in this issue we offer two of our Teach Talk features concerning onlineteaching, below and “Teaching Under Covid: Losses Outweigh Gains” (page 12);“The Problem with Philanthropy” (page 14); two pieces on STEM (pages 18 and 19);and “MIT Volpe Construction Plan Will Damage Faculty Housing Initiative” (page 21).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXXIII No. 2November/December 2020

https://fnl.mit.edu

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 6

Teach TalkMoving AbruptlyOnline: What it waslike for Faculty andfor Students

MIT’s Plan for theSpring Semester

continued on page 8

Cynthia Barnhart

Science Returns to Informing Federal Policies

T H E T R U M P A D M I N I S T R AT I O N

systematically used budget cuts and regu-latory changes to undermine scientificcontribution to public policy. Theseactions weakened key US agencies,including the Environmental ProtectionAgency, Food and Drug Administration,Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, National Institutes of Health,and Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration. We anticipate the incom-ing administration will undo the damagedone to these agencies and restore the roleof science in shaping policy. However, areturn to the status quo ante will notaddress the institutional arrangementsthat limit science’s role in shaping policy. During the Obama/Biden administra-tions, corporate lobbyists from the fossil

EditorialI. Science Returns toInforming FederalPoliciesII. The Suri and FisherReports on Outside Gifts

continued on page 3

On Campus Fall 2020

Shigeru Miyagawa and Meghan Perdue

ON N OVE M B E R 2 , 2020, I wrote tothe MIT community to share our currentplan for the spring semester. I reiteratedthe principles that guided our decision-making, described the lessons learned sofar this fall, and expressed appreciation tothe MIT community for the perseveranceand care we have shown for one anotherthroughout the pandemic. Below, pleasefind a summary of what we decided andwhy.

How we got here and what welearnedAs President Reif outlined in July, ourplan for the fall was careful and meