in this issue we offer analyses on how the Institute is functioning: “Womenat MIT” and “Is This Any Way to Run a University?” (below), and “Diversity is NotEnough” (page 9); Faculty Chair Susan Silbey on “The Obligations of Citizenship”(page 4); a report on federal R&D funding from MIT’s Washington Office (page 10);and a new feature from Dr. Emeritus Beaver (page 17).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXX No. 5May/June 2018

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 12

Is This Any Way toRun a University?

Women at MIT

continued on page 6

GREETINGS TO YOU THE GRADUATES

– and to your families! We join with the thousands of familymembers and friends gathered forCommencement, in sharing the excite-ment of your graduation. MIT’s Facultyvalue and take pride in your accomplish-ments as MIT’s new class of 2018.Teaching and mentoring you has been asource of deep satisfaction. As you havelearned and grown, absorbing and gener-ating knowledge and conceiving newinsights, so have we. Now, as you take thenext steps along career paths, your contri-butions to your communities and tosociety will be among the most gratifyingresults of our academic efforts. We hope you will look back on youryears at the Institute aware that your pres-ence and involvement enhanced the MITenvironment and contributed to the

EditorialA Letter to the Class of 2018

continued on page 3

MIT Commencement

Manduhai Buyandelger

I N 1 97 2 , W H E N I ( R U T H P E R RY )

first came to MIT, the federal government– and especially the Department ofDefense (DOD) – subsidized the Institute’sbudget to a large extent. A number offaculty and students objected to the waythis funding by the war machine changedresearch priorities and slanted educationalobjectives. As federal funding was with-drawn, the Institute increasingly turned tocorporations for financial support. Thechange was not salutary. Federal fundinghad trickled down better; those DODdollars sometimes subsidized the teachingof literature and philosophy and projectsin the arts; and while there was uneaseabout the agenda of the Pentagon’sresearch, it seemed right and proper thatthe federal government should supporthigher education beyond the narrow scopeof applied research.

Ruth Perry and Yarden Katz

A S M I T W E LC O M E S I T S incomingstudents, 46 percent of whom are women,it also bids farewell to almost the samepercentage of young women who aregraduating from MIT. What future awaitsthese women at MIT and beyond as theyimmerse themselves in a university and inprofessions that are traditionally associ-ated with men and their ways of achiev-ing success? In the context of the global#MeToo movement, it is ever morecrucial to face our challenges and con-tinue to create a culture of inclusion andsafety – which are necessary for our stu-dents to thrive, not only while they are atMIT, but beyond it as they go out into theworld. What is appallingly clear by now is thatcases of sexual harassments are notepisodic events that occur outside of theeveryday, but rather are part of the struc-

2

Vol. XXX No. 5 May/June 2018

Aron BernsteinPhysics

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

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 fnl@mit.edu

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

01 Women at MIT Manduhai Buyandelger 01 Is This Any Way to Run a University? Ruth Perry and Yarden Katz

Editorial 01 A Letter to the Class of 2018

From The 04 The Obligations of CitizenshipFaculty Chair Susan S. Silbey

09 Diversity is Not Enough Ceasar McDowell

Update From 10 The Positive Near-Term Picture Washington for Federal Research Funding David Goldston

14 Engineering Enrollment Data at MIT Louis Bucciarelli

17 Looking Forward/Looking Backward Across the Retirement Line Dr. Emeritus Beaver 18 Student Leaders Emerge at MIT Conference to Address Danger of Nuclear War Jonathan King

Letters 19 Promoting Mental Health and Well-Being at MIT Edmund Bertschinger

M.I.T. Numbers 20 from the 2018 Senior Survey

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credit: Page1: MIT Emergency Management

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

3

experience of the coming classes. Notethat by remaining active as alumni youcan continue to have a positive impact onthe Institute’s work and environment. You will be entering a world of consid-erable uncertainty and an increased levelof social and political polarization. Afterthe last presidential election, you rose tothe challenges presented by the newadministration and its method of govern-ing. Many of you joined efforts to protectinternational members of our communityfrom the threat of exclusion or deporta-tion. You became attentive to issues suchas immigration, climate change, nucleardisarmament, the reduction of globalpoverty, and the need to protect funda-mental democratic rights. Many of youjoined or supported the Women’s March,the March for Science, and the March forClimate. The values of scientific investigationand assessment, previously taken forgranted, have now become arenas for con-tention and even denial. Defending thesevalues will require the urgent involvement

of us all. In the international area, con-flicts among nations that may have onceseemed very far away have intensified. Wehave to take more seriously our responsi-bilities as citizens to ensure that our

nation’s actions in the world increase theprospects of peace and prosperity for theworld’s peoples, rather than underminingthem. During your years with us, we on thefaculty have watched the burgeoning ofyour many talents, your creative ambi-tions, your resilience in the face of set-backs, your thoughtful and quirkyself-expression, your creative and entre-

preneurial energy, and your myriadachievements. We hope that, as yourvarious individual paths become clearer,you will put your powers to work onsolving some of the problems that con-

front us all, and on making our societymore responsibly productive and moresupportive of those in need. On behalf ofthe entire faculty, we wish you vision,strength, commitment, wisdom, success,and much happiness in addressing thesechallenges.

The Editorial Board of the MIT Faculty Newsletter

A Letter to the Class of 2018continued from page 1

You will be entering a world of considerable uncertaintyand an increased level of social and political polarization.After the last presidential election, you rose to thechallenges presented by the new administration and itsmethod of governing. Many of you joined efforts toprotect international members of our community fromthe threat of exclusion or deportation.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

4

Susan S. SilbeyFrom The Faculty ChairThe Obligations of Citizenship

S EVE RAL M ONTH S AG O, PresidentRafael Reif asked me to lead a discussionat Academic Council about what we meanwhen we talk about the obligations of cit-izenship. With the assistance of HASTSgraduate student Clare Kim (who has alsobeen the TA for the class on “MIT andSlavery”), I put together some thoughtsthat I hoped would invite debate aboutour obligations as teachers and scholars toeducate responsible citizens. I am sharingthose notes in this final column of theyear, with similar expectations to generatea wider discussion. What do we mean when we use theword citizenship? For any cultural analy-sis, it is important to begin by collectingcommon uses. Over the centuries, thereare some patterns in the use of the termcitizen. We can start with the Latin rootsin civitas, meaning “city.” From there, wecan see a thread of narrow conceptions ofthe citizen as a subject, a legal classifica-tion – for example, as a carrier of a pass-port – with no further specification orimplication than the individual as being asubject of state power. There are broaderconceptions also, though: citizen as amember of some entity, signifying inclu-sion rather than subjection, and thus con-nectedness. Here, the citizen exists inrelation to others and thus incurs obliga-tions, duties, responsibilities to the wholeof which the citizen is a part. Turning to an early reference of thissort, Aristotle articulated a form of citi-zenship grounded in the polis, arguingthat human potential could be fully real-ized only within a political community,such as the Athenian city-state.Citizenship, by this usage, bestowed “thepower to take part in the deliberative or

judicial administration;” however, “thegood citizen should know and have thecapacity both to rule and be ruled, andthis very thing is the virtue of a citizen.”However, because Aristotle believed thatpeople played roles appropriate to theirstatus within a (natural) social hierarchy,only some persons qualified as politai orcitizens. For him, Athenian citizens weremales aged 20 or over, descendants of anAthenian citizen family, a patriarch of ahousehold, a warrior possessing the armsand ability to fight, and a master ofenslaved others. Women, slaves, artisans,and foreigners were inherited statusesexcluded from the category of politai (cit-izens). Only those, Aristotle reasoned,with the freedom to deliberate withoutthe constraints of necessity, could partici-pate in governing in the public’s interest. Over time, the concept of citizenshipwas extended and became central to legit-imating the modern state. Extensionsbegin in Rome; as the Republic (509 BC)continually annexed territory, citizenshipwas offered to the foreign communities itsought to absorb in its expanding jurisdic-tion. Under the Empire (beginning 100 BC),citizenship was granted to whomever theEmperor wished and as a personal rewardrather than sign of territorial member-ship. Perhaps as a result, citizenshipbecame more passive over this time,sought no longer for its political signifi-cance but for the honor it carried. By 202 AD,however, citizenship was extended to allfree inhabitants of conquered territoriesincorporated within the empire. The growth of jurisprudence under theRoman Empire helped transform citizen-ship from a political status (subjectswithin the territory) to a legal status,

which conferred certain rights and pro-tections. Nonetheless, despite citizenship’smore inclusive status there, Roman citi-zens never possessed anything like thepolitical influence of the more limited andexclusive population of Athenian citizens.Most of the power still rested with theRoman Senate, a group of nobles distinctfrom the rest of the population, but likethe Athenian citizens, relatively free fromthe demands of necessity. During the long, thousand-yeardecline of European monarchies (andpolitical power of the Catholic Church),Western notions of citizen evolved frombeing one subject to state power to mem-bership in a collective and the raisond’etre of the modern constitutionalstate. The American and FrenchRevolutions signal the institutional devel-opment of the state as a separate entitywith specific subject members called citi-zens. The French Declaration of theRights of Man coupled the notion of indi-vidual freedoms with principles of univer-sality, equality, and community, while theAmerican Declaration of Independencepressed more strongly on individualrights, rather than collective goods. Theseformulas preserve a dualism between the“public” political citizen, who acts as a col-lective agent and lawmaker (the “people”or the “nation”), and the private, “legal”citizen, who is a subject of the law and thepossessor of “natural” rights to liberty,property, and pursuit of happiness. Goodcitizenship (or what we might call civicvirtue), seems enshrined in the institu-tional processes, while the law protects(and sets boundaries, albeit regularlyshifting) on selfish citizens’ rights topursue their personal interests.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

