and organiza-tions, most of whom have not attemptedto grasp the complexity of the science.There are young people who are embark-ing on careers to study the Earth’s climatewho must face the concern that they willbe judged on their alignment with politi-cal ideology rather than on the scientificmerit of their work. There are alumni whoare expecting MIT to stand up and take aleadership position on this matter ofglobal importance. There is a small frac-tion of our community who don’t believethat global warming is a problem.

The campaign for divestmentEnter Fossil Free MIT (FFMIT), a campusorganization that has joined a nationalmovement on college campuses whoseobjective is divestment from fossil fuelstocks to highlight the threat of climatechange. FFMIT consists primarily of stu-dents, and their leadership has met withmany members of the senior administra-tion and other campus leaders.

FFMIT has a petition that reads:

In order to limit global temperature rise toless than 2 degrees C, no more than 1/3 ofglobal carbon reserves owned by fossil fuelcompanies and governments can be burnedprior to 2050. Because it is unconscionableto finance our Institute with investmentsthat will lock us in to catastrophic climatechange, we call on MIT to:1. Immediately freeze any new investmentin fossil fuel companies, and2. Divest within five years from currentholdings in these companies.

Their petition contains more than3000 signatures. From what I can surmise,some of the signees have thought verydeeply about climate change and signedthe petition with an understanding ofmany of the issues relating to divestment.Others signed with what might be a lessthorough appreciation of the pros andcons of divestment, often on their waydown the Infinite Corridor where FFMITperiodically has a presence. Finally, somesignees have told me that they don’t thinkthat MIT should necessarily divest, butthey are deeply troubled about the lack ofaction on climate change at any level(MIT, the U.S., the world) and thoughtthat they should do something to expresstheir concern. We do not know the relativecontributions of signers from the variouscategories. However, the sheer quantity ofsignatures tells us that this issue meritsthoughtful discussion.

What have other universities doneregarding fossil fuel divestment? Most thathave divested do not have substantialendowments, with the exception ofStanford, which decided to divest onlyfrom coal and only from coal investmentsthat Stanford makes directly (as opposedto investments made by outside invest-ment managers who invest for Stanford).None of the Ivies have divested, but Yalecommunicated to its outside investmentmanagers the importance of accountingfor “the risks of climate change in invest-ment analysis.”

continued on next page

Figure 3. Monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory,Hawaii. The observations, shown by the red curve, constitute the longest record ofdirect measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Credit: P. Tans, NOAA/ESRL and R. Keeling, Scripps Inst. of Oceanography). Compare the concentration in this modernrecord to the historical time series in Figure 2.

What does our community think MITshould do about climate change?The question we all care about is, “Whatdoes our community think MIT should doabout climate change?” Should we acceptFFMIT’s call to divest? Should we dosomething else instead, possibly a proac-tive response that contributes to reducingthe Institute’s carbon footprint? Shouldwe do something far more ambitious, andif so, what? Should we do nothing until weare more confident about the magnitudeof the risks?

Last spring, when President Reif calledfor the campus conversation on climatechange, he asked Provost Marty Schmidt,ESI Director Susan Solomon, MITEIDirector Bob Armstrong, and me (collec-tively forming the “ConversationLeadership”) to lead this activity. Becausemuch of the best work at MIT is donethrough collaboration across the Institute,we decided to appoint a committee toimplement the conversation. TheCommittee on the MIT Climate ChangeConversation, listed in Table 1, is chairedby Professor Roman Stocker and containsfaculty from all five Schools, a postdoc-toral associate, a graduate student, anundergraduate student, a staff member,and a senior member of the technical staffof Lincoln Laboratory. [The ClimateChange Conversation Committee has aWebsite that contains a lot of useful infor-mation: climatechange.mit.edu.] Theircharge is as follows:

The Committee will plan and implementthe MIT Climate Change Conversation,reporting to the Conversation Leadership(Provost Marty Schmidt, Vice President forResearch Maria Zuber, EnvironmentalSolutions Initiative Director SusanSolomon and MITEI Director BobArmstrong).

The Committee should seek broad inputfrom the Institute community on how theUS and the world can most effectively

address global climate change. TheConversation should explore pathways toeffective climate mitigation, including howthe MIT community – through education,research and campus engagement – canconstructively move the global and nationalagendas forward. Possible activities for theCampus Conversation could include alecture series, panels and a survey in whichall points of view of the MIT community aresought, presented and discussed.

The Committee should produce a finalreport to be delivered to the ConversationLeadership. The report should list, inunranked order, key suggestions with asso-ciated pros and cons that encompass therange of views of the community. TheCommittee should accomplish its workduring the FY14-15 academic year andsubmit its report by Commencement 2015.The Conversation Leadership will solicitreactions to the report from the MIT com-munity and, from the collective input, rec-ommend to the President a path forward.

Last fall the Climate ChangeConversation Committee launched anidea bank seeking input for the mosteffective ways to deal with climate change,as well as a survey to gain input as to howthe community wanted to engage on thetopic. The public part of the conversationis taking place this spring, with the sched-ule of events listed in Table 2.

To know what the community thinks,we need the community to speakUp until now, there has been a dedicatedand passionate group on campus andfrom the alumni ranks who have beencalling on MIT to take action. But we needall members of our community to getinvolved with this conversation. To inspireyou to start thinking, let me pose somechallenging questions:

• How do we reconcile the social harmassociated with burning fossil fuels withthe social benefit of their current use,especially in developing economies?

Roman Stocker (Committee Chair)Associate Professor in Civil andEnvironmental EngineeringDept. of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineeringSarah Brylinsky (Committee Staff)Sustainability Project ManagerOffice of SustainabilityAdam BerinskyProfessor of Political ScienceDept. of Political ScienceKerry EmanuelCecil and Ida Green Professor ofAtmospheric ScienceDept. of Earth, Atmospheric andPlanetary SciencesHenry "Jake" JacobyWilliam F. Pounds Professor ofManagement EmeritusSloan School of ManagementBernadette JohnsonChief Technology OfficerMIT Lincoln Laboratory

Jacqueline KuoUndergraduateDept. of Mechanical EngineeringChristoph ReinhartAssociate Professor in BuildingTechnologyDept. of ArchitectureAnne SlinnExecutive Director for ResearchCenter for Global Change ScienceTavneet SuriMaurice J. Strong CareerDevelopment Associate ProfessorSloan School of ManagementGeoffrey SupranGraduate StudentDept. of Materials Science andEngineeringStian UelandPostdoctoral AssociateDept. of Materials Science andEngineering


8

Campus Conversation on Climate ChangeZuber, from preceding page Table 1. Committee on the MIT Climate Change Conversation


9

• Everything we do has a cost. What’s theappropriate balance of MIT investmentto respond to climate change withinvestment in other Institute needs?

• What kinds of action can we take that arecommensurate with the global nature ofclimate change?

• Would it be appropriate to call out fossil

fuel companies while continuing to usetheir products and to partner with themon clean energy solutions and fossil fuelstudies that mitigate environmental harm?

• Is the threat of climate change such thatwe should diverge from our modusoperandi of objective, data-driven analy-sis and problem solving to take a socialactivism role in combating it?

• Where’s the shared sacrifice? How do weinsist that MIT as an institution takeaction without each of us changing ourown behavior?

• How can MIT best exhibit leadership onthe issue of climate change?

We need to be discussing these andmany other questions about what MITshould do, or, if you wish, not do. We canfully expect our students to come out inforce and let us know what they think.Good for them! But on this issue, we haveheard from a small fraction of MIT’s1,000-plus faculty so far. We can’t developa strategy that considers the wishes of thecommunity if we don’t know what allcommunity members think. There shouldbe no expectation on your part that anoutcome that is acceptable to you willemerge in the absence of your input.Please make your opinion known by par-ticipating in the public events (Table 2) orcontacting anyone on the Climate ChangeConversation Committee (Table 1) or theConversation Leadership.

