6 ms·

This seems so opposite to me to the only example of student activism at MIT that I'm aware of, which was against the closing of Senior House. Administration did

This seems so opposite to me to the only example of student activism at MIT that I'm aware of, which was against the closing of Senior House. Administration didn't care about students raising an issue. Students felt totally unheard and disrespected. What's the difference here? Different, better-connected students? A campaign that better aligns with the broader zeitgeist in our society? Something administration _wanted_ to capitulate over?

dmlerner 4y ago
Admin just doesn't care that much which speakers are allowed on campus. Like many progressive things students loudly champion, it's pretty immaterial and easy to just give in. It's not like it affects MIT's status or funding as a world-leading research institute. By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about. It's unclear to me that SH created more liability than frats and alcohol, but maybe, and it was certainly the perception.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about. Did they think about putting Senior House on probation or something like that?
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    Their goal wasn't to be fair, it was to decrease liability.
  - dmlerner 4y ago
    I honestly forget. I don't think they were ever on probation per se, but it's not like SH was blindsided. There was plenty of awareness that admin was increasingly unhappy. What I won't claim to understand is what pushed them over the line to actually doing it. I think it was more slow, evolutionary decreasing of tolerance for everything than any particular incident. I'm bitter about the whole thing, and also the upcoming [renovation of EC](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_getting_renovated_in_2022/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_...) (the next dorm over, physically and culturally). The building is realistically past due for some TLC, but it's hard not to feel like it's motivated from more than that.
    - ShredKazoo 4y ago
      That sucks. I suggest you hit 'em where it hurts: Refuse all alumni donation requests, and give your money to impoverished people in Africa instead. https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Why is it that colleges have had wild parties in campus housing for decades, but only now it's a "legal liability" and has to be stopped?
christophilus 4y ago
It’s all about incentives. The downside to more drinking deaths if the university did nothing is much worse than the downside to killing off Senior House. In the latter case, students are annoyed. In the former case, there’s a probability of expensive litigation. In the case of cancelling speakers, there’s a bit of outrage and annoyance on the part of free thinking folks and fascists (who are two separate groups with a bit of overlap on the Venn diagram on this issue). But those groups don’t tend to form effective mobs on campus and aren’t terribly litigious compared to the vocal cancellers on the left.

dmlerner 4y ago

Admin just doesn't care that much which speakers are allowed on campus. Like many progressive things students loudly champion, it's pretty immaterial and easy to just give in. It's not like it affects MIT's status or funding as a world-leading research institute. By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about. It's unclear to me that SH created more liability than frats and alcohol, but maybe, and it was certainly the perception.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
>By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about. Did they think about putting Senior House on probation or something like that?
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Their goal wasn't to be fair, it was to decrease liability.
- dmlerner 4y ago
  I honestly forget. I don't think they were ever on probation per se, but it's not like SH was blindsided. There was plenty of awareness that admin was increasingly unhappy. What I won't claim to understand is what pushed them over the line to actually doing it. I think it was more slow, evolutionary decreasing of tolerance for everything than any particular incident. I'm bitter about the whole thing, and also the upcoming [renovation of EC](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_getting_renovated_in_2022/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_...) (the next dorm over, physically and culturally). The building is realistically past due for some TLC, but it's hard not to feel like it's motivated from more than that.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    That sucks. I suggest you hit 'em where it hurts: Refuse all alumni donation requests, and give your money to impoverished people in Africa instead. https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/
fallingknife 4y ago
Why is it that colleges have had wild parties in campus housing for decades, but only now it's a "legal liability" and has to be stopped?

christophilus 4y ago

It’s all about incentives. The downside to more drinking deaths if the university did nothing is much worse than the downside to killing off Senior House. In the latter case, students are annoyed. In the former case, there’s a probability of expensive litigation. In the case of cancelling speakers, there’s a bit of outrage and annoyance on the part of free thinking folks and fascists (who are two separate groups with a bit of overlap on the Venn diagram on this issue). But those groups don’t tend to form effective mobs on campus and aren’t terribly litigious compared to the vocal cancellers on the left.