[1962] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Separating threads: Student Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M Kelch)
Tue Jul 4 07:42:58 2006
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:42:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
To: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20060704035051.iy479gpofi9kw0ws@webmail.mit.edu>
Cc: faber@alum.mit.edu, "Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>,
grace <gkenney@mit.edu>, Dheera Venkatraman <dheera@mit.edu>,
ua-scatr@mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
It is, I believe, part of the new UA Pres' stated policy to receive such
reports on a regular basis. Regardless, there will absolutely be a
significant effort by the Senate to hear such reports, by Exec,
student committees, AND student reps on institute committees.
It's a promise I've made that I intend to keep.
skelch
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Jessica H Lowell wrote:
> While there are certainly benefits to having a group that includes
> admins and
> faculty as well as students, I would point out that some very successful
> groups, for instance the group that wrote the SAC Unified Proposal, were
> made
> up of students. I would venture to say that the Unified Proposal was
> pretty
> effective at shaping policy.
>
> If you make it into an Institute or Presidential Committee, you reduce
> student
> represenation to a small percentage of the committee. And just as
> admins who
> are so inclined can give only lip service to a student committee, they
> can also
> give lip service to student reps on a mixed committee.
>
> As to your other point, accountability for student reps has been
> discussed ad
> nauseum within the UA over the last several months. I believe there are
> some
> plans to have regular or semi-regular updates next year.
>
> - Jessie
>
> Quoting Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu>:
>
>> I'm separating threads here so folks can choose what they want to read
>> about.
>>
>> "By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>> administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>> effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long term, and
>> avoid administrative political maneuvering."
>>
>> While I agree that a student oriented committee has its advantages,
>> such as its ability to gather and evaluate student opinion, legitimacy
>> really is at issue. Admins really only give lip service to most
>> student committees, where institute and presidential committees can
>> (and have) shape policy. The sad fact is that most admins see
>> students as children.
>>
>> I also realize there are issues with having a mixed group, such as the
>> resume-padding problem and the fact that you can easily choose the
>> wrong people for these important committees. For example, I was on
>> the Committee on Campus Race Relations with a student member who
>> refused to admit racism still existed. Why was he/she on this
>> committee? To this day I have no idea.
>>
>> Also, in theory student members of institute/presidential committees
>> stay in contact with other student representatives. Undergrads are
>> selected by the UA and there is supposed to be accountability there.
>> (I know that I failed at this when I was in office, but it would be a
>> great thing to see regular reports from committee members to the
>> cabinet/senate/cocomm/someone/anyone/bueller?)
>>
>>
>> On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> That's essentially the idea behind SCATR, but a little less
>>> formalized.
>>> The difficulty in creating a committee where *everything* has to come
>>> through is that there are a lot of decisions made every day, from
>>> minor
>>> ones to major ones. Where do you draw the line? Who decides when
>>> someone
>>> has gone over the line? There will be just as much controversy.
>>>
>>> By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>>> administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>>> effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long term, and
>>> avoid
>>> administrative political maneuvering.
>>>
>>> skelch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Dheera Venkatraman wrote:
>>>
>>> > a nice thing to have would be some sort of committee of students
>>> and
>>> > faculty members that such changes would be *required* to be
>>> proposed to.
>>> > basically, say, any infrastructure changes, major art
>>> installations, and
>>> > changes to the campus that are not time-sensitive repairs should
>>> need to
>>> > be signed off by them. kind of some sort of congress deal. like say
>>> if
>>> > MIT comes up to us next week saying they want to cut down the trees
>>> in
>>> > the EC courtyard and install another transparent horizons, and they
>>> > don't get the signatures needed, they shouldn't be allowed to do
>>> it. and
>>> > if they wanted to make a curriculum change but didn't get say over
>>> half
>>> > the students' approval, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
>>> >
>>> > i don't know. very cursory idea here, not sure how to properly
>>> formulate
>>> > this, but basically, there needs to be some sort of check system on
>>> the
>>> > administration.
>>> >
>>> > -dheera
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------
>>> > dheera venkatraman
>>> > http://dheera.net/
>>> > dheera@dheera.net
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, grace wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> ...and we're not going to get a chance to learn until it's already
>>> >> official. note that this was announced in the summer, when the UA
>>> or
>>> >> dormcon can't investigate and [if needed] protest. look - the
>>> admins
>>> >> aren't afraid of our horrible harsh criticism. they're afraid of
>>> >> having
>>> >> to waste time on meetings with students, lying about how much they
>>> >> value
>>> >> our opinions. the things that we bitch about being half-baked are
>>> >> generally actually near-finalized policies that got leaked. yeah,
>>> >> often
>>> >> times we have only partial information, but by the time we have
>>> full
>>> >> information, things'll have reached the point where the admins
>>> will
>>> >> inform
>>> >> us that such and such a policy has been in the works for years,
>>> and of
>>> >> course the single student committee member was an adequate
>>> >> representation
>>> >> of the student body's desires, and blah blah blah. it's not our
>>> >> criticism
>>> >> that they're afraid of, it's the fact that we might find out in
>>> time
>>> >> to
>>> >> stop things.
>>> >>
>>> >> and bullshit - it's not too late to delete the accounts from the
>>> card
>>> >> office servers. we're talking bits and bytes here, not stuff
>>> that's
>>> >> really irrevocable. now, will they reconsider, or at least listen
>>> to
>>> >> criticism? probably not, since without dormcon & the ua to raise
>>> a
>>> >> hue
>>> >> and cry, odds are we won't even be able to get them to talk to us
>>> >> until
>>> >> after it goes live. but nothing's actually irrevocable until it
>>> >> starts
>>> >> happening, and some stuff [policies and non-physical stuff like
>>> this]
>>> >> can
>>> >> be changed even afterwards.
>>> >>
>>> >> -grace
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug,
>>> kelch@MIT.EDU
>>> >> said:
>>> >>
>>> >>> This has not yet proven to be a "stupid idea". None of us knows
>>> >>> enough about
>>> >>> it to pass judgment. Many of the problems we chalk up to the
>>> >>> administration
>>> >>> are actually students jumping to conclusions. We complain when
>>> they
>>> >>> don't
>>> >>> come to us with brand new, unrefined ideas for our input, but
>>> when
>>> >>> they do we
>>> >>> attack them for being half-baked. Is it any wonder we don't hear
>>> >>> about things
>>> >>> until they are so far in development?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From what I have been told, the accounts are already created,
>>> they go
>>> >>> live in
>>> >>> less than a month. Whether or not students use the accounts is
>>> one
>>> >>> thing, but
>>> >>> to my knowledge the accounts already exist on the servers and so
>>> a
>>> >>> reversal
>>> >>> isn't possible or logical.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> skelch
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Glasser wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> >>>>> I am going to push Rich Berlin for a press release of some sort
>>> >>>>> (which
>>> >>>>> they may already have prepared). Hopefully we can find out more
>>> in
>>> >>>>> the
>>> >>>>> next few days.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Why is this useful? It seems to me that once MIT has put out a
>>> press
>>> >>>> release saying they're going to do something stupid, they have
>>> even
>>> >>>> more of an excuse to not reverse themselves.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --dave
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> >> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacob W. Faber
>> Phone: 857.928.2838
>> _______________________________________________
>> MIT-talk mailing list
>> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>
>
>
>
> Quoting Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu>:
>
>> I'm separating threads here so folks can choose what they want to read
>> about.
>>
>> "By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>> administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>> effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long term, and
>> avoid administrative political maneuvering."
>>
>> While I agree that a student oriented committee has its advantages,
>> such as its ability to gather and evaluate student opinion, legitimacy
>> really is at issue. Admins really only give lip service to most
>> student committees, where institute and presidential committees can
>> (and have) shape policy. The sad fact is that most admins see
>> students as children.
>>
>> I also realize there are issues with having a mixed group, such as the
>> resume-padding problem and the fact that you can easily choose the
>> wrong people for these important committees. For example, I was on
>> the Committee on Campus Race Relations with a student member who
>> refused to admit racism still existed. Why was he/she on this
>> committee? To this day I have no idea.
>>
>> Also, in theory student members of institute/presidential committees
>> stay in contact with other student representatives. Undergrads are
>> selected by the UA and there is supposed to be accountability there.
>> (I know that I failed at this when I was in office, but it would be a
>> great thing to see regular reports from committee members to the
>> cabinet/senate/cocomm/someone/anyone/bueller?)
>>
>>
>> On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> That's essentially the idea behind SCATR, but a little less
>>> formalized.
>>> The difficulty in creating a committee where *everything* has to come
>>> through is that there are a lot of decisions made every day, from
>>> minor
>>> ones to major ones. Where do you draw the line? Who decides when
>>> someone
>>> has gone over the line? There will be just as much controversy.
>>>
>>> By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>>> administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>>> effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long term, and
>>> avoid
>>> administrative political maneuvering.
>>>
>>> skelch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Dheera Venkatraman wrote:
>>>
>>> > a nice thing to have would be some sort of committee of students
>>> and
>>> > faculty members that such changes would be *required* to be
>>> proposed to.
>>> > basically, say, any infrastructure changes, major art
>>> installations, and
>>> > changes to the campus that are not time-sensitive repairs should
>>> need to
>>> > be signed off by them. kind of some sort of congress deal. like say
>>> if
>>> > MIT comes up to us next week saying they want to cut down the trees
>>> in
>>> > the EC courtyard and install another transparent horizons, and they
>>> > don't get the signatures needed, they shouldn't be allowed to do
>>> it. and
>>> > if they wanted to make a curriculum change but didn't get say over
>>> half
>>> > the students' approval, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
>>> >
>>> > i don't know. very cursory idea here, not sure how to properly
>>> formulate
>>> > this, but basically, there needs to be some sort of check system on
>>> the
>>> > administration.
>>> >
>>> > -dheera
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------
>>> > dheera venkatraman
>>> > http://dheera.net/
>>> > dheera@dheera.net
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, grace wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> ...and we're not going to get a chance to learn until it's already
>>> >> official. note that this was announced in the summer, when the UA
>>> or
>>> >> dormcon can't investigate and [if needed] protest. look - the
>>> admins
>>> >> aren't afraid of our horrible harsh criticism. they're afraid of
>>> >> having
>>> >> to waste time on meetings with students, lying about how much they
>>> >> value
>>> >> our opinions. the things that we bitch about being half-baked are
>>> >> generally actually near-finalized policies that got leaked. yeah,
>>> >> often
>>> >> times we have only partial information, but by the time we have
>>> full
>>> >> information, things'll have reached the point where the admins
>>> will
>>> >> inform
>>> >> us that such and such a policy has been in the works for years,
>>> and of
>>> >> course the single student committee member was an adequate
>>> >> representation
>>> >> of the student body's desires, and blah blah blah. it's not our
>>> >> criticism
>>> >> that they're afraid of, it's the fact that we might find out in
>>> time
>>> >> to
>>> >> stop things.
>>> >>
>>> >> and bullshit - it's not too late to delete the accounts from the
>>> card
>>> >> office servers. we're talking bits and bytes here, not stuff
>>> that's
>>> >> really irrevocable. now, will they reconsider, or at least listen
>>> to
>>> >> criticism? probably not, since without dormcon & the ua to raise
>>> a
>>> >> hue
>>> >> and cry, odds are we won't even be able to get them to talk to us
>>> >> until
>>> >> after it goes live. but nothing's actually irrevocable until it
>>> >> starts
>>> >> happening, and some stuff [policies and non-physical stuff like
>>> this]
>>> >> can
>>> >> be changed even afterwards.
>>> >>
>>> >> -grace
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug,
>>> kelch@MIT.EDU
>>> >> said:
>>> >>
>>> >>> This has not yet proven to be a "stupid idea". None of us knows
>>> >>> enough about
>>> >>> it to pass judgment. Many of the problems we chalk up to the
>>> >>> administration
>>> >>> are actually students jumping to conclusions. We complain when
>>> they
>>> >>> don't
>>> >>> come to us with brand new, unrefined ideas for our input, but
>>> when
>>> >>> they do we
>>> >>> attack them for being half-baked. Is it any wonder we don't hear
>>> >>> about things
>>> >>> until they are so far in development?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From what I have been told, the accounts are already created,
>>> they go
>>> >>> live in
>>> >>> less than a month. Whether or not students use the accounts is
>>> one
>>> >>> thing, but
>>> >>> to my knowledge the accounts already exist on the servers and so
>>> a
>>> >>> reversal
>>> >>> isn't possible or logical.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> skelch
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Glasser wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> >>>>> I am going to push Rich Berlin for a press release of some sort
>>> >>>>> (which
>>> >>>>> they may already have prepared). Hopefully we can find out more
>>> in
>>> >>>>> the
>>> >>>>> next few days.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Why is this useful? It seems to me that once MIT has put out a
>>> press
>>> >>>> release saying they're going to do something stupid, they have
>>> even
>>> >>>> more of an excuse to not reverse themselves.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --dave
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> >> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacob W. Faber
>> Phone: 857.928.2838
>> _______________________________________________
>> MIT-talk mailing list
>> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
