[1636] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
[Mit-talk] RE: Mandatory T passes?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (grace)
Fri Oct 21 16:35:18 2005
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: grace <gkenney@mit.edu>
To: Ike <ike@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58L.0510211453460.17630@blueberry.mit.edu>
cc: Diandra Lucia <dmariel@mit.edu>
cc: ec-discuss@mit.edu
cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
amazingly enough, i did read the article. discussion went on over GSC
lists. "MIT and the MBTA expressed interest in the proposal," according
to a GSC member. i see no undergrads - do you?
i'd rather find out about something in the early stages in the tech than
after everything is decided, of course. but if the proposal is actually
under consideration "by MIT" [as some parts of the article did imply,
although others certainly presented a much less definite picture], i want
to see undergrads involved. i'm really sick of decisions being made with
inadequate student representation. we keep finding out that 'decision foo
has been in the works for years', and that the single undergrad on the
committee never attended meetings so we had no real representation. i
feel that a certain amount of concern and even paranoia in this area is
justified.
-grace
gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug, ike@MIT.EDU said:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, grace wrote:
> > > [fucking typical that the first time any undergrad hears about this is in
> > a tech article though.]
> >
> > -grace
>
> I hope I'm just missing some sarcasm here (although that would mean the
> rest of this email is even more of a waste of words), but did you read the
> article? ( http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N48/48tpass.html ) The change
> isn't even in the planning stage; it's just been discussed on some GSC
> lists, and according to some GSC person, MIT and the MBTA have "expressed
> interested in potentially implementing the proposal".
>
> So, I think a Tech article is the right place to hear about it, and this
> is the right time to have a discussion about it. The Tech article even
> covers some of the points that have been playing over this email thread
> like a broken record (i.e., "This idea rocks!" vs. "These collectivist
> scum would make Ayn Rand angry enough to spin in her grave if she believed
> in an afterlife and if she could profit by hooking herself up to a
> generator and selling the electricity on the free market."). This
> situation is completely and beautifully different from, say, the mandatory
> meal plan fiasco, or any number of other things that have been announced
> when they're just shy of being implemented. This *can't* even happen until
> 2007, and it's not a real plan yet anyway.
>
> -Ike
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