Table 2. Campus Conversation on Climate Change Schedule of Events

Fall 2014: Idea bank launched (climatechange.mit.edu/ideabank)Fall 2014: Survey on campus engagementJanuary 21: “One Man’s Journey to Climate Activism” by alum Larry LindenMarch 12: Public Forum on Reducing MIT’s Carbon FootprintMarch 31: Public Forum on Climate Change Communication, E51-115, 4:00 – 5:30 pmApril 9: Campus debate on divestment, Kresge Auditorium, 4:30 – 6:00 pm April-May: Climate Change Conversation Committee Listening Tour

April 13, 12-1 pm, 4-237 April 22, 6-7 pm, 37-212April 27, TBD @ Lincoln Laboratory April 28, 12-1 pm, E25-111 May 7, 5-6 pm, 32-155 May 12, 6-7 pm, 3-270

May 11: Compton Lecture by Mario Molina, TBDJune 5 (approx.): Report due to Conversation Leadership, followed by release tocommunity for comment

Maria T. Zuber is Vice President for Researchand E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics([email protected]).


10

lettersWhy MIT Faculty Should NOT Sign the Petition to Divest from Fossil Fuels

Dear Faculty Friends,

U NTI L M IT ITS E LF D IVE STS FROM

using fossil fuels, it would be hypocriticalfor us to sign a petition to divest fromfossil fuel companies. Indeed, given thatmany fossil fuel companies have investedin MITei to help us find ways to addressour world’s energy problems (supply andenvironmental issues), divestiture wouldbe an act of ballistic podiatry followed bya round of Abbe Roulette. If we reallywant to “punish” fossil fuel companies,replace the “FFincome” from investmentin fossil fuel companies with endowmentfunds and spend the “FFincome” on solarpanels for all MIT roofs, energy savingwindows…. First put our own moneywhere our mouth is, then we will be free topreach to others.☺.

There will of course be accusationsthat we are being “bought off” by fossilfuel company members of MITei. On thecontrary, I believe MITei fossil fuelcompany members are genuinely alsointerested in renewables and low carbonenergy sources. Personally, as a recipientof funds from MITei, my research intorenewables has been able to flourishbefore it became fashionable to work inrenewables. Indeed, MITei funded mywild renewable ideas at a time when DoEand NSF would not. The result? Thingslike “Symbiotic offshore energy harvestingand storage systems,” Journal SustainableEnergy Technologies and Assessments, 1-7and “Concentrated Solar Power onDemand,” Solar Energy 85 (2011) 1519-

1529 (e-mail me and I will be happy tosend you a copy).

Read the CSPonD paper where in theend we show how the U.S. governmentcould easily attain 50 GW of 24/7 solarpower, which could power L.A., on a smallpart of its large military bases at ChinaLake and White Sands. I agree it’s easy tojoin a loud protesting mob: REAL leader-ship would be for MIT to even morestrongly engage the “problems” and workwith all involved to achieve long-term sus-tainable goals.

Sincerely,Alexander H. SlocumPappalardo Professor of Mechanical EngineeringMacVicar Faculty Fellow

Editor’s Note: Prof. Slocum’s letter (above)is in reply to the article, “Why MIT FacultyShould Sign the Petition to Divest fromFossil Fuels,” by Charles F. Harvey (MITFaculty Newsletter, Vol. XXVII No. 3,January/February 2015.)

Following is Prof. Harvey’s response toProf. Slocum’s reply.

I H E A R T I LY AG R E E T H AT M I T

should reduce its carbon dioxide emis-sions and am excited for the endeavor. Iwould like to see us do it “big,” to gobeyond what many other institutions aredoing. The bar is already high. Apple andGoogle are offsetting their power con-sumption with large-scale solar projects.

Other academic institutions have builtinnovative zero-emissions buildings. AlexSlocum’s research stands out as anexample of how the ingenuity concen-trated at MIT can be focused to developnew ways to reduce fossil fuel consump-tion. I am pleased that oil companies arefunding his research because I can thinkof no better use for their money. Weshould continue to welcome this funding.Let’s hope MIT will make game-changingdiscoveries soon. Imagine if solar powerand energy storage were improved to thepoint where together they outcompetedfossil fuels for most uses. When that daycomes, we will all agree what to do withour fossil-fuel investments – sell them as

fast as we can before they are worthless! The serious and immediate concern

about MIT’s investment in the companiesthat extract coal, oil, and gas is themessage it conveys to the world. Whatdoes it mean if we work during the day toreduce MIT’s emissions, while our invest-ments work at night to extract fossil fuels?Equity ownership of the fossil fuel indus-try is a bet on the future success of coal,oil, and gas – a bet with MIT’s endow-ment against the success of competingnon-fossil sources of energy, the renew-ables that Alex Slocum is working todevelop. Proposing that technology willreduce fossil fuel consumption, whilesimultaneously betting that the coal, oil,

Professor Harvey Responds


11

and gas industry will prosper, may seemstrategic, or may seem cynical, but it cer-tainly is not a style of real leadership thatconveys a clear message about the threatof anthropogenic climate change tohuman welfare.

Yes, fossil fuel companies are fundingalternative energy research at MIT inaddition to funding MIT’s research on oiland gas extraction. However, fossil fuelcompanies are almost exclusively in thebusiness of extracting, refining, and dis-tributing fossil fuels. They have not diver-sified into renewable energy and have ahistory, with an obvious motivation, offunding disinformation about climate

change science – an activity that couldhardly be more antithetical to MIT’smission. A careful shift of MIT’s invest-ment would have little effect on MIT’sexpected return on the endowment andwould not punish the fossil fuel industrybecause MIT owns too small a portion oftheir stock to move the market. Thereason to divest is to send a messagebeyond MIT that the coal, oil, and gasindustries must leave most of theirreserves, the assets that support their valu-ations, in the ground if we are to avoid theworst effects of climate change. WithMIT’s stature as one of the world’s top sci-entific institutions, we have an opportu-

nity to act responsibly and influence theworld to follow a safer path.

The fact that we are working on onegood thing (reducing MIT’s emissions)does not preclude us from doing anothergood thing (divesting from fossil fuelcompanies). We can do better; we can doboth. At MIT, we know that the scientificevidence is clear about the dangers ofclimate change. Let’s make our actionsequally clear and consistent.

Charles F. HarveyProfessorDepartment of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering

lettersHumanities and The Future of MIT Education

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I N TH E ARTI CLE ON “The Future ofMIT Education” (MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXVII No.2, November/December2014) authors Sanjay Sarma, KarenWillcox, and Israel Ruiz state:

“Accordingly, the two central tensionsthat are clear in the Future of MITEducation report and in the summary onthese pages are those between the directencounter of students with dedicatedteachers, and the deep value of directhands-on engagement in the processes ofscience and engineering.”

May I remind the authors and anyoneelse who might need reminding that thereare five Schools at MIT, three of which arenot engaged in science and engineering?

I have taught at MIT since 1972 andhave experienced many examples of thiskind of invisibilization of my scholarlyand pedagogical identity and missionduring that time. I know that many of mycolleagues in SHASS have as well (and,probably, in the School of Architectureand Planning and Sloan School ofManagement).

In these three Schools we study andteach about politics, economics, linguistics,philosophy, literature in numerous lan-guages, film and media studies, anthropol-ogy, history, urban studies, architecture,music, theater arts, and much, much more.

The material world is important, but itis not the only world we need to knowabout.

