4 ms·

the reality of the situation is that a dorm was closed by the people whom it's financial viability depended on because it never grew into something fully indepe

the reality of the situation is that a dorm was closed by the people whom it's financial viability depended on because it never grew into something fully independent, nor into something that the people running MIT's budget found especially useful. Already there we have a narrative break, sure a lot of people who's identity have gotten mixed with a particular community feels they lost something but that don’t mean society did. And the fact that one of the people responsible for tanking the US economy lived there don’t actually change anything. This debate is classic and symptomatic for any kind of bohemian community, who always have a super important pedigree until it have to be quantified at which point the super important narrative kind of falls apart, and this is not a isolated case every city on every continent have it's Senior House. The problem is that your asking people to fight for something utterly insignificant(more of a local petting zoo then a civil rights landmark) as if it had an impact on the battles worth fighting which it frankly don’t. Yes there is a trend on the way towards the institutions to stop financing and sanctioning counter culture but again what good is a counter culture that only exists when it's sanctioned and financed by the establishment?

mrgordon 9y ago
Its a college dorm. It was never meant to be "fully independent" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a dorm being "sanctioned and financed by the establishment." MIT made a decision to cover their own asses in case anything went wrong in the dorm as they've been doing since famous hazing / suicide cases happened in other dorms / living groups fifteen years ago. More college-bound eccentric geniuses will end up considering other institutions of learning if MIT's campus becomes devoid of spaces that they find inspiring, creative, fun, etc. Luckily MIT still has some solid living groups despite this but removing two undergraduate dorms in quick succession will definitely have an effect. Society doesn't know enough to judge whether they lost something. That doesn't really matter ultimately as MIT is the one that made the decision. If MIT could have gotten everyone in the dorm to sign a legal waiver then they would have been more than happy to let it stay. You say the people running MIT's budget didn't find it "especially useful". It is a dorm that houses people. Its not like the option is to have no dorm. They still need a dorm. It was a specific cultural purge to shield legal liability.

mrgordon 9y ago

Its a college dorm. It was never meant to be "fully independent" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a dorm being "sanctioned and financed by the establishment." MIT made a decision to cover their own asses in case anything went wrong in the dorm as they've been doing since famous hazing / suicide cases happened in other dorms / living groups fifteen years ago. More college-bound eccentric geniuses will end up considering other institutions of learning if MIT's campus becomes devoid of spaces that they find inspiring, creative, fun, etc. Luckily MIT still has some solid living groups despite this but removing two undergraduate dorms in quick succession will definitely have an effect. Society doesn't know enough to judge whether they lost something. That doesn't really matter ultimately as MIT is the one that made the decision. If MIT could have gotten everyone in the dorm to sign a legal waiver then they would have been more than happy to let it stay. You say the people running MIT's budget didn't find it "especially useful". It is a dorm that houses people. Its not like the option is to have no dorm. They still need a dorm. It was a specific cultural purge to shield legal liability.