5

In his now classic text, Citizenship andSocial Class (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1950), Sociologist T.H.Marshall described the modern develop-ment of citizenship as the product of threeinterrelated processes of state building,the emergence of commercial and indus-trial society, and the construction of anational consciousness, with all threedriven forward by class struggle and war.The net effect, however, was to create a“people,” who were entitled to be treatedas equals before the law and possessed ofequal rights to buy and sell goods, serv-ices, and labor; whose interests were over-seen by a sovereign constitutionallydefined political authority; and whoshared a national identity that shapedtheir alliance to both each other and totheir state. Marshall described threeperiods in the historical evolution ofmodern citizenship as different groupsfought to attain equal status as fullmembers of the community. The firstperiod, from the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries, saw the consolida-tion of the civil rights needed to engage ina range of social and economic activities,from the freedoms to own property andexchange goods, to liberty of thought andconscience. The second period, from theend of the eighteenth century to the startof the twentieth, coincided with thegaining of political rights to vote and standfor election, to fully participate in the gov-erning processes and political institutions.The third period, from the end of thenineteenth to the mid-twentieth, involvedthe creation of social rights that gave citi-zens the right to share in the full heritageand common standards of a civilized – themodern extension of civitas – society. Before concluding, I would like to offera final, empirically derived notion of citi-zenship, which emerged in the work ofsome of my graduate students and col-leagues as we observed public agency reg-ulators, inspectors, prosecutors, privatemanagers, and microloan officers across arange of settings. We observed that someindividuals did their work differently thanothers, and in many cases better. We

ended up calling these individuals “socio-logical citizens.” In case studies rangingfrom Australia to France, Mexico, Brazil,and the U.S., we saw how some organiza-tional agents purposively organize them-selves and their work as a link in a complexweb of interactions with others. We use theword “citizen” to name these workers

because they recognize their embedded-ness in a network of relations with otherson whom their occupational and profes-sional performance was dependent(rather than see their job as a cabin ofdemarcated tasks, limited interests andresponsibilities as many others do).Instead of focusing only on their localenvironments, these actors view theirorganizations or states as a dynamic entityin which their own role was simultane-ously insignificant by itself and yet essentialto the whole. These responsible citizenssaw the organization (or state) as theoutcome of human decisions, as well asindecisions, and planning as well as trialand error. With awareness that not every-thing goes as planned, the sociologicalcitizen regularly reached beyond what wasprescribed to meet organizational goalsand perform their duties. I offer this con-ception of the citizen as one who is essen-tial and yet insignificant by herself orhimself, who has agency and yet is unableto act entirely alone. We turn to the notion of citizenshiptoday because it seems essential toaddressing the most critical challengesof our moment – e.g., the consequencesof climate change, proliferation of nuclearweapons, increasing divide between richand poor, retreats from democracy across

the globe. Yet, popular and sustained cri-tiques decry the likelihood of adequatelyresolving these persistently competing,always contested interpretations of citi-zenship. Efforts to determine who is acitizen, and what is owed by and to citi-zens, have always – perhaps inadvertentlybut sometimes quite violently – denied

the protections of citizenship to manywithin our borders. For example, if weadopt responsible citizenship as an educa-tional goal, what does it mean if some stu-dents will have more access to that rightthan others? Despite this conundrum, Ioffer an aspiration to citizenship as acounterpoint to the more ubiquitous con-ceptions of student as consumer, or dis-ruptive innovator, insisting on a differentconception of self in relation to others, tothe community, the Institute, and to thepolity. Here, at MIT, citizenship seemsessential to secure our fundamental schol-arly integrity, as well as the long-termsecurity of the Institute itself. In the largernational and global arenas, perhaps amore radical and capacious, less individu-alistic notion of citizenship can ignite thecreativity and energy to address these exis-tential threats. If we take responsible citi-zenship as a worthy aspiration for ourwork, would we change what we do, whatwe require of our students, or ourselves? Icannot answer these questions alone, butperhaps they are worthy of some widerconversations.

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

We turn to the notion of citizenship today because itseems essential to addressing the most criticalchallenges of our moment – e.g., the consequences ofclimate change, proliferation of nuclear weapons,increasing divide between rich and poor, retreats fromdemocracy across the globe.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

6

Corporate funding was neither so gen-erous nor so far reaching. There was lesstolerance for educational purposes andinstead of a broad mandate for the publicgood (or the rhetoric for it) these newsponsors focused more narrowly on theirown special business interests. In additionto a more instrumental focus, this fundingdid not last so long, results were expectedmore quickly, and there was little interestin “basic” research. Those of us who hadopposed the corrosive effects of DODfunding were surprised, perhaps naively,to realize that this new corporate fundingstifled the spirit of free inquiry even morethan federal arrangements had done. Fiftyyears later, universities themselves havebeen transformed to run like corpora-tions, top-down and hierarchical, relyingon faceless bureaucracies rather than col-legial debate and decision-making,viewing research through the same instru-mental gaze as their corporate sponsors,and expanding their managerial capacitiesat the expense of research and teaching.1

By now, the line between educationand business has all but dissolved.Corporations lease campus land for theircommercial buildings; they help to directresearch in campus labs; they subsidizeprograms designed to teach students howto fit into existing corporate structures.Students are being prepared for lives ascogs in the machine – rather than asengaged citizens of the world. The atmos-phere encourages students to work ontheir “pitches” rather than identify prob-lematic assumptions in arguments.Students’ imaginations are trained todevelop new commodities and open newmarkets rather than to think about waysto achieve human fulfillment for all. Weshould be cultivating their minds asbroadly as possible rather than trainingthem to fill cubicles in bland multination-als. We end up reproducing the view that

the “real world” is inevitably one of com-petition, anxiety, long hours of work, iso-lation, fear, and self-doubt. MIT, like its peer institutions, hasformed many corporate partnerships. Theword “partner” itself deserves some atten-tion. Used as a legal term in the eighteenthcentury, “partner” has always covered amultitude of sins. The legal meaning wasinvented to create a legal entity to shareprofit but avoid personal liability.

Nowadays it is used as a blanket term forthose who share their lives, a gender-blindterm designed to neutralize the sexualarrangements it designates. In the presentcontext, “partnering” continues to meanwhat it meant in the eighteenth century:an association whose precise terms arehidden, but whose public aspect isneutral, professional, and sanitized. MIT’s partnerships are generally nego-tiated confidentially, without input fromthe greater campus community. Thesepartnerships have become more normal-ized over time, and more explicit. Lastyear, IBM committed 240 million dollarsto build an Artificial Intelligence (AI)research laboratory at MIT, whose aim isto commercialize AI research for variousindustries (including defense). This cor-porate-academic hybrid gives IBM accessto Course 6 (Electrical Engineering andComputer Science) and Course 9 (Brainand Cognitive Sciences) faculty, students,and resources. While it is hard to judgeprecisely, as only those involved know theterms of the arrangement, IBM is boundto have immense power in shaping MIT’sresearch in this area. This partnership isjust one of many to make up MIT’s unfor-

tunately named “IQ” (Intelligence Quest)initiative.2 Yet such alliances are presentedas if there’s no tension between the corpo-rate agenda and MIT’s professed educa-tional and research mission.