Jean E. JacksonProfessor EmeritusDepartment of Anthropology


12

Engineering Department the Laboratoryfor Nuclear Security Policy has a vigorousprogram led by Scott Kemp and RichardLanza. Francis Gavin, the Stanton Chair inNuclear Security Policy, Vipin Narang,Barry Posen, Jim Walsh, and others areactive members of the Security StudiesProgram in the Political ScienceDepartment, and I’m a member of thePhysics Department. There is also astudent Global Zero group led byMareena Robinson, a Nuclear Science andEngineering graduate student, closelyassociated with the Technology andCulture Forum (Radius) who have beenhaving programs of interest. Most promi-nent in the news is our PhysicsDepartment colleague, Ernie Moniz, theU.S. Secretary of Energy, who is partici-pating in the Iran negotiations as a techni-cal consultant to Secretary of State JohnKerry [see The New York Times, 29 March2015, p.1.]

Iran has ratified the NPT (NuclearNon-Proliferation Treaty). However, forthe past two decades, it appears likely tohave been working towards the ability toeither make nuclear weapons or become anuclear weapons threshold state. Iran hashad a long and troubled history with theIAEA (International Atomic EnergyAgency) and the U.N., as can be seen bymany Security Council Resolutions (for asummary see www.armscontrol.org/fact-sheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran).

In August 2013, three days after hisinauguration, Iran’s newly electedPresident Hasan Rouhani called for theresumption of serious negotiations withthe P5+1 (the acknowledged nuclearweapons states – U.S., Russia, China,England, France, plus Germany) on Iran’snuclear program. These commenced inOctober 2013. On April 2, after severalyears of negotiations that became quiteintense in the previous week, Iran and theP5+1 came to a historic, preliminaryoutline of an agreement that exceeded my

expectations; it is surprisingly detailed. Itcontains many major concessions by bothparties, particularly by Iran. The centralagreement is that for the next 15 years Iran

will dramatically limit its present stockpileof reactor grade enriched uranium (< 4%)from its current 10,000 to 300 kilograms.The number of running P1 centrifuges(their least efficient models) will bereduced from 10,000 to 5060 and be sta-tioned only in their Natanz facility for 10years. This combination should ensurethat the breakout time is increased to oneyear, the number that President Obamahas been stating as required.

In addition, there are limits placed onIran’s research into more advanced reac-tors and their deployment, as well as theconversion of the deep underground facil-ity at Fordow into peaceful nuclearphysics research without any centrifugesenriching uranium. The heavy water Arakreactor being constructed by Iran (frozenunder the interim agreement ofNovember 2014) will be reconfigured sothat very little plutonium will be pro-duced. All of these are subject to the

strictest IAEA inspections that have everbeen conducted. In return, Iran is to berelieved of many sanctions and will obtainofficial recognition from the international

community for the first time of their rightto enrich uranium. Supporters of theagreement in Teheran have used both ofthese issues to counter arguments fromtheir hard liners.

These negotiated goals need to befinalized by the end of June, as well asseveral important and potentially difficultissues that were deferred. These includehow the reduction of the enricheduranium stockpile is to be reduced (Iranhas ruled out shipping this material out ofthe country) and the U.S. demand that theIAEA be allowed to conduct inspectionsany place in Iran, including military bases.A sign of how difficult these future nego-tiations will be can be seen in the differingversions of the leadership in Washingtonand Tehran (see, e.g., M.Gordon, The NewYork Times, April 4, 2015). The issue thathas received the most attention is thetiming and nature of the sanctions relief.The P5+1 is stating that they will be

Review Conference to take Center StageBernstein, from page 1

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, center, and British Foreign Secretary PhilipHammond, second from right, wait with U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs WendySherman, left, and U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, second from left, before ameeting with Russia, China, France, Germany, European Union, and Iranian officials at theBeau Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, Monday, March 30, 2015.


13

reduced on a step-by-step basis as Irandemonstrates that it is complying with theagreement. The Iranian leadership isasserting that all of the sanctions will beterminated, not phased out, as soon as theaccords are finalized June 30. Stay tunedfor the same cliff hanging, intense negoti-ations that occurred at the end of March.

In order to have any chance of successthe negotiations did not address any ofthe many outstanding political differencesthat we have with Iran. These include theirsupport of Hamas and Hezbollah, generalantagonism towards Israel, the lack of civilliberties inside their country, and its rolein the Shia-Sunni conflict. This willrequire some heavy diplomatic lifting thatthe Obama administration is alreadydealing with. In addition, there is a greatdeal of opposition in Congress which hastaken on an unfortunately partisan char-acter and which will be an issue in the2016 presidential campaign.

It is important to step back and take alonger and more fundamental view ofwhat should be accomplished. It is rarelyacknowledged in the political commen-tary, but we are fortunate that Iran seemscommitted to be part of the NPT treatyand since the interim agreement wasreached, have allowed the most intensiveIAEA inspections ever conducted of theirfacilities and some of their uraniummines. It is also encouraging that AyatollahKhamenei has issued a FATWA stating thatthey will not develop nuclear weapons. Onthe other hand, we should not be naiveabout their intentions. We know that Iranhad a nuclear weapons developmentgroup and that they probably know how toquickly build a nuclear weapon once theyhave the required fissionable material. U.S.intelligence estimates that this effort endedin 2003. We also know that in the past theydid not completely live up to their NPTinspections obligations, for which theywere sanctioned many times.

For their part, Iran is angry about ourcyber sabotage efforts on their enrich-ment centrifuge program and at Israel,who they link to the U.S., for their refusalto join the NPT, for its possession of

nuclear weapons, and for assassinations ofseveral of Iran’s nuclear scientists.

These specific nuclear issues are a smallfraction of the many contentious issuesbetween our countries, and with our closeally Israel. In my personal view, there islittle doubt that Iran has worked hard toposition themselves to be able to producea nuclear weapon without taking the finalstep. Clearly, it is in our interest to keepthem from taking this important last step.It is therefore necessary to successfullyconclude the negotiations that will slowdown their ability to quickly produce anuclear weapon and allow a vigorousinspection regime. It is rarely mentionedin the debate that it is in our interest togive them sufficient incentives so that theydo not want to take the final step towardsmaking a nuclear weapon. In my view, weshould not let the pursuit of the perfectdeal prevent the reasonable one that nowappears to be possible. As is often the case,the goal should be to minimize risk, sinceeliminating it is quite unlikely. The alter-native to an agreement appears to be esca-lating conflict, possibly war, and afractured P5 alliance on this issue, andpossibly Iranian nuclear weapons in thenext few years. Finally, in my judgment,even though Iran’s nuclear program hasattracted intense interest, the moreimportant nuclear arms control issuesinclude U.S.-Russian reductions andtaking our missiles out of “hair trigger”alert mode, the dangerous India- Pakistanstandoff, and North Korean isolation andnuclear weapons development.

The other nuclear proliferation issuethat is likely to generate extensive newscoverage is the next five-year NPT reviewscheduled from April 28 thorough May 9,2015 at the U.N. The NPT came into forcein 1970, and currently includes 189 states.Notably absent are India, Israel, Pakistan,and North Korea (who withdrew) whichhave nuclear weapons. The bargain toestablish the NPT was that the five nuclearweapons states (the P5) were grandfa-thered in but agreed to eliminate theirnuclear weapons; Article VI that coversthis does not specify a specific time scale

or process. The rest of the signatories areentitled to utilize nuclear power, subject toIAEA inspections, but are not allowed tohave nuclear weapons or to help othersobtain them. It is anticipated that the 2015meeting will be “stormy” (see www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_04/Rough-Seas-Ahead_ Issues-for-the-2015-NPT-Review-Conference) withmany of the non-aligned, non-nuclearweapons states such as Ireland, Norway,etc., demanding that the establishednuclear weapons states get specific abouttheir Article VI commitments. What isanticipated is that there will be a call toestablish some concrete guideposts aboutnuclear weapons reductions. It is alsoanticipated that the nuclear weaponsstates will focus on the proliferation issue,particularly for Iran and North Korea. TheP5 met in London and issued a blandstatement on February 4 (www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/02/ 237273.htm) that isunlikely to satisfy the critics who want tosee some tangible progress on the part ofthe existing nuclear powers, particularlythe U.S. and Russia, making disarmamenta priority, not just a distant objective.

