[2025] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Separating threads: Student Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Rezek)
Fri Jul 7 12:09:00 2006
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:08:34 -0400
To: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>, faber@alum.mit.edu
From: Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20060704035051.iy479gpofi9kw0ws@webmail.mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu, ua-scatr@mit.edu,
"Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>, grace <gkenney@mit.edu>,
Dheera Venkatraman <dheera@mit.edu>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
The SAC proposal and other documents are here for reference:
http://web.mit.edu/advise/unifiedproposal/
Students can get a lot done when they are active and informed and coordinated.
Chris
At 03:50 AM 7/4/2006, 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
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