When I (Yarden Katz) first came toMIT in 2007 for graduate school, I learnedthat such corporate partnerships are busi-ness as usual on campus. But it took moretime for me to see, through conversations

with fellow graduate students, that this ismore than just a story of academics pur-suing an agenda in line with their corpo-rate sponsors – that academic inquiryitself is being transformed to take on anincreasingly corporate character.Academic discourse is now drenched inpublic relations-speak and a hyper-mas-culinized rhetoric of “impact” and “inno-vation,” which all too often meansfunneling the labor of a broad, and gener-ally publicly funded, academic collective,towards the creation of private wealth forthe few. This character of the university mani-fests in part through the relentless pursuitof “intellectual property.” The Instituteembarks on a kind of patent colonialism,seeking to parcel off the largest piece ofcollectively developed knowledge andtechnology for its own startups andindustry partners. Whole wings of theuniversity can be mobilized to rehearsetalking points in the service of legalbattles, such as the one waged over patents

1 For an analysis of the expansion ofadministration in universities, seeGinsberg, B. The Fall of the Faculty (2011).

2 See Manning, K. R. “Naming the MITIntelligence Quest.” MIT FacultyNewsletter, Vol. XXX No. 4.

Is This Any Way to Run a University?Perry and Katz, from page 1

By now, the line between education and business has allbut dissolved. Corporations lease campus land for theircommercial buildings; they help to direct research incampus labs; they subsidize programs designed to teachstudents how to fit into existing corporate structures.Students are being prepared for lives as cogs in themachine – rather than as engaged citizens of the world.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

7

to the genome-editing system CRISPR.3

Media spectacles are staged and millionsare spent.4 The result is a profoundly anti-scientific discourse that poisons the verywell of scientific collaboration that it payslip service to. In the past, groups like Science for thePeople, born out of resistance to theVietnam war, protested the acceleratingcorporatization of academic science.Sheldon Krimsky, writing for the group’smagazine in 1985, concluded that itwould soon be hard to find biomedicalresearchers on campus without some tiesto the drug industry.5 Krimsky turned outto be correct6 but his prediction appliesfar beyond biomedicine. MIT in fact helped extend and nor-malize the corporate model of researchthat Krimsky and others worried about.The MIT Media Lab, for instance, isfunded by “member companies” who inexchange receive IP rights to the labora-tory’s work. The members list includespowerful corporations from nearly everyindustry that urgently needs to be reimag-ined: the fossil fuels industry (Exxon-Mobil), big pharma (Novartis,Hoffman-LaRoche, Takeda), big tech(Google, Twitter, IBM, Intel, Cisco),weapons developers (Northrop-Grumman), and big media (21st CenturyFox, Comcast, Verizon). Nonetheless, the belief that scientificinquiry is always disinterested, apolitical,

and value-free is entrenched enough sothat some academics still believe that theirwork is entirely uncompromised by cor-porate and military ties. Yet in so manyareas that demand critical social engage-ment alongside techno-scientific knowl-edge, this has proved illusory. For one, themainstream conversation is now wakingup to the perils of a world governed bySilicon Valley and the ensuing damages of“surveillance capitalism.”7 Is it realistic to

expect academics to scrutinize thesetechno-political systems, much less tohelp build alternatives, when their institu-tions share so much with the owners ofthese systems? Even as a critical conversation aboutthe techno-world emerges in the main-stream, MIT continues to look to SiliconValley for wisdom and guidance. EricSchmidt, the former CEO of Google, whonotoriously proclaimed the end of indi-vidual privacy,8 was appointed this year tobe special MIT fellow and advisor to theuniversity’s AI initiative.9 In a recent fire-side chat at the launch of MIT “IQ”,President Reif contrasted Alphabet – acompany where all activities can bemanaged in top-down fashion – with uni-versities, which are more decentralized.

Reif then asked Schmidt, “What can aplace like MIT – what can academia do?How can we help?”, essentially asking, howcan MIT help, and perhaps be more like,the Googles of the world. The university’s business model entan-gles it in compromises that are rarelyexplored on campus. For instance, TheBroad Institute has licensed its CRISPRgenome-editing patent to DuPont for usein developing agricultural applications.

This was spun by the institute as “democ-ratic” licensing,10 although it is hard tosquare this rhetoric with DuPont’s sizeand dominance, and its decades-longrecord of polluting the environment withthe toxic chemical C8, which has sincebeen linked to various cancers – the samediseases that the Broad Institute claims itis seeking to understand and alleviate.Our university has ties to corporationsthat have interests and policies antitheticalto our declared educational and ethicalmission. In 2012, the Broad also received a$32.5M commitment from SethKlarman’s foundation to launch theKlarman Cell Observatory.11 Klarman is

3 See Katz, Y. “Who Owns MolecularBiology?” Boston Review (2015).4 For MIT’s involvement in media warover CRISPR, see Hall, S. “TheEmbarrassing, Destructive Fight overBiotech’s Big Breakthrough.” ScientificAmerican (2016), and Katz, Y. “PatentlyBiased.” Jacobin (2016). Also: CBS 60Minutes episode on CRISPR, Apr. 29, 2018.5 Krimsky, S. “The Corporate Capture ofGenetic Technologies: Scientists’Corporate Affiliations Surveyed.” Sciencefor the People Magazine (1985).6 See Angell, M. “Is Academic Medicinefor Sale?” The New England Journal ofMedicine (2000) and Mirowski, P. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. (2011)

7 See Zuboff, S. “The Secrets ofSurveillance Capitalism.” FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung (2016)8 “Google CEO Eric Schmidt Dismissesthe Importance of Privacy.” ElectronicFrontier Foundation, Dec. 10, 2009.9 “Eric Schmidt to join MIT as visitinginnovation fellow.” MIT News, Feb. 5,2018.

10 Broad partnership with DuPont onagricultural application of CRISPR. See“DuPont vs. the World: Chemical GiantCovered Up Health Risks of TeflonContamination Across Globe,”DemocracyNow, Jan. 28, 2018.11 “Klarman Family Foundation to fundnew Cell Observatory.” The HarvardGazette (2012).

continued on next page

MIT in fact helped extend and normalize the corporatemodel of research that Krimsky and others worriedabout. The MIT Media Lab, for instance, is funded by“member companies” who in exchange receive IP rightsto the laboratory’s work. The members list includespowerful corporations from nearly every industry thaturgently needs to be reimagined . . . .

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

8

the manager of the Baupost Group, ahedge fund that holds much of the debtover Puerto Rico. As the island was devas-tated by Hurricane Maria and suffocatedby these financiers, there were campusprotests against Baupost across thecountry.12 Students at universities whoseendowments are invested in the hedgefund, such as Harvard, Princeton, andYale, called on their schools to divest. MIT,however, has remained silent. Some students, working at themargins, are the exceptions to this pictureof the university. But it is easier for theadministration to promote start-upculture and claim to “hack” at big issuesthan it is to listen to their voices. Why elsewould the administration refuse toembrace the guidance of passionate stu-dents who, in a 116-day long sit in,showed MIT the way to fossil fuel divest-ment? Instead, the administration put on“Solve,” a TED-like networking opportu-nity for university decision-makers, theirconnected donors, and “members” whopay $5,000 to participate. With respect tothe climate, Solve is arrogantly premisedthat “We” at MIT can “Solve” the climateusing our technological prowess. Thistechnocratic framing sidelines the impor-

tant political and social dimensions ofclimate issues. It also further marginalizesother communities, outside the wealthynetworked spheres that Solve is targeting,that have not only thought of different

ways to care for the earth, but are alsolikely to pay the heaviest price for climatecatastrophes. While the effects of corporate “part-nering” on science and engineering arethe easiest to see, the business model ofour university can also cast a shadowupon subjects in the humanities andsocial sciences. The profit motive is not agood model for either research or educa-tion. It commodifies thought and empha-sizes what can be quickly done, is “hot,” or“trendy” over the thorough, painstaking,and valuable work that contributes to ourcollective mosaic of knowledge. It fosterscompetitiveness rather than cooperation,puts constraints on free speech aboutfunders and their business interests, andencourages cynical materialism at theexpense of idealism. It turns students intoconsumers and forces faculty to offer what

“sells” rather than what contributes to ameaningful education. Students areencouraged to think of themselves ascommodities and how to “market” them-selves in a ruthlessly competitive environ-

ment. Attending university becomes moreof a resume-enhancing activity than anopportunity for enrichment throughstudy and discussion with others. The space for seeking un-pragmatictruths on campus is shrinking. It is col-lapsing under the weight of marketingand markets. Faculty ought to learn from,and make alliances with those students,community members, as well as col-leagues at neighboring schools who wantto resist these trends. Working together,perhaps we can make more room for dif-ferent kinds of thinking on campus.

12 “Harvard’s Endowment Is ProfitingFrom Puerto Rico’s Debt As The Island’sSchools Face Crippling Cuts.” TheIntercept (2018). See also: “Baupost’sPuerto Rico Debt Holdings Targeted inCampus Protests,” Bloomberg (2018).

Is This Any Way to Run A Univeristy?Perry and Katz, from preceding page

While the effects of corporate “partnering” on scienceand engineering are the easiest to see, the businessmodel of our university can also cast a shadow uponsubjects in the humanities and social sciences. Theprofit motive is not a good model for either research oreducation. It commodifies thought and emphasizes whatcan be quickly done, is “hot,” or “trendy” over thethorough, painstaking, and valuable work thatcontributes to our collective mosaic of knowledge.

Ruth Perry is the Ann Fetter FriedlaenderProfessor of Humanities on the LiteratureFaculty and a MacVicar Fellow(rperry@mit.edu);Yarden Katz is a fellow at Harvard MedicalSchool. He received his PhD in Brain andCognitive Sciences from MIT in 2014(yarden@yardenkatz.com).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

9

Ceasar McDowellDiversity is Not Enough

ON MAY 1, 1992, three days after an all-white jury failed to convict three whitepolice officers for brutally beating him,Rodney King pleaded for an end to theensuing LA Uprising: “. . . can we all getalong? Can we, can we get along?” A month later, MIT President CharlesVest reminded the graduating class thatthere was no greater goal “than that ofrestoring some modicum of tolerance andcivility in this country and this world.” Hewent on to set this charge for the audience:

“You must help to stem the centrifugal forcesthat would pull us apart. We need tolerance,not divisiveness; mutual respect, not disdain;love, not hate; civility, not revenge; hardwork, not empty rhetoric; excellence, notmediocrity; grand strategies, not just tactics.”

Two voices, 3,000 miles apart. Oneblack, one white. One speaking to the dis-heartened and marginalized, the other tothe hopeful and privileged. In the ensuing26 years, MIT has pursued inclusion anddiversity as the means to build a culture oftolerance, mutual respect, love, and civil-ity, all grounded in hard work and excel-lence. But inclusion and diversity, whilenecessary, do not represent a sufficientresponse to the primary challenge thiscountry and the world face: the belief in ahierarchy of human value. This is thebelief that whiteness is the pure race andall other races are less valuable. Your valueas a human being decreases as the pig-mentation in your skin increases. It is thisbelief that helped fuel chattel slavery andthe enduring carnage that resulted fromwhite privilege. MIT seeks to Make the World a BetterPlace. As a leading institution in science,technology, engineering, and the designand development of urban spaces there is arole for MIT in helping the world be a

better and, I would add, a more just andequitable place. MIT can do this by sharingknowledge, spurring innovation, andpreparing the next generation of leaders.But MIT will only fulfill this potential

when we acknowledge that, like the major-ity of academic institutions in this country,the Institute is at the very least tainted, ifnot partially propelled, by the history ofslavery and the ongoing practices of racismand white privilege in America. ProfessorCraig Wilder’s innovative “MIT andSlavery” class launched MIT’s investigationinto its ties to slavery, reminding us that aswe learn more about the historical originsof the Institute’s link to slavery we mustalso accept without question that thecurrent culture, structure, and aspirationsof MIT are defined by “whiteness and itscorresponding privilege.” In short, this is a call for MIT to takesteps to becoming an anti-racist organiza-tion. This is the first step in acknowledgingand working to undo the role of white priv-ilege in the day-to-day workings of MIT. To be an anti-racist organization meansto accept without question that a belief ina hierarchy of human value and whiteprivilege are operating at every level of theInstitute. It means developing a strategyfor unmasking and undoing this in everypart of the Institute. Clearly, it can’t bedone everywhere at the same time, but itcan be made clear that it will be doneeverywhere within a specific timeframe. Itmeans providing leadership across theInstitute with the knowledge and skillsneeded to move the institution throughthis work. It means doing whatever it takesto diversify across the Institute. It meansbeing dedicated to equipping itself and

those it educates to be leaders in disrupt-ing and dismantling the daily practicesthat continue to uphold white privilege. Where to start. Let me make threesimple suggestions.

• Conduct an anti-racist assessment ofevery School, using recommendationsand the analysis of Craig Wilder andMelissa Nobles, whose work should con-tinue and be fully funded.

• Increase the Target of Opportunitiesslots for junior and senior faculty of coloracross all departments.

• Over the next five years add a special-ist on anti-racist practices and strategiesto every Visiting Committee.

Final note. In my work I promote theconcept of Design From the Margins. Theidea here is that if you design an interven-tion or change to work for (and with) thosewho are most marginalized, then youinevitably cover them and those who are inthe majority. Within the structure of theUnited States, it is blackness that defines thefundamental marginal group. The margin-alization of blacks is in the origin story ofthis country and the current politics of thiscountry. While I know the importance ofgender-inequality and the marginalizationof differently-abled people and queer folk, Iask in this instance that we focus on thevictims of the original sin of this country(slavery and white privilege) and have faiththat if we build an anti-racist institution itwill be an institution that tends to us all.

Ceasar McDowell is Professor of the Practiceof Civic Design in the Department of UrbanStudies and Planning (ceasar@mit.edu).

In short, this is a call for MIT to take steps to becomingan anti-racist organization.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

10

David GoldstonUpdate From WashingtonThe Positive Near-Term Picture for Federal Research Funding

TO TH E SU R PR I S E OF MANY, 2018has turned out to be a banner year forfederal research funding thus far, and thatappears likely to continue. This does notmean, of course, that more funding is notneeded, or that the funding is adequate tomeet all current demands; and some areasof research are in better shape than others.But despite the political polarization inWashington and around the country, theoverall numbers for research increasedsignificantly in fiscal 2018 and are likely tobe sustained in fiscal 2019. What happened, and why? First, let’s look at the current fiscal year,which began last October 1. For the first sixmonths of the fiscal year, funding was held tothe previous year’s levels, as stalemate inWashington kept Congress from doing any-thing on appropriations besides allowingagencies to limp along at prior spendinglevels. But the stalemate broke in lateFebruary, and on March 23, PresidentTrump signed into law a bipartisan omnibusappropriations bill providing funding for allfederal agencies through September 30. (President Trump provided a last-minute burst of uncertainty when he sud-denly threatened to veto the measure overimmigration and other matters – eventhough White House staff had been partof the negotiations on the bipartisanmeasure. But alarmed Congressionalleaders convinced him to stand down.)

What happened to research spending?The omnibus turned out to be a boon forscience and engineering funding:Research spending will hit an all-timehigh in inflation-adjusted dollars. Basicand applied research are increased by

more than 10 percent. The year-over-yearpercentage increase in research spendingis the highest since fiscal 2009, a year thatincluded one-time emergency stimulusmoney to counter the Great Recession.The last time research received such alarge percentage increase before that wasfiscal 2001, in the midst of the effort todouble the budget of the NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH). Not surprisingly, NIH – long aCongressional favorite – fares well underthe omnibus, with an 8.7 percent increase,but so does the Department of Energy(DOE), the home of applied research pro-grams that conservatives have tried tolimit since the Reagan Administration anda target of the Trump Administration. Theomnibus provides an increase of morethan 12 percent for DOE, with its researchprograms doing even better (in percent-age terms). (See table, next page.)

Why did things turn out so well?The key to this happy outcome was thebipartisan agreement earlier this year toincrease the spending caps on discre-tionary spending. What the research com-munity often fails to appreciate is that theprimary determinant of the federalspending level for research is the size ofthe overall federal spending pie. In a billPresident Trump signed into law inFebruary, Congress raised the amount ofmoney available for non-defense spend-ing in fiscal 2018 by almost 12 percent andthe amount available for defense spendingby about 14 percent. Once Congress reached that deal afterplaying a game of “chicken” for months,research was likely to fare well. For

decades, research and development hasreceived a relatively steady share of totalfederal discretionary spending, and thisyear was no exception, with R&D spend-ing rising in parallel with overall spending. Put another way, no one on either sideof the aisle, or on either end ofPennsylvania Avenue, was gunning forresearch programs. With the significantexception of proposed cuts in environ-mental research and applied energyresearch, proposals to reduce sciencefunding were driven by the macro budgetnumbers, not by any antipathy toward theprograms. (Democrats, in the end, wereable to limit the damage to environmentalprograms, and Democrats were joined bysome key Republicans, especially in theSenate, in protecting the energy efforts.) The increase in the spending capsenacted in February – an amendment to a2011 law to rein in spending to reduce thedeficit – was a bipartisan agreement. BothRepublicans and Democrats had thoughtthe limits on defense spending were too low,but partisan disputes over non-defensespending had held up agreement.Democrats argued that the non-defensecaps should be raised by the same amount asdefense. Since Democratic votes are neededto get any spending bill through the Senate,the final agreement on the caps included asignificant, though not equal, increase forboth defense and non-defense spending. Note that these agreements justconcern discretionary spending, whichCongress allocates annually throughappropriations bills. By far, the largerportion (more than 60 percent) of thebudget is mandatory spending – SocialSecurity, Medicare, other entitlement pro-

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

11

grams – which Congress can change onlyby changing the laws governing those pro-grams (as opposed to setting spendinglevels). Another aspect of mandatoryspending is interest on the national debt(about 6 percent of the budget), whichcan’t be changed without the U.S. reneg-ing on its financial obligations.

So what explains the variation in spend-ing increases among the agencies?The final fiscal 2018 numbers for eachagency vary depending on the politics ofthe specific programs and the wayCongress divvies up the spending pieamong appropriations categories – anarcane process that reflects everythingfrom overall spending priorities to thepower of individual appropriationsmembers. But certain patterns have been stableover time. NIH is a bipartisan favorite –because the value of improving health iswidely understood, as is the link betweenresearch and clinical advances. NIHresearch is also supported by groupsoutside the research community, such asthose focused on specific diseases, and

members of Congress view funding NIHas something constituents understand.The National Science Foundation tends toget smaller but steadier increases thatreflect overall support for basic research.DOE spending has become a politicalcommitment for some Democrats, andsome key Senate Republicans also watchout for the agency. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency has become more of anideological football. The amount ofmoney allocated to early-stage research inthe Defense Department tends to oscillate.

What’s the outlook for future spending?Congress has now begun to write the billsthat will set spending levels for fiscal 2019,which begins October 1. Importantly,Republican leaders have decided to stickto the February agreement on spendingcaps that covered fiscal 2019 as well as thisfiscal year. (Initially, some House conser-vatives were interested in taking a newlook at the numbers.) The fiscal 2019 capsprovide a small increase over fiscal 2018spending, so research spending is likely tohold steady, even after accounting forinflation, or see a slight increase.

President Trump’s budget proposal forfiscal 2019, released in February, wasbetter for science overall than his fiscal2018 proposal because of the additionalmoney made available by raising the caps. But Congress will end up being more gen-erous for two reasons. First, the WhiteHouse proposed to spend only part of theincrease in the non-defense spending pie,but Congress will allocate all of it. Second,the Administration budget still targetsprograms the White House dislikes – suchas some energy and environmental pro-grams – that Congress will support. That’salready the pattern emerging in the firstfiscal 2019 bills. So it looks like continuity will be thename of the game, as many in Congresswant to avoid new spending battles goinginto the 2018 elections, when partycontrol of the Congress – particularly theHouse – is up for grabs. Initially, thebetting was that Congress would notcomplete work on appropriations untilafter the elections, but it now seems possi-ble (if not likely) that for the first time in

Research & Development Funding

Budget Authority in millions of dollarsIncludes initial request plus additional funding per the Addendum

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

12

decades, Congress could have spending inplace by September 30.

What about after next year?After fiscal 2019, the outlook is murky andtreacherous. Without further Congressionalaction, the spending caps in the 2011 lawwill come back into effect, causing discre-tionary spending to plummet. It’s impossi-ble to predict what the political andeconomic situation will look like at thatpoint. But the federal deficit will likely be onthe rise significantly because of raising thespending caps and, most economistsbelieve, because of the massive tax lawenacted in December. If the deficit once again becomes anissue and Congress remains too divided toreach any deals on mandatory spending,then discretionary spending will comeunder severe pressure.

Other issues could also complicate theoverall political environment for researchspending and higher education. Surveyscontinue to show strong and steady publicsupport for science, but political polariza-tion over issues like climate change couldat some point start eroding that. Andantipathy toward elite research institu-tions – demonstrated by the new tax onuniversity endowments – is also some-thing to watch (and combat). But thebiggest concern remains the overall fiscalsituation.

What has MIT done about all this andwhat will it do?MIT has continued to work closely withthe Association of American Universitiesand the Association of Public and LandGrant Universities to make the argumentfor federal research spending. PresidentReif and Vice President Zuber have metand are continuing to meet with WhiteHouse and Congressional officials to press

the case. The MIT Washington Office isworking not only to raise overall fundingfor R&D, but has worked with faculty tohammer home the need for funding forspecific areas of concern, including fusionand specific NASA projects. Notably, White House andCongressional budget documents havementioned growing competition withChina, including in Artificial Intelligence,as one reason that U.S. research spendingneeds to remain strong. So at least some ofour arguments are registering. If you have any general questionsabout federal spending (or other federalpolicies) or if you need help with specificspending or policies, please contact me atdgoldsto@mit.edu or call the MIT DCoffice at 202-789-1828. We also put out aweekly news update. Please let us know ifyou would like to receive that.

Near-Term Picture for Federal FundingGoldston, from preceding page

ture and culture of our patriarchal society.Sexual harassment is not separate fromthe systematic everyday inequality andgender subordination, argues FacultyChair Susan Silbey (“#MeToo at MIT:Harassment and Systemic GenderSubordination,” MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXX No. 3). Normalization ofwomen’s lower status, often subconscious,is a precursor to sexual harassment. AndMIT has its own share of harassment inci-dents, including some high profile ones,while statistically its record is comparableto other universities in size and status. We at MIT firmly believe that neithersexual harassment nor gender inequalityshould exist. The academic environmentwith its pronounced hierarchy withrespect to students and professors, the labswith their built-in long hours and socialisolation, and conferences with accompa-nying travel, present only some of thebasic challenges that we must consider

when building a women-friendly andharassment-free Institute. Achieving thisgoal requires cultural, psychological,material, and institutional commitmentsand an understanding on the part of eachof us that past achievements need to beprotected to move forward.

Continuous WorkThe 1990s were a time of change at MITand the numbers reflect it. In 1994, only 15tenured women were faculty members inthe six departments of the School ofScience, as compared to 194 men. Onlynine women faculty belonged to the Schoolof Engineering. (“Study of the Status ofWomen Faculty in Science at MIT”web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html). By2011, the numbers had increased to 33 inScience and 35 in Engineering. This is asignificant improvement given that priorto 1995 the number of women remainedthe same for more than a decade(news.mit.edu//sites/mit.edu.newsoffice/files/documents/women-report-2011.pdf).This improvement resulted from years of

systematic work that began with the“Report of the Committee on WomenFaculty in the School of Science” in 1996.In addition to the improvement innumbers, interviews with women facultyalso reveal a significant improvement inthe quality of life, recognition, andresource distribution. However, these advances are not suffi-cient, and we must press forward becauseof the setbacks, stagnations, and a needfor improvement of the condition ofwomen at MIT. It is alarming to hear thatthe number of women faculty in some ofthe Schools at MIT has begun to drop inrecent years. Issues regarding equity incompensation and resource managementneed additional attention and action. Tomove forward with change, many womenfaculty at the recent women faculty dinnersuggested reconstituting the gender equitycommittees that MIT set up in the ’90s inevery School. The success of femalefaculty and the improvement in thequality of their lives is important ininspiring both male and female students,

Women at MITBuyandelger, from page 1

David Goldston is Director, MIT WashingtonOffice (dgoldsto@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

13

as well as for normalizing the idea thatwomen can excel in engineering andscience. MIT has been striving to deal withsexual harassment – a tip of the iceberg ofmisogyny – rigorously. Even before theappearance of #MeToo, over the pastseveral years the Institute has been devel-oping some tangible ways to addresssexual misconduct and other forms ofgender discrimination. In 2015, TheCommittee on Sexual MisconductPrevention and Response was formed.During the academic year, 2017-2018, allfaculty members were asked to completean online training course to ensure theyunderstood what constitutes sexual mis-conduct, how to intervene when ithappens, and how to respond effectivelyto someone affected by it. All incomingstudents and staff are required to com-plete this program. Almost all employees(faculty included) are “responsibleemployees,” which means that they willnow be trained to respond to a studentwho experienced sexual misconduct andto connect them to resources on campus.These individuals have an obligation toreport cases of sexual misconduct to theTitle IX office, whose officers then followup with the student. However, a recentlyintroduced Massachusetts bill, An Act rel-ative to sexual violence on higher educationcampuses, requires that it is the employee,not the Title IX office member, who mustfollow up with the student. Sarah Rankin,MIT’s Title IX coordinator, expressed aconcern that this requirement might limitthe number of “responsible employees,”possibly impeding the efforts for morewidespread responsibility. With up to10,000 employees, it is impossible to traineveryone to follow up with the cases ofsexual misconduct. This requirementaside, MIT is supportive of the bill, whichwill greatly improve the overall landscapeof safety on campus (see Shi; 2018https://thetech.com/2018/05/03/campus-sexual-assault-bills). Incoming students should note themultiple confidential resources oncampus at work, such as ViolencePrevention & Response (617-253-2300;

24 hours); the Bias Response Office;Mental Health & Counseling; Chaplains;MIT Medical; and the Ombuds Office.Another important resource for studentsis the Student Support Services or S3.

Reminders about the available resourcesand a flowchart with pathways to dealwith violence have been posted insideboth the women’s and men’s bath-rooms throughout the campus(https://titleix.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/MIT Support and Reporting%28flyer%29.pdf).

Investment From EveryoneMost female students at MIT would prob-ably disagree with MIT’s outside reputa-tion of being unfriendly to women.(Indeed, MIT was not friendly to womenonly a couple of decades ago.) MIT’s con-scious effort to treat male and female stu-dents with equal support and attentionmight provide a temporary respite fromthe largely hostile and unsupportiveworkplaces in engineering that manywomen will encounter as they begin theirjobs. According to Susan Silbey, femalestudents in engineering believe in meri-tocracy and that their talents and hardwork will be evaluated objectively andwithout gender bias. But experience pres-ents counter to that: My women studentsinterviewing for jobs in their senior yearexpress a great disappointment when theyrealize that their potential employers treatthem based on demeaning gendered andethnoracial stereotypes. Meritocracy,unfortunately, does not characterize thegendered workplaces of engineering.

Given these experiences and circum-stances, more must be done to ensurepathways to opportunity and equalityafter our students leave MIT. As politicalessayist Ellen Willis notes “. . . male

supremacy was in itself a systemic form ofdomination – a set of material, institu-tionalized relations, not just bad atti-tudes.” (No More Nice Girls, 2012). Asalient example of this is engineering,which is the most male-dominated field inthe U.S. Only 13 percent of engineers arecurrently women. Large companies inSilicon Valley, Wall Street, and elsewhereare being spotlighted on gender inequalityand a culture of harassment. Thus, inaddition to providing the best technicaleducation, we must make sure our stu-dents can face these challenges so theymay be able to succeed in engineering. Many classes and activities offered bythe School of Humanities and SocialSciences offer insights on inequality, mar-ginality, and gender issues. Perhaps, insome cases, women engineers have tobecome feminists to instigate change inthe social structure of their work environ-ment. Some have already done so. Andmore people, including many of our grad-uating women engineers, are beingtrained to persevere, despite working inour currently flawed system, by relying ontheir hard work and believing in meritoc-racy. But we also must encourage them toquestion and transform the system.

MIT has been striving to deal with sexual harassment –a tip of the iceberg of misogyny – rigorously. Evenbefore the appearance of #MeToo, over the past severalyears the Institute has been developing some tangibleways to address sexual misconduct and other forms ofgender discrimination. . . . Almost all employees (facultyincluded) are “responsible employees,” which means thatthey will now be trained to respond to a student whoexperienced sexual misconduct and to connect them toresources on campus.

Manduhai Buyandelger is Class of 1956Career Development Associate Professor ofAnthropology (manduhai@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

14

Louis BucciarelliEngineering Enrollment Data at MIT

AC C O R D I N G TO A R E P O R T of theComputer Research Association (CRA),undergraduate (and graduate) enrollmentin Computer Science (CS), over the years2006-2015 has increased dramatically.1

The average number of undergraduateCS majors is larger today than at anyprevious time, and greatly exceeds thepeak enrollment of the dot-com boomperiod. For example, the averagenumber of CS majors at doctoral-granting academic units2 has morethan tripled since 2006 and more thandoubled since 2011.3

The report goes on to describe how thisexpansion – in nonmajor enrollment aswell as major – has affected diversity; chal-lenged faculty workload, strained instruc-tional resources, increased demands forspace. A section reports on how academicunits are responding to these challenges.4

The National Academies established acommittee to study the Growth ofComputer Science UndergraduateEnrollments.5 They met eight times in2016 and produced a report, Assessing andResponding to the Growth of ComputerScience Undergraduate Enrollments(2017). Since 2009, the number of under-graduate degrees in CS has increased by74 percent (at non-profit institutions).Like the CRA report, this document con-sidered strategies schools might pursue(and are pursuing) to accommodate thisincrease in enrollment, strategies . . .

– such as adding faculty and resources,imposing targeted controls on enroll-ment, or using innovative technologiesto deliver instruction to large numbersof students, among many otheroptions.6

This brief paper looks at MIT enroll-ment data within this context. Of interestis in how this surge in computer scienceenrollment has affected enrollments inother fields of engineering (and science).

The portion of the bar “ComputerScience” is an aggregation of data for themajors Computer Science and Engineering,VI-3 (Fall 2017 count 757); ComputerScience and Molecular Biology, VI-7 (73);

YearCivil Env

EngElec Sci & Eng

Mat Sci & Eng

Aero AstroEng

ChemicalEng

Bio Eng

Mech Eng

ComputerScience

201728/4266.7

22/6136.1

66/9768.0

48/14233.8

77/14752.4

109/14973.2

255/55346.1

518/123541.9

201634/4969.4

30/7838.5

76/10771.0

46/15230.3

100/16461.0

106/14672.6

273/55149.5

463/119338.8

201539/5669.6

29/8633.7

74/10471.2

56/16334.4

112/17663.6

105/15169.5

259/55846.4

445/112239.7

201449/6872.1

24/8030.0

81/11272.3

53/16132.9

107/18956.6

119/17667.6

274/58646.8

386/103937.2

201347/6869.1

22/6832.4

80/12564.0

54/15235.5

103/19852.0

123/17869.1

242/54844.2

334/94835.2

201254/7275.0

23/7431.1

82/13461.2

45/13533.3

107/20651.9

125/19962.8

231/50645.7

282/82234.3

201152/7965.8

33/8837.5

86/14459.7

35/11630.2

124/21657.4

104/16961.5

183/46639.3

210/70329.9

201073/101

72.329/8434.5

75/13256.8

40/14328.0

138/22661.1

92/15758.6

179/49136.5

186/59631.2

200977/110

70.038/102

37.349/101

48.554/157

34.4133/231

57.663/104

60.6162/460

35.2173/569

30.4

200873/114

64.034/9237.0

45/9447.9

52/16831.0

133/23955.6

52/9057.8

164/44636.8

174/56630.7

Engineering Enrollment Fall Count

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

15

Computer Science, Economics and DataScience, VI-14 (22); Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science, VI-2 (380), andAerospace Engineering with InformationTechnology, XVI-2 (0). In the table (previous page) the firstnumber in each cell is the number ofwomen enrolled in the major. The secondis the total number of students, enrolled.The decimal number below is the percent-age of the total who are women. The totalnumber in bold is the maximum over theyear cited. Source: https://web.mit.edu/registrar/stats/yrpts/. Computer Science, Economics and DataScience, VI-14 (22) is the most recent newjoint major, first open to students in thefall of 2017.7

Computer Science and MolecularBiology, VI-7 was launched in fall 2011. The degree program AerospaceEngineering with Information TechnologyXVI-2 was begun fall of 2000. It attractedsome 20 students throughout the yearsuntil the program was phased out in 2014. The portion of the bar MechanicalEngineering is an aggregate of data for thedepartment’s two majors, “Course 2” and“Course 2A” and the major Mechanical andOcean Engineering 2-OE. Prior to 2006, thelatter was an independent department. The two bar graphs show enrollmentin Course 2 and Course 2A over the past20 years.8 Data for fall 2007 showsMechanical Engineering Course 2 enrollinga total of 302 students, 104 (34%) women.Fall 2017 shows a decrease in the total to249 students, 106 (43%) women.The pop-ularity of the program MechanicalEngineering Course 2A increased over theyears. Total number of students wentfrom 83, 35 (42%) women, to 295, ofwhom 142 (48%) were women. Course2A, compared to the traditional Course 2,offers the student more elective freedomallowing a choice of technical electivesoutside the department. The total enrollments for three of theengineering majors – Aeronautics andAstronautics, Chemical Engineering, andCivil and Environmental Engineering –includes the number of undergraduateswho have chosen an option within each

major that offers the student morefreedom in choosing courses beyond thecore requirements of each major.Aeronautics and Astronautics XVI-ENGand Chemical Engineering X-ENG werelaunched in fall 2011. Civil andEnvironmental Eng I-ENG did not becomeavailable to students until fall 2014.

MIT Student Enrollment, School of ScienceA look at enrollments in the School ofScience over the same period (see table,

next page) reveals a different picture.Whereas enrollment in the School ofEngineering has increased (almost) uni-formly over the years, here the picture isone of decrease. Particularly noteworthy isthe drop in numbers of students choosingto major in Chemistry, in Biology, and inBrain and Cognitive Sciences. The “new” major, Math & ComputerScience, shows again the draw of com-puter science in attracting students.

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

16

Engineering Enrollment Data at MITBucciarelli, from preceding page

Footnotes1 https://cra.org/data/generation-cs/phe-nomenal-growth-cs-majors-since-2006/2 The term “academic unit” or “unit”denotes the administrative divisionresponsible for the CS bachelor’sprogram. Often, but not always, this is anacademic department.3 The CRA credits its own TaulbeeSurvey: https://cra.org/resources/taulbee-survey/4 A CRA spin-off committee, the“Booming Enrollment Committee”addressed four questions: How aredepartments responding to the “boom”?Is the “boom” affecting all levels of thecurriculum? Why are students so eagerfor our classes? How will the current“boom” impact diversity in an alreadydemographically, homogeneous field?http://mags.acm.org/inroads/june_2016?folio=12&pg=14 - pg145 https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49765.6 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=249267 https://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-creates-new-major-computer-science-economics-data-science-09048 http://kiwi.mit.edu/mit-gender-diversity

Year EAPS Chemistry BiologyBrain &Cog Sci

Math &Comp Sci

Math Physics

201710/1662.5

30/5356.6

57/6785.1

54/7671.1

47/11640.5

60/19930.2

59/21028.1

201613/1776.5

19/4047.5

59/7776.6

61/7977.2

49/10945.0

58/19429.9

57/19030.0

201516/2080.0

29/5058.0

73/9874.5

59/7281.9

35/8839.8

62/21628.7

54/18030.0

201419/2190.5

29/5949.2

92/12374.8

63/8574.1

37/10335.9

57/22025.9

44/17325.4

201317/1989.5

33/5658.9

108/14276.1

76/10969.7

23/8527.1

67/22529.8

61/19930.7

201217/1989.5

35/7149.3

113/15572.9

86/11674.1

20/7825.6

61/20929.2

63/22428.1

201122/2684.6

48/8457.1

120/16274.1

92/12673.0

32/7343.8

70/21233.0

68/23528.9

201020/2871.4

41/8051.2

110/15073.3

106/13976.3

29/5750.9

63/19732.0

73/22532.4

200920/2774.1

43/7656.6

139/19770.6

100/13673.5

22/4351.2

67/18536.2

66/19533.8

200819/2479.2

41/7058.6

136/19669.4

110/14575.9

16/3348.5

63/17635.8

59/18332.2

200723/3369.7

49/9253.3

143/20470.1

115/14678.8

9/2437.5

59/18531.9

58/18431.5

200630/4369.8

52/9355.9

155/21970.8

110/14575.9

8/3125.8

49/17727.7

63/21030.0

Math, Science Enrollment Fall Count – Selected Majors

Louis Bucciarelli is a Professor in theProgram in Science, Technology, and Society(llbjr@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

17

Dr. Emeritus BeaverLooking Forward/Looking BackwardAcross the Retirement Line

Health Insurance Post-RetirementT H I S C O L U M N I S I N T E N D E D forMIT faculty who have already retired orare contemplating such a decision in thenear future. The purpose is to providesome practical advice about health care athome and abroad, income sources, taxes,insurance decisions, and numerous othermatters that may be helpful in preparingfor the transition from active service(teaching, research, advising) to retire-ment. The goal is to help prepare for thenew adventure that awaits you followingthe transition. The inspiration for writingsuch a column came from discussions thatI had with colleagues during my own finalmonths as an active MIT faculty member,many of whom were themselves contem-plating retirement, and wondered howbest to prepare for the many decisionsthey had to make. In this issue of the FNL I addresshealth insurance post-retirement. MITfaculty have the benefit of a terrific healthplan by any standard, both in terms oflow cost as well as access to the bestmedical facilities in the country. Whetheror not you remain at your current resi-dence following retirement, you maykeep all your current doctors, but someservices that are currently covered willnot be. An example is the annual eyeexamination for prescription lenses.MIT’s Benefits Office will supply youwith detailed information, but a brief

summary of key components is the following. Medicare will become your primaryhealth insurance if you are age 65 or older.You can enroll in Medicare after your 65thbirthday and are eligible for a SocialSecurity benefit. You may already have PartA and with retirement you must enroll inPart B. Part A covers hospital, skillednursing facility, nursing home, and homehealth care as well as hospice. Medicarewill not cover all your medical bills, soMIT has arranged for you to purchase aBlue Cross Blue Shield plan called Medexor a Tufts Medicare Preferred Plan tobridge the financial gap. Depending onyour years of service, its cost will vary fromnothing (for example, born before July 1,1940 with at least 10 years of retirement-plan-eligible service) to over $2,500 peryear. This fee will be deducted from yourMIT Pension monthly payments (more onthis topic in a future column). If you pur-chase an MIT-sponsored retiree healthplan, you will be enrolled in a MedicarePart D prescription drug plan adminis-tered through Express Scripts. There is nocost to Part A. The cost of Medicare Parts Band D can be ~$150 – $500 per monthdepending on your income as reported onyour Federal Income Tax return. Dentalinsurance can be purchased. You can con-tinue your Delta Dental insurance for thefirst 18 months following retirement atCOBRA premium rates that are lower

than the regular Retiree Dental Insurancerates, which you can switch to subsequently. The MIT Benefits Office will help youwith the enrollments described in the pre-vious paragraph. Enrollment in Part B ofMedicare is best done by traveling directlyto the Cambridge Social Security office,located at 10 Fawcett Street, First Floor,Cambridge, to deliver your completedforms. Arriving mid-day may help toavoid long lines. If you purchased a long-term carepolicy from one of the suppliers that MIToffered, such as John Hancock, it will con-tinue into retirement. You will no longerbe on salary from MIT if you fully retire,so the premiums will have to be paiddirectly to the insurance company. Finally, you will need to provide formedical insurance when traveling abroadbecause the International SOS insuranceprogram ends when you retire. Medicaredoes not pay for medical expenses incurredoutside of the United States. In general,neither does the Medex plan (see above). So,it is best to purchase international healthcare insurance before taking a trip outside ofthe U.S. However, there are some instanceswhere you may be covered for essentialmedical care. Save your receipts for doctorbills, lab tests, and prescription drugs. TheMIT Benefits Office will help you preparethe forms, although you should not expect aspeedy recovery of your money.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

18

Jonathan KingStudent Leaders Emerge at MIT Conferenceto Address Danger of Nuclear War

S T U D E N T S F R O M CA M P U S E S

across the Northeast gathered at MIT thisspring to share their experiences in chal-lenging the U.S. government’s aggressiveforeign policy, growing nuclear arsenal, andneglect of pressing domestic needs. Theywere in town to lend their voices to the con-ference “Invest in Minds, Not Missiles:Reducing the Threat of Nuclear War” onApril 7 and 8. This meeting, responding tothe continuing risk of nuclear war or acci-dent, continued the long tradition of advo-cacy for nuclear disarmament through theefforts of former MIT faculty, including:Vicki Weisskopf, Philip Morrison, HermanFeshbach, Randall Forsberg, Bernard Feld,Henry Kendall, Kosta Tsipis, GeorgeRathjens, and Aron Bernstein. Prof.Bernstein was a lead-off speaker. The students – who represented aspectrum of ages and academic levels,ranging from high school students andundergrads to recent alums, grad stu-dents, and postdocs – traveled toCambridge from more than 15 campusesin New England, New York, and NewJersey to attend. Grants from thePloughshares Fund and the Amy RugelFoundation were vital in supporting thetravel and lodging expenses of out-of-town students, as well as support fromMIT’s Technology and Culture Radiusprogram, and Mass. Peace Action. The focus on campus organizing hademerged at the end of the 2017 MIT anti-nuclear conference, where participantsrealized the need to actively recruit youngpeople and support their campus organiz-ing efforts. Students have a leading role toplay in the peace movement, which inrecent times has been represented mostlyby older activists and experts. Organizersof this year’s conference heeded the call.

Nuclear Dangers Reviewed atSaturday PlenariesAnalysis of the nuclear weapons dangersand tense international situations wereprovided by Aron Bernstein (MIT), ElaineScarry (Harvard University), JosephGerson (American Friends ServiceCommittee), Hon. John Tierney (Councilfor a Livable World), Charles Knight(Commonwealth Institute), ChuckJohnson (International Physicians forPrevention of Nuclear War), GaryGoldstein (Tufts University), LisbethGronlund (Union of ConcernedScientists), and Mike VanElzakker (MassPeace Action). Prof. Scarry’s call forCongress to assert their ConstitutionalArticle I authority to declare war, and topull back the President’s thumb from thenuclear launch button, was shared by all. Cogent analyses of the economic pres-sures from the weapons industry wereprovided by William Hartung (Center forInternational Policy), Stephanie Scammel(Costs of War Project, Brown University),and Richard Krushnic (Institute forPeople’s Engagement). The proposed $1.2 trillion nuclear weapon triadupgrades were concerns for all. Hartungdescribed how these dollars are recycledthrough political donations to influenceCongressional and Pentagon appropria-tions and policies. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink,Kristina Romines of WAND, JonathanKing of Peace Action, Paul Johnson of thePoor People’s Campaign, Andrea Miller ofPeople Demanding Action, and PaulShannon of the People’s Budget alldescribed campaigns underway tobroaden and expand the base of peopleconcerned about the nuclear danger andthe human burdens and economic cost of

endless wars. City Councilor DennisCarlone, State Rep. Mike Connolly, andLucas Perry of the Future of Life Institutedescribed how calling for pension funds,college endowments, and other funds todivest from investing in companies thatmanufacture or maintain nuclearweapons educates the public that nuclearweapons are a domestic business as well asa component of foreign policy.

Students Share Organizing Strategiesat Sunday RoundtableWhile the Saturday conference consistedof a daylong series of plenaries and work-shops analyzing the current war danger,Sunday morning was devoted to a round-table discussion of campus organizing, inwhich students shared their varied experi-ences and tactics. Many described a lowlevel of concern among their studentpeers about nuclear issues; however, theysaid addressing related issues such as thesuffering of refugees, the militarization ofpolice forces, and the defunding ofhuman service programs, had allowedthem to reach more students. Their pro-grams included holding forums withguest speakers, showing films, and collect-ing signatures on petitions. Luisa Kenausis, a former MIT under-grad mentored by Aron Bernstein,described how she and other studentscontacted Physics Department facultymembers, asking them to include in theirlectures material on the bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki, including theunimaginable human suffering. NowLuisa and Prof. Bernstein are developing awebsite with model curriculum modulesto distribute broadly. Hainan Zhang of Rutgers describedhis participation in research under

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2018

19

Prof. Alan Robock on “nuclear winter,”the inevitable result of a general nuclearwar, or even a limited nuclear exchangesuch as one between India andPakistan: the smoke and soot from thefirestorms would be lofted into thestratosphere, would block out the sunfor a decade or more, lowering temper-atures to the level of the last Ice Age,and killing harvests around the globe,leading to near universal starvation. Hepromised to share his material withother campus groups. Andrew King, from UMass Boston,described the importance of studentpeace activists joining in the Poor People’sCampaign. He said one of the six weeks ofPPC non-violent civil disobedience, start-ing in Massachusetts the day afterMother’s Day, was devoted to protestingthe war economy, which is drainingresources from essential social programs.He noted this issue is especially relevant

for peace and justice groups on manycampuses. Emma Budd and Eric Stolar ofFordham University addressed the issueof student groups obtaining resourcesfrom their universities. They describedhow their organization, HumanitarianStudent Union, was able to hold educa-tional talks and secure resources from anacademic department interested in inter-national affairs. Several groups men-tioned receiving support and resourcesfrom their campus ministries. SebastienPhillipe reported success at PrincetonUniversity in securing financial supportfrom academic departments for acampus-wide day of action, whichcovered a range of issues, includingclimate change, immigration, and restric-tions on free speech. Participants agreed to form aNortheast Campus Peace and JusticeOrganizing Network to provide mutual

assistance and support, and to help seedpeace and justice clubs on other cam-puses. This work will build on the campusorganizing efforts of Peace Action of NewYork State and of Massachusetts PeaceAction. The next step may be organizing asimilar forum in the New York/New Jerseyarea. The conference was co-sponsored byMIT Radius; American Friends ServiceCommittee; Campaign for Peace,Disarmament and Common Security;Council for a Livable World; Future ofLife Institute; Greater Boston Physiciansfor Social Responsibility, Institute forPeople’s Engagement; and MassachusettsPeace Action. Special thanks to Cindy Woolley,Patricia Weinmann, Christina English,and Alexander Plowden for their logisticalsupport.

To The Faculty Newsletter:

IN HIS LETTER IN THE previous issueof the Faculty Newsletter (Vol. XXX No. 4,March/April 2018), Professor Dan Stroockcriticized President Reif and Provost Schmidtfor focusing attention on sexual harassmentmore than on student suicide. He stronglyobjects to the call for all employees (includingfaculty) to take an online training module onSexual Misconduct Prevention and Awareness. I support Professor Stroock’s right tostate his views but respectfully disagree withsome of his statements. His claim that thePresident and Provost threaten “to removeany faculty member or staff who does nottake the sexual harassment course” is false;his claim that the content of the sexual mis-conduct training “violates every principlefor which an MIT education stands” is ten-dentious. Among the principles MIT pro-motes is that “every person brings uniquequalities and talents to the community and

that every individual should be treated in arespectful manner. All members of the MITcommunity are expected to conduct them-selves with professionalism, personalintegrity, and respect for the rights, differ-ences and dignity of others.” (Policies andProcedures, Section 9.1) This principle ofconduct aligns with efforts to increasefaculty awareness of sexual misconduct andthe faculty role in prevention and response. MIT has made substantial investments inmental health and suicide preventionefforts, including adding four new staff inthe past two years, the offering of “Let’sChat” confidential consultations in the maingroup area, and a new investment in com-munications, program management, andevaluation staff to promote mental healthand well-being through theMindHandHeart Initiative. The Division ofStudent Life together with Mental Healthand Counseling provides a strong infra-structure for student support and well-being. In addition, the CARE Team has

transformed the support of students withserious mental health challenges. MIT alsosupports efforts to promote faculty efficacysuch as this video advice(mindhandheart.mit.edu/node/162) andthis guide (https://medical.mit.edu/sites/default/files/faculty_brochure.pdf). A facultymember’s experience can be a powerfulhumanizing element in these discussions. Mental health and freedom from sexualharassment and gender-based discrimina-tion are not and should not be in tensionwith each other for attention from theadministration or from faculty. In order tothrive as faculty members, we require thatour students be physically and psychologi-cally safe and able to learn. I encourage allour colleagues to take these issues seriously,and to become familiar with effective waysof helping our students thrive such as thoseresources mentioned above.

Edmund BertschingerInstitute Community and Equity Officer

lettersPromoting Mental Health and Well-Being at MIT

Jonathan King is a Professor in theDepartment of Biology (jaking@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXX No. 5

M.I.T. Numbersfrom the 2018 Senior Survey

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

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

Reading or speaking a foreign language

Critical appreciation of art, music, literature, and drama

Placing current problems in historical/cultural/philosophical perspective

Writing clearly and effectively

Constructively resolving interpersonal conflicts

Developing global awareness

Identifying moral and ethical issues

Communicating well orally

Understanding the complexity of social problems

Evaluating the role of science and technology in society

Developing self-esteem/self-confidence

Relating well to people of different races, nations, and religions

Acquiring broad knowledge across a number of fields

Conducting scholarly research

Leadership skills

Creating original ideas and solutions

Functioning effectively as a member of a team

Career- or work-related knowledge and skills

Understanding the process of science and experimentation

Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for my pr

In-depth knowledge of a field or discipline

Planning and executing complex projects

Ability to learn on your own

Thinking analytically and logically

Thinking critically

Understanding and using quantitative reasoning and methods

To what extent has your experience at MIT contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

Very much Quite a bit Some Very little or none

Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for my profession