In addition to the formal conferencethere are many non-governmental activi-ties planned around the NPT review withpeople participating from all over theworld. Our Faculty Newsletter Chair,Jonathan King, is actively working onthis, serving as Chair of Massachusetts’sPeace Action’s committee organizing forthe Conference. On this 70th anniversaryof the bombing of Hiroshima andNagasaki a large Japanese delegation isexpected to show their support for elimi-nating nuclear weapons. Many studentand university groups are expected fromthe U.S., including MIT and other localuniversities. As someone who learned somuch from my older colleagues whoworked on the Manhattan Project, andwho has been long concerned aboutnuclear weapons, I hope that this atten-tion plays a role in preventing them fromever being used again.

Aron Bernstein is Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Physics ([email protected]).


14

Edmund BertschingerAdvancing a Respectful and Caring Community

Editor’s Note: On the following 9 pages weoffer a variety of reactions to InstituteCommunity and Equity Officer EdBertschinger’s recent report, “Advancing aRespectful and Caring Community:Learning by Doing at MIT.”

I N 2 0 1 3 , I S H I F T E D R O L E S fromPhysics Department head to the InstituteCommunity and Equity Officer (ICEO) atMIT. This new position includes oversightof MIT’s efforts to promote diversity andinclusion for faculty and staff, and muchmore. The breadth of the role is reflectedby its title: the community includes over23,000 students, staff, postdocs, visitors,and faculty in Cambridge, more than3,400 Lincoln Laboratory employees inLexington, and the MIT Corporationmembers, alumni, and many others affili-ated with MIT.

The first 18 months in this role pro-vided a unique opportunity to studyMIT’s community, culture, and values.Numerous faculty reports were reviewed,including the 1999 and 2002 reports onwomen faculty and the 2010 Report onthe Initiative for Faculty Race andDiversity as well as the 1998 Report of theTask Force on Student Life and Learning.Scores of other reports, articles, and bookswere read, and hundreds of communitymembers were interviewed. Crucial ideascame from students, staff, and alumni.

The product of this study was a lengthyreport (iceoreport.mit.edu) released inFebruary 2015 that addressed three ques-tions. What makes MIT special? Whichelements of the MIT culture support itsmission and which ones hinder it? Howcan we do better as individuals and as a

community? Most MIT reports presentideas to change the world. This one pre-sented ideas to change MIT in our grandtradition of learning by doing.

The overall goal of this effort is sum-marized by the ICEO mission statement –“to advance a respectful and caring com-munity that embraces diversity andempowers everyone to learn and do theirbest at MIT.”

After exploring MIT’s community,culture, and values, the report weavestogether recommendations and data pro-viding the means and ends for shifting theculture. The first recommendation is toestablish a process leading to an MITCompact.

MIT Compact processAssemble a representative working group towrite a brief statement of what we aspire toas a community and what we expect of oneanother as MIT community members.

Properly understood, this recommen-dation is radical: it removes the labels andprivileges of our positions and asks us tohold honest conversations about ourvalues and community standards.Although the deliverable outcome is aone-page document, the most importantpart of this recommendation is theprocess of engaging in deep, community-wide conversations about core values,aspirations, and norms. These conversa-tions will launch our mission of advanc-ing a respectful and caring communityinto orbit.

Two questions come to mind: why dowe need this, and are we ready for it?

We need a Compact process becausegraduate students have called for fair

treatment in a document, “CommonValues on the Graduate StudentExperience,” intended for their facultyadvisors. We need it because support staffhave advanced an initiative for “Civilityand Respect at MIT.” We need it becauseour undergraduates organized an event:“We Are One: Building a Better MITThrough Conversation.” We need itbecause, all across MIT, people are comingto realize that there are unhealthy aspectsof the MIT culture (tech.mit.edu/V135/N7/hao.html).

We are not, however, ready for the full-scale process of an MIT Compact. We tryto do too much and, in the process,become less. An example comes from howwe manage stress on ourselves and others.According to conversations with students,many faculty did not take time duringclasses the week following two studentsuicides to offer students the chance totalk about how they’re feeling and to makeclear that we are there for them, despitereceiving a request from the Chancellor,Provost, and Chair of the Faculty onMarch 9, 2015 that they do so. As reportedin the March, 2015 issues of The Tech, andin the Boston Globe on March 17(www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/16/mit-students-open-about-stress/dS61oA5tiKqjvVsJ5VZRAL/story.html), a fewfaculty reached out to students inthoughtful, inspiring ways (tech.mit.edu/V135/N8/davis.html). Let us strivetogether to advance a respectful and caring community (tech.mit.edu/V135/N6/letters6.html).

If holding these conversations isimportant and we are not sufficientlyready, what should we do? This being


15

MIT, let us practice learning by doing. Startthe conversations in your research group.Ask your administrative assistant how sheor he is coping with stress. Then listenhumbly (web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/272/schein_letter.html). Prototype the MITCompact process in your department, lab,or center. Be sure you include students,postdocs, and staff – and if you don’tknow where to begin, ask them. Aftersome initial discomfort, you will likelyfind the process inspiring and energizing.With your help, perhaps by 2016 MIT willbe ready for scaling up of these conversa-tions community-wide.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “People don’tcare how much you know until they knowhow much you care.” While this is not easyat MIT, we do things here not becausethey are easy, but because we love to solveimportant problems. Showing that youcare will help to solve problems.

Quantifying diversity, equity, andinclusionMIT faculty thrive on data. The ICEOreport samples data from institutionalsurveys as well as qualitative data frominterviews to show where the mission issucceeding and where we are lagging.Encouragingly, overall satisfaction hasincreased markedly over the last decade,by 19% for staff and 13% for faculty,whose satisfaction exceeds that of facultyat our major peers. However, if one subdi-vides the data by different groups, onefinds that White and Asian undergradu-ates are significantly more satisfied thanBlack, Hispanic, and Native Americanundergraduates, and similarly for hetero-sexual undergraduates compared withlesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, andqueer undergraduates.

Data from the Quality of Life surveysreveals chilly climates for staff, students,postdocs, and/or faculty in several depart-ments, labs, and centers. Usually, studentsor employees of these work units havecalled out for help in dealing with abrasiveconduct, and sometimes the remedies areunsuccessful. Alarmingly, in every cate-gory of student and employee, women aresignificantly more likely to report feeling

overwhelmed by all they have to do thanmen, although their overall satisfactionwas the same. The report shows the com-munity challenges facing us and providesa set of “community” recommendationsintended to address the challenges andexploit the opportunities for moving MITinto a leadership role in how we treatpeople, as called for by President Reif.

The ICEO report also provides dataconcerning equitable treatment (rank,salary, etc. as functions of gender,race/ethnicity, etc.) and on progresstowards diversity goals called for in previ-ous reports and in a 2004 FacultyResolution. Although the doubling ofunderrepresented minority faculty andthe tripling of underrepresented minoritygraduate students called for in 2004 hasnot quite been achieved, significantprogress has been made as a result ofproactive recruitment efforts described inthe report. The greatest disappointmentwas the discovery that MIT seriously lagsboth the technology industry (Facebook,Google, Apple, etc.) and our own facultyitself in the presence of underrepresentedminorities among postdocs, academicstaff, research staff, and LincolnLaboratory technical staff – even if oneexcludes international scholars.

