The following editorial was written by David Dryjanski ‘07 in the March 7, 2008 issue of The Tech.
It’s clear that MIT’s administration is operating with unchecked authority. Senior administrators are able to create unwarranted flag policies that contradict existing fire codes, enforce mandatory meal plans for our dining halls, and evict students from graduate dorms on their own volition. More disturbing is the opacity of the administration. The Green Hall eviction came as a huge surprise to the residents who were suddenly forced to move into a more expensive dorm, further away from campus, with smaller rooms and hardly any common spaces. The administration is also reluctant and slow to release data to students investigating administrative operations.
Administrative inefficiency and incompetency have also led to many poor policy decisions. The 2007 Baker House Dining Report revealed a remarkably unprofitable business that MIT Dining claimed as a huge success. Why are we building a new dining hall no more than 100 feet away from two other ones operating with $500,000 in losses each year? Does anyone else wonder why MIT Housing must continually raise rental rates even though they are not subject to property taxes and are guaranteed a full set of residents? It must be the outrageous cable rates (without ESPN). Isn’t it time that the administration operate under a meritocracy like the rest of MIT?
Most disenchanting is the MIT administration’s propensity to disregard Student, Alumni, and Faculty (SAF) input. Many administrative decisions are dishonestly and arrogantly explained only after being made. MIT community input is vital to the Institute’s well being and is not something you can put a bandage on with an after-the-fact blue-ribbon committee. A lack of input leads to the erosion of MIT’s culture. Numerous articles have discussed the administration’s hypocritical stance on hacking, praising it as a defining piece of MIT culture, yet taking students to court for their involvement in hacks. The administration is able to get away with ludicrous polices because of student turnover and lack of Institutional memory. I want to emphasize that this is alarmingly disrespectful to students. After boasting that the world’s future leaders are on MIT’s campus, to ignore their sentiments when making decisions that affect them is either extremely hypocritical or just plain dumb. Why would students join the W1 committee when their votes will be outnumbered by the committee’s administrators?
It’s time to start solving these problems with a community driven, 21st Century adaptation of democracy, or “technocracy.”
There must be administrative transparency and metrics for success. All substantial administrative initiatives must have a clearly defined objective, set of goals, measures for success, and an estimated cost made public to the MIT community. This will lead to well-reasoned, fairly-debated policy initiatives. Checks and balances must exist so that any proposition can be acted upon by the administration if and only if it has received majority support from affected constituents; all SAF would have the opportunity to vote on a proposed action. Increasing SAF involvement in the community would force the administration to abide by majority interests. SAF would also have the ability to petition the administration to revoke and revise policies. A public forum should be available for any member of the MIT community to voice their complaints, which administrators must respond to. There should be greater organizational clarity and accountability, making MIT staff and administrators readily accessible by SAF and ultimately responsible for their actions. Finally, we should look within MIT for answers. Have classes focus on improving MIT society: creating the opportunity for student involved policy analysis would be both educationally and institutionally beneficial.
This type of governance system could be implemented with technological voting tools and the Internet, and set MIT apart from peer institutions by giving students the ability to actively participate in the way MIT is run. It would increase community activism and help make effective, well-thought policy decisions that everyone could understand. Alumni would have more pride, be more involved, and be more willing to donate to the Institute. MIT’s culture could be preserved and who better than MIT to technologically advance government?
