I agreeto Idea Enough is Enough

20 votes

I disagreeto Idea Enough is Enough

Rank1

Idea#7

This idea is active.
Residential Support System »

Enough is Enough

While Chancellor Grimson's email regarding RLADs came as a surprise, it's hard to consider it unexpected given the track record of Dean Colombo and Dean Humphreys. Since coming to MIT, these Deans have continued to make the same mistake: eliminating meaningful student involvement from decisions that affect MIT's student culture.

We saw it with the initial dining proposal, and we protested. We saw it with the proposal to shorten REX, and we protested. We saw it with Burton Conner's recent housemaster selection, and we protested. And now we're seeing it with the introduction of RLADs, and we're going to protest.

RLADs are simply the next attempt to install administrators within residential life at MIT, an effort that Dean Colombo has been making since his start. First, he tried to replace the housemasters themselves, which was made evident when he appointed himself to be housemaster of Next House. But when it came time for Senior House to select a new housemaster, this method proved futile.

Senior House made sure the entire house was involved, thus causing Colombo to make his unrest about the students' involvement painfully clear in another way. He decided to reject the house’s recommendation because the candidates were not tenured faculty. This may sound reasonable, but not when you consider that Colombo was serving as housemaster without tenure.

Now, the Division for Student Life has created RLADs to pull the administrative responsibilities away from housemasters, which has the same affect as placing administrators in the housemaster role. In doing so, the DSL has stepped way out of bounds. Not only did they create this role seemingly out of thin air, but they also waited until after students left campus to make an announcement, thus making it harder for us to protest. To top it off, that announcement was addressed to housemasters and meant to stay out of students' hands. Kudos goes to the housemaster who met their job description and advocated for their house by forwarding the letter along.

So what do we do now, as a student body, where time and time again our administrators exhibit a clear misunderstanding of our culture, and consistently make decisions that we need to protest. Do we simply protest again, or do we ask for new administrators who understand and support our culture and community?

I propose that we call on President-elect Rafael Reif for the immediate removal of Chris Colombo and Henry Humphreys from their respective positions as Dean for Student Life and Senior Associate Dean for Residential Life and Dining. Enough is enough; situations like these are a waste of time and easily avoided with the right administrators.

Comment

Submitted by Community Member 11 months ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Events

  1. The idea was posted
    11 months ago

Comments (5)

  1. Pinned Moderator Comment

    An inappropriate comment was removed from this thread. Please keep the discussion professional and about the issues at hand. This thread does not technically involve an idea, but the discussion (including parts of the removed comment) are important things for the community to discuss. The commenter has been contacted and asked to repost their comment with the issue removed.

    11 months ago
  2. I don't think that saying that we will protest the RLADs will have much effect. It didn't really work for dining, at any rate, because there wasn't any sort of alternative proposed, at least not cohesively as far as I could tell. I'm not really sure what the equivalent idea would be here, though, because what they're trying to achieve isn't really stated. With dining the main goal was to reduce costs. Of course they constantly talked about other goals, like health, which just confused the issue. In this case they say that they want more clarity in the staff structure and broader student support, but we should probably ask them for clarification so that we can understand why they are making these changes, what the changes are, and if there are better alternatives. It would also be nice to know who made the decision: was it the Deans and the Chancellor alone, or was there some committee involved?

    As far as removing the Deans, I don't see that actually happening. I don't really know the process, but it seems like Deans have to do something fairly major to be unappointed, and I don't think that the administration will see a lack of communication skills as being on that level.

    11 months ago
    1. Community Member Idea Submitter

      They usually don't miss an opportunity to mention if there was a committee involved. Instead of a committee, it looks like this idea was developed by "listening to faculty, students, staff, parents, and others in a variety of context and conversations". Of course, this is what they do on a day to day basis, and it makes you wonder if they ever spoke in the context of creating an RLAD.

      We don't know the exact reason they want more administration in the dorms, but it's clear that they do. If we have a good reason, we can present alternatives. But otherwise we need to try and prevent the change altogether.

      Replacing the Deans is a pipe dream, and maybe a bit too extreme. But at the very least, I think Reif should be made aware of what's going on, and perhaps be a source for support against these decisions which are made without student involvement. He's setting a new tone for the university, and I think part of that tone should be to restore and preserve MIT's student-driven culture.

      11 months ago
  3. Community Member Idea Submitter

    "This thread does not technically involve an idea"

    The idea is to remove the roots of the problems in the Residential Support System.

    11 months ago
  4. "Administrators have taken over U.S. universities"

    http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/241/ginsberg.html

    11 months ago
  5. There should be an honor code for administrators (or all of us?), or a stipulation in their contract that lying to students, faculty, etc. is a fireable offense. Humphreys, at bare minimum, should be fired for lying to GRTs (and students?)

    Further, Grimson's letter to the Tech is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty about the facts surrounding this incident. This destroys trust and makes meaningful collaboration impossible. It irreparably harms the Institute, as broken trust takes a *very* long time to rebuild.

    If administrators are in a situation where feel that they cannot answer a question honestly, they should decline to answer it, or defer the question until later. *They should be fired if they lie.*

    11 months ago