Filling in our blind spotsThe persistent underrepresentation ofwomen and minorities in faculty posi-tions and in leadership roles of manykinds remains a blot on universities pur-porting to be meritocracies. It is appropri-ate to ask whether aspects of facultyculture diminish our return on invest-ment by making it harder for people tosucceed who are different.

The answer to this question is univer-sally affirmative, and has nothing to dowith faculty status or privilege, but withhuman nature. Each of us has a limitedperspective shaped by our own experi-ence, resulting in blind spots. Forexample, the ICEO report says almostnothing about how MIT can improve theexperience of students and employeeswith disabilities, an oversight that will becorrected in the final version. This

neglect was unconscious, a bias arisingfrom my lack of experience with issues ofaccessibility.

Seven years ago, MIT female full pro-fessors earned, on average, 94% of whatmale full professors did, comparable tothe ratio at our peer institutions. This dif-ference could not be accounted for byaccomplishments, experience, or otherfactors, but was due to gender bias. Thebias was identified and systematically cor-rected with the result that for the last threeyears, female and male full professorsearned as much, on average, at MIT – butnot at our peers, who did not identify andcorrect unconscious bias.

Google has undertaken impressiveefforts to educate all its employees aboutunconscious bias and steps to correct it.One of the report’s major recommenda-tions calls on MIT to do the same byhiring a social scientist to implement acommunity-wide training and assessmentprogram. Success will require facultybeing willing to learn and, perhaps, tochange some habits.

ImplementationThe ICEO report cannot be implementedby the ICEO or by the Provost. It is toofar-ranging for anything but MIT’s dis-tributed leadership to effect, working withHR, with student leaders, with all ofAcademic Council, and with many others.The report contains 17 major recommen-dations (of which only two have beenmentioned above) and numerous“minor” recommendations, which areoften lesser only in that their implementa-tion is less cross-cutting.

For example, one recommendationcalls on every head of a department, lab,or center and every administrative officeror equivalent to attend a leadership work-shop and take an online course on leader-ship. It also calls for the development ofan MITx course, Introduction to the MITCommunity, for new communitymembers to take during orientation. Italso calls for facilitated conversationsabout community standards in each



16

department, lab, or center for all facultyand supervisory staff, using video skitscreated in a Bystander Intervention VideoCompetition. Should this broad recom-mendation be accepted, it will be impor-tant for the senior administration toexplain why it is important. The reportcontains a great deal of background infor-mation in Sections 1 through 6. The largescope of this recommendation means thatit would take several years to fully imple-ment, with oversight being provided bythe deans, vice presidents, and directorson Academic Council.

Some faculty have asked me what hashappened with previous faculty equityreports. Good progress has been made onthe recommendations of the reports for

women faculty in science and engineering(web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/pdf/women_faculty.pdf), but less so for minorityfaculty. That is why a recommendationcalls on deans and department heads toreview and implement the recommenda-tions of the Race Initiative report andother reports, and for the provost toreview progress every five years. In addi-tion, another recommendation calls foreach dean, vice president, and director onAcademic Council to appoint an EquityCommittee to advise and work onimproving equity. Most of the committeesalready exist. Finally, the CorporationVisiting Committees have an importantrole in reviewing the success of many MITunits, and their work will be aided by adashboard summarizing community andequity data for their unit. VisitingCommittees should also seek candid

input from students and staff, who areoften more aware than faculty are of chal-lenges to equity and inclusion.

What can one do, given the heavydemands of academic life? We are all busyand many will not have the time to readthe full ICEO report. As a first small step, Iurge you to read Section 1, which showssome ways that you can make a differenceand why it matters. If you have a littlemore time, join me for dinner with stu-dents excited about MIT yet feelingtrapped in “the bubble,” or organize yourown extracurricular events. They willappreciate your humanity and be inspiredby your stories. Finally, discuss with col-leagues how you can advance a respectfuland caring community in your depart-ment, lab, or center. Learn by doing.

Advancing a Respectful and CaringCommunityBertschinger, from preceding page

Paul E. GrayIn Support of the ICEO Mission Statement

M I T H A S B E E N A P R I M E continu-ously evolving educational enterprisecharted by the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts for more than 15 decades.It has seen several periods of seriousintrospection and change:

• Creation of the Radiation Laboratory(RLE).

• The Undergraduate ResearchOpportunities Program (UROP).

• The creation of McCormick Hall and theopening of other undergraduate dormi-tories enabled gender equity for all.

• The affiliation with the WhiteheadInstitute.

Professor Edmund Bertschinger – theInstitute Community and Equity Officer(ICEO) – has proposed a mission state-ment for all who work, study, learn, liveand grow at MIT:

The mission of the Institute Communityand Equity Office is to advance a respectfuland caring community that embraces diver-sity and empowers everyone to learn and dotheir best at MIT.

This work deserves the attention ofeveryone in this community.

Edmund Bertschinger is Institute Communityand Equity Officer ([email protected]).

Paul E. Gray is Professor Emeritus,Department of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science, and President Emeritus([email protected]).


17

Thomas A. KochanLet’s Get to Work in “Advancing aRespectful and Caring Community”

INSTITUTE COMMUNITY AND EQUITY

Officer Ed Bertschinger’s report serves as amade-to-order blueprint for implement-ing the mission of his office: “to advance arespectful and carrying community . . . atMIT.” The report itself is classic MIT – athorough piece of research that builds ona host of social science research findings,provides new data from a year of inter-viewing and listening to members of ourcommunity, and distills the evidence intoa plan of action.

But wisely Ed notes in his column inthis Newsletter (page 14) that he is notproposing a top down strategy for chang-ing the MIT culture. Instead he proposeswe start locally – where the real power andlevers for change lie.

So he needs our help. How might wedo this? Let me give you a couple of exam-ples that I hope will move you to action.

My home department, the SloanSchool, writes our Mission on the wall forall to see: “To develop principled, innova-tive leaders who improve the world . . . .”These are nice pious words, but are weliving the mission? We have a goldenopportunity to test whether we reallymean it. The Sloan faculty just voted torevise our undergraduate programs toexpand and deepen our course and degreeoptions, largely along technical (data ana-lytics and finance) lines. These will serveour students well but how will we ensurethey produce principled leaders? Our ownresearch tells us that leadership is bestlearned through a three-step “actionlearning” approach: First we teach theo-ries of leadership, then students put themto work in their team projects in other

courses, extracurricular activities, andliving groups, and finally they return tothe classroom to reflect on lessons learnedthrough written and oral presentations.Our curriculum revisions open up oppor-tunities for students to apply these leader-ship and action learning principles in

these new classes. If we take advantage ofthese new opportunities, we can help ourundergraduates hone their leadershipskills in their chosen field of interest whileon campus as a prelude to becoming prin-cipled, innovative leaders who improvethe world after graduation.

One key recommendation in Ed’sreport is to produce a new set ofBystander videos that help us all deal withinappropriate comments and behaviorsor aspects of our culture that increasestress. I am happy to say that five studentteams in my undergraduate People andOrganizations course are taking up thiscall and will produce new Bystandervideos that can be used across campus todeal with things such as the “imposter”syndrome and other stresses students haveidentified are part of the MIT culture. I

hope these inspire others to enter thecompetition Ed plans to host for moresuch videos.

Another opportunity being proposedby several Sloan faculty colleagues is to userandomized experiments to test newapproaches to freshman orientation,

dorm assignments, or assistance providedto students experiencing academic orother difficulties. By using carefullydesigned controlled experiments such asthese we could put our research and datadriven traditions to work in solvingknown, longstanding problems affectingour students.

These are just some ways we can putthe Bertschinger blueprint to work inways consistent with MIT’s culture.Multiplying these examples with otherslike it across campus might go a long waytoward realizing our goal of building a“respectful and caring community” for all.

One key recommendation in Ed’s report is to produce anew set of Bystander videos that help us all deal withinappropriate comments and behaviors or aspects of ourculture that increase stress. . . . Another opportunitybeing proposed by several Sloan faculty colleagues is touse randomized experiments to test new approaches tofreshman orientation, dorm assignments, or assistanceprovided to students experiencing academic or otherdifficulties.

Thomas A. Kochan is the George MaverickBunker Professor of Management, SloanSchool of Management ([email protected]).


18

Phillip L. ClayThe Faculty Role in Building andSustaining Community

M IT’S M I SS ION STATE M E NT:

“To advance knowledge and educatestudents”

“To bring knowledge to bear on theworld’s great challenges”

“With the support and intellectual stim-ulation of a diverse community”

“For the betterment of humankind”

MIT is a special community. We areguided by values (e.g., integrity, excel-lence, curiosity, openness to exploration)and dedicated both to generating and dis-seminating knowledge and to identifyingand addressing the world’s most impor-tant challenges. We attract some of themost talented and creative young peoplein the world.

We are entrusted with the task ofpreparing these young people to applyknowledge and wisdom to solving theworld’s problems, both technical andnontechnical. If our students are to workand lead with confidence and maximumimpact, they need more from us thanproblem sets and lectures. They need ourexperience and values.

How can we best transmit this knowl-edge to them? We must not assume thatour students will absorb our values, per-spectives, and life lessons through mereproximity. We need to be proactive inengaging our students. And we need tobetter appreciate how valuable our reflec-tion and wisdom are to these young, bril-liant minds.

Some years ago, when I served as MIT’sChancellor, I was interested in developinga set of curricula and co-curricular activi-ties that would emphasize leadership

development. I wanted the faculty to beinvolved, and I engaged several facultymembers about this initiative. One ofthese faculty members protested that he

was a science professor, not a professor ofleadership, and he did not have time toparticipate because of his responsibilitiesleading and developing scholarly activitiesand providing leadership on various MITcommittees and within his department.

I couldn’t ignore the irony. Although heand others I approached were majorleaders in their fields, in the community,and at MIT, they did not consider them-selves live models for leadership. But thefact is that they are. They model our ideals,challenging convention, taking calculatedrisks, championing inclusiveness, mentor-ing new people, and fostering global col-laboration, and they also model styles ofengagement and coping that our studentsneed to learn if they are to succeed.

Each MIT faculty member has aspecial opportunity to impart habits ofmind and styles of leadership to students.But few students have any exposure tothese other dimensions of faculty, whichshine most brightly outside of lecturehalls and labs. By declining to share their

experience, these colleagues missedopportunities to expose students to thecomplex social technology of caring andinclusion.

A “respectful and caring community” isnot merely tolerant and civil. It is not uni-formly neutral to issues, and it doesn’trepress difference. At MIT, we take on hardproblems such as honoring differencesand attempting to learn from them, so thatwe can receive the best each person has tooffer, and work for a world where the ben-efits of progress help all to advance. Weregard difference as an asset to be used, nota convenient filter for exclusion.

The statement President Reif deliveredwhen he took office reminded us thatleadership is neither mechanical norsterile, but grounded in commitments to“meritocracy and integrity,” “excellence,”“care for the MIT community,” “equityand inclusion,” and “[teaching students]not only the rigor of their disciplines, butalso how to use their gifts, and humanvalues that make those gifts worthwhile.”

So, as faculty, how do we harvest andshare our experiences and our values inaction? There are several approaches Iwould suggest.

First, I believe that we should share our personaljourneys with our students. We collectively possess aremarkable array of stories of resilience, success againstthe odds, and cultural integration. We are the productsof many transitions, from many cultures, and frombackgrounds of poverty as well as privilege. We havelived multicultural lives. We have embraced challengesand made contributions that extend far beyond ourdisciplines.


19

First, I believe that we should share ourpersonal journeys with our students. Wecollectively possess a remarkable array ofstories of resilience, success against theodds, and cultural integration. We are theproducts of many transitions, from manycultures, and from backgrounds ofpoverty as well as privilege. We have livedmulticultural lives. We have embracedchallenges and made contributions thatextend far beyond our disciplines.

Moreover, each of us is on a leadershipjourney, but we rarely even acknowledgethis, let alone compare notes. Our facultycould tell hundreds of stories of overcom-ing shyness, rising to the occasion,growing into different roles, and dealingwith failure and loss. But we don’t oftentell these stories. To do so, we will need toovercome any resistance we have tosharing our wisdom.

Our personal stories are of great valuenot only to doctoral students but to allstudents who will take similar journeys,regardless of their ultimate destinations.Students don’t always get to hear thesestories from their families of origin. Whenwe share our object lessons with eagerlearners, we help them manage their ownfears of the unknown, and we shine a lighton paths by which they can achieve theiraspirations. This will not be easy but wehave created community solutions to farmore complex problems.

The second approach I would suggestis to enlist our spirit of entrepreneur-ship. Derived from the French verbentreprendre, to undertake, entrepre-neurship is central to MIT’s legacy.Entrepreneurs don’t just theorize ordream – they take action. Our historyunderscores the power of this narrativeas an institutional tradition. We shouldencourage students to apply this conceptto their roles in the MIT community aspractice for a life of taking initiative,risks, and responsibility.

Students are already comfortableseeking recognition for the clevermachines and software they invent. Thisenthusiasm can be expanded to socialinvention and learning. Student embraceof public service signals a readiness for

these opportunities. If students recognizean unmet need, at MIT or elsewhere, weshould encourage and support them inaddressing it. A legacy of involving stu-dents in all aspects of our institutional lifemeans that we can be joint agents withstudents, supporting and advising them,and engaging them as partners.

The final approach I would suggest isto teach our students how to lead in non-MIT communities. There are three basic

strategies we can use to do this. The first isto teach the theory and methods of analy-sis and change. We do a decent job of this.The second is to involve students inInstitute affairs and provide them withpractice opportunities to use the theorythat they have been taught. We do a fairjob of this. The third strategy, teachingstudents to understand themselves in anorganizational or environmental context,is where we fall short.

By expanding our efforts and workingwith our student-life deans, we could helpstudents situate themselves in organiza-tional and community settings, includingnew and uncomfortable ones, and helpthem navigate the challenging, funda-mental questions that often arise in suchsettings: Who are you? What are yourresponsibilities and opportunities in thissetting? What knowledge do you need toobtain to understand what is going on?What talents do you bring to the table?What talents do others bring? How do youset goals for yourself, and how do youmeasure personal progress or success?What problem-solving approaches workbest in this situation? What support doyou need to be effective? How do yougrow? How do you learn? From whom doyou learn?

Students who leave MIT capable offraming such questions for themselves innovel settings with people different from

themselves will be more capable ofmaking an impact with the talents theypossess. They will inspire all sorts ofpeople to engage and embrace them. Andthey will be better equipped to create andsustain caring and respectful communi-ties, wherever they go.

In the classroom, we can create oppor-tunities to empower students in creatingand sustaining caring and respectful com-munities. For example, if, as part of our

teaching, we assign students to groups, orwe encourage students to form groups, wecan take the next step of helping them usethese group opportunities to addresssome of the core questions noted aboveand, in any case, make the group a learn-ing community that works for all.Students can subsequently use this experi-ence in other kinds of groups and rela-tionships on campus. Over the course oftheir time, students will get progressivelymore challenging opportunities to leadand to follow.

The report Advancing a Respectful andCaring Community provides importantinsight into our community and offersvaluable suggestions for how we canadvance our community goals and enrichthe student experience. In particular, thereport suggests actionable steps by whichwe can more strongly activate our corevalues and make them more real. Oursuggestions for the faculty here can play arole in many of the report’s recommenda-tions. Faculty embrace of these recom-mendations would normalize these ideasfor students, reinforce administrativeleadership, and empower all staff – notjust those with formal student-life respon-sibilities – to implement them.

Students are already comfortable seeking recognitionfor the clever machines and software they invent. Thisenthusiasm can be expanded to social invention andlearning. Student embrace of public service signals areadiness for these opportunities.

Phillip L. Clay is Professor of City Planning,Department of Urban Studies and Planning([email protected]).


20

lettersSupporting the ICEO Report

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I AM WR ITI N G I N S U PP ORT of therecommendations in “Advancing aRespectful and Caring Community:Learning by Doing at MIT,” by ProfessorEdmund Bertschinger, the InstituteCommunity and Equity Officer. Thereport is comprehensive, reflecting theinput that Professor Bertschinger hasreceived from across the MIT community:from students, postdocs, staff, and faculty.The report describes a number of issues,including inequities, unconscious bias,bullying, sexual assault, and excessivestress, that hinder the ability of everyonein our community to contribute as muchas possible to our mission of education,research, and service. The report recom-

mends that MIT take action to addressthese issues, from creating an MITCompact, a statement of institutionalvalues that enable the MIT mission, toeducation of the community aboutunconscious bias and bystander interven-tion techniques to revisions of the policieson formal complaints to the gatheringand sharing of data.

The 17 recommendations of the reportare ambitious. As a first step, I suggestfocusing on the following:

• Create an MIT Compact• Launch an education campaign about

unconscious bias and bystanderintervention

• Continue implementing the recommen-dations of existing faculty equity reports

• Create and use a Community and EquityDashboard (demographic and climatedata for each department)

• Revise policies and procedures on thehandling of complaints

I urge the faculty to support the rec-ommendations in the report and theadministration to act on them. I wouldlike to thank Professor Bertschinger forhis efforts in reaching out so broadlyacross our community and in puttingtogether a comprehensive report.

Yours sincerely,Lorna J. GibsonMatoula S. Salapatas Professor ofMaterials Science and EngineeringMacVicar Faculty Fellow

Shruti Sharma ’15Billy Ndengeyingoma ’15

Advancing a Caring Community ThroughEnhanced Student-Faculty Interaction

THE UNDERGRADUATE ASSOCIATION

(UA) is the student government of MITand represents over 4,500 undergraduatestudents to faculty, administrators, andthe Corporation to enhance student life atMIT. The UA is made up of an officersteam and an executive team that includesthe chairs of 14 committees such as theCommittee on Student Support andWellness, Committee on Education, andthe newly formed Committee onInnovation. Student representation workswidely across the Institute, and the UA’sNomination Board is responsible for

nominating students to faculty and presi-dential committees. Interior to the UA, theofficers and executive team regularlyinterface with the UA Council comprisedof the Dormitory Council, the PanhellenicAssociation, the Interfraternity Council,and the Living Group Council. The struc-ture of the UA enables a representativeand efficient student leadership.

In its efforts to enhance student life,the UA continues to advocate for a sup-portive and inclusive community. We willonce again stress the importance of har-nessing strong student-faculty relations to

provide students the mentorship neededfor a successful undergraduate career.Academic and professional guidance iscrucial, but students can hugely benefitfrom personal mentorship. Results fromthe Undergraduate Enrolled Survey fromthe Provost's Institutional Research showthat 60.2% of students rarely or never talkto faculty, only 5.0% of students talk withfaculty for personal concerns, and only10.8% have engaged with faculty in aninformal, social, or networking environ-ment. On the other hand, over 88% ofstudents have done or plan to conduct


21

research with a faculty member. [2011 ESS: web.mit.edu/ir/surveys/pdf/2011_ESS_Overall.pdf, p. 6.] This indi-cates that programs such as UROPs thatcreate academic communities do not nec-essarily bridge the communication barrierbetween students and faculty. We appreci-ate the myriad of avenues for academicgrowth offered to students, but hope theseavenues can also become clear paths forpersonal growth.

The Undergraduate Enrolled StudentSurvey also reveals that 28.9% of stu-dents are dissatisfied or very dissatisfiedwith academic advising. We find that thecurrent platform for advising does not

reach its full potential as advising meet-ings are too infrequent and tend to belimited to course selection. We recom-mend advising take the form of individ-ual development programs forundergraduate students that incorporatebroader discussions of long-term goalsand ambitions. In addition, we empha-size the importance of creating an aca-demic community for undergraduates,and the significance of faculty interac-tion and positive feedback to students.Such interactions would not only elevatestudent confidence, but also foster astronger sense of belonging to a caringMIT community.

We students look up to you as role modelsand cherish our interactions with you. Caringand holistic mentorship from faculty isundoubtedly a crucial component in advanc-ing a respectful and caring community, asrecommended by ICEO Ed Bertschinger inhis MIT report of that title. [Bertschinger, E.,Advancing a Respectful and CaringCommunity: Learning by Doing at MIT.]

Kendall NowocinGraduate Student Perspective on the ICEO Report

TH E I N STITUTE COM M U N ITY AN D

Equity Officer report is a comprehensivedocument that identifies a broad spectrumof issues and prioritizations across the26,400 person MIT community. From1980-present, the graduate student body,with approximately 6,800 people, is thesingle largest demographic of the MITcommunity, outnumbering the approxi-mately 4,500 and 1,000 undergraduates andfaculty, respectively [MIT Facts FY 2015(web.mit.edu/facts/enrollment.html)].

The issues (gender, geographic, socio-economic, etc.) faced by graduate stu-dents, can be better understood by havinga clearer picture of the demographic incontext to students (graduate and under-graduate). The Graduate Student Council(GSC) views a graduate student assomeone pursuing advanced studies (pro-

fessional or graduate degree), who hasrepresentation across all departments, res-idence halls, and at large. The graduatestudent body is 60% (4080) domestic and40% (2720) international (Figure 1a, nextpage) where 60% are single, 30% have asignificant other, and 10% have a depend-ent(s). This more heavily male population(Figure 1b) has a 90% concentrationbetween the ages of 22-30 (mean of 25).The majority of their time is spent in theresearch lab or on campus, and mostprefer and live (68-76%) in close proxim-ity to campus (Figure 1c), with the largestpercentage increase from 2003-2013 beingCambridge (near). Graduate students areextremely price sensitive, with an approx-imate stipend of $35,000 with 50-58%going to housing (rent, utilities, and localtransportation). This largest demographic

of the MIT community affects MIT’ssense of community, research productiv-ity, and competitive edge.

The report has many recommenda-tions that resonate with the graduatecommunity, with these being the topthree:

• The C1 recommendation for the com-munity-wide Task Force on the MITCompact (TFMC) should ideally haveproportional representation based onMIT’s population, due to the many MITcommunity stakeholders. The additionalquestion of “What do we want out of ourMIT experience?” should be added.

Shruti Sharma is a senior in the Departmentof Materials Science and Engineering and UAPresident ([email protected]);Billy Ndengeyingoma is a senior in theDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineeringand UA Vice President ([email protected]).



22

• The report’s recommendation foruniform medical, health, and wellnessresources for the MIT community isstrongly supported by graduate students.There are several areas where graduatestudent resources need improvement.Funded graduate students have coveredhealth insurance, but non-funded grad-uate students and family members donot. The graduate dental coverage is notadequate, and access to theemployee/postdoc plan should be per-mitted. Graduate students with familymember(s), especially those interna-tional, are the most in need of additionalsupport. A need-based grant proposal isbeing developed by the GSC and ODGE(Office of the Dean for GraduateEducation), and some peer intuitionshave a funded program. TheMassachusetts Commission AgainstDiscrimination (MCAD) policy ofgender-neutral parental leave that tookeffect this April 7 should apply to stu-dents. Many of these efforts need facultysupport, and fundraising or endow-ments should be part of MIT’s capitalcampaign.

• The recommendations on awareness,assessment, feedback, and developmentof creative activities should leverageexisting resources and channels toexpand them where appropriate. TheGSC and ODGE consolidating graduatestudent’s rights and responsibilities intoa single document can be a starting pointfor awareness. A formal mechanism,potentially an Institute Committee onHealth and Wellness, can help assess andestablish an appropriate interface forstudent’s concerns. The DSL, GSC, UA(Undergraduate Association), andhousemasters are developing a stream-lined process for student policy review,and the lessons learned could be appliedto other MIT policies. The GSC is acentral hub that provides funds andinformation to the graduate studentbody, and should be leveraged to spark

engagement, publicize relevant informa-tion, and expand the existing fundingconduits. Existing programs oversub-scribed and highly recommended by stu-dents, for example conflict managementtraining, should be expanded. Studentswould like to see the ICEO, faculty, andsenior leadership promote and recognizethose that get involved in these activitieson a non-periodic basis.

There are many more recommenda-tions the ICEO report makes that canbenefit the MIT community and bringabout positive change. The GSC wouldlike to thank Professor Bertschinger forhis continual improvement of the MITcommunity.

Graduate Student Perspective Nowocin, from preceding page

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

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Student Citizenship (2014)

U.S. Citizen U.S. Permanent Resident International

1176 995 2055

2739 1917

2457

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Doctoral Students Master Students Undergraduates

Enrollment by Gender (2014)

Female Male

MIT On Campus, 37.6%

Cambridge (near), 30.6%

Cambridge (far), 6.2%

Somerville, 7.6%

Boston, 7.6%

Other MA, 6.3%

Brookline, 1.3%

Allston/Brighton,

0.8% Outside MA, 2.0%

Location by Percent (2013)

Figure 1a – c a) FY15 student (UG and G) geographic distribution.

b) FY15 student (UG and G) gender by degree seeking distribution. c) FY13 survey on graduate student living.

[Information from the GSC Housing and Community Affairs Committee withassistance from Institutional Research.]

Kendall Nowocin is a graduate student in theDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science and GSC President([email protected]).


23

Lydia SnoverMicah AltmanRobert E. Campanella

ORCID Researcher Identifiers to beIntegrated into MIT Systems Beginning this Summer

O R C I D ( O P E N R E S E A R C H E R &

Contributor ID), the community stan-dard for identification of contributors inscholarly communication, is being inte-grated into MIT systems. The Office of theProvost, the MIT Libraries, andInformation Services and Technology areworking together, in coordination withOSP, ODGE, the Office of the Registrar,Human Resources, and the Office of theVPR, to implement ORCIDs at MIT. Weplan to integrate ORCID into MITsystems, to make it easy for all members ofthe MIT community to obtain andmanage ORCID identifiers, and to distrib-ute ORCIDs to current scholars at MIT.

The Institute has increasing responsi-bility for evaluating and understandingthe success of its scholars, postdocs, andstudents. Collecting complete, compre-hensive, and accurate information aboutresearch publications and other scholarlyoutputs is a persistent hurdle for MIT. Asubstantial part of this challenge – whichORCID aims to solve – is linking outputsto scholars, when individuals have namesin common or names that have changedover time; or when publishers representnames in different forms, or make errorsin recording names. ORCID solves thisproblem by providing an open persistentnumeric identifier that distinguishes eachresearcher from every other.

ORCID supports the creation of a per-manent, clear, and unambiguous record ofscholarly communication by enabling reli-able attribution of authors and contribu-tors. ORCID is an open, non-profit,community-based effort to provide a reg-istry of unique researcher identifiers and amethod of linking research-related items,such as articles, to these identifiers.ORCIDs offer a mechanism that distin-guishes individuals with common names,

and is not affected by name changes, cul-tural differences in name order, inconsis-tent abbreviations (and name formats), oruse of different alphabets. And ORCID isresearcher-controlled; the researcheralways has the final word over informationthat is included in their ORCID record.

MIT will use ORCID to automaticallyupdate the electronic professional record,and as an aid to identifying studentoutputs and accreditation. Use ofORCIDs will also increase the quality ofinformation in MIT’s Open Access articlecollections, and decrease the cost of popu-lating it.

For individual scholars, ORCIDsprovide a means to distinguish between aresearcher and other authors with identi-cal or similar names. ORCIDs linktogether all of a researcher’s works even ifthey have used different names over theircareer. ORCIDs make it easier for others(e.g., grant funders) to find a researcher’sresearch output. ORCIDs help to ensurethat a researcher’s work is clearly attrib-uted to them.

Publishers and funders are usingORCID to create automated links betweena researcher and his/her articles anddatasets (as well as other research-relateditems) through integration in manuscriptand grant submission workflows. Nearlyall major publishers and manuscript sub-mission systems support ORCID, andmany are prompting authors to createORCIDs during the submission process.Funders and related agencies are usingORCIDs to aid in the evaluation processand to streamline their submission andreporting processes. For example, NIH hasintegrated ORCIDs into the inter-agencybiosketch platform SciENcv. And the U.S.D.O.E. has integrated ORCIDs into itsgrant submission system.

A growing number of universities arenow systematically registering ORCIDson behalf of their researchers and studentsand automatically incorporating theseinto university systems. At MIT, ORCIDidentifiers will be integrated into keysystems including the ElectronicProfessional Record, DSpace, and the MITdata warehouse.

The planned implementation at MITincludes several phases. The first phase –which will be completed in May, is toprepare for ORCID deployment by devel-oping local systems integration; gatheringinformation on the ORCIDs already reg-istered by members of the MIT commu-nity; and developing supportingdocumentation. The second phase, sched-uled for this summer, will be to distributeORCID IDs to a selected DLC. The thirdphase, scheduled for late summer, will beto distribute ORCID IDs to all faculty, fol-lowed by postdoctoral researchers, gradu-ate students, and other professional staff.

As the year progresses, the Office of theProvost will provide progress updates, andwill begin to notify individual depart-ments and faculty about their ORCIDregistration. Later this summer, informa-tion about ORCID integration will beavailable through the Libraries’ authoridentifier resources page: libguides.mit.edu/authorids; and the Libraries will provideconsulting for MIT community members.In the interim, if you have any questions,please contact Lydia Snover or MicahAltman.

Lydia Snover is Director of InstitutionalResearch ([email protected]);Micah Altman is Director of Research andHead/Scientist Program on InformationScience, MIT Libraries ([email protected]);Robert E. Campanella is Manager, Identity &Access Management, IS&T ([email protected]).


M.I.T. NumbersMIT Campus Research Expenditures*

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

1940

19

42

1944

19

46

1948

19

50

1952

19

54

1956

19

58

1960

19

62

1964

19

66

1968

19

70

1972

19

74

1976

19

78

1980

19

82

1984

19

86

1988

19

90

1992

19

94

1996

19

98

2000

20

02

2004

20

06

2008

20

10

2012

20

14

Mill

ions

Campus Federal Campus Non Federal Campus % Federal excluding Broad

*(excludes Broad Institute)in Constant $ (2014 = 100)

Documents

MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XXVII No. 4, March/April 2015web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/274/fnl274.pdf · We recommend that faculty read the letter in this issue in opposition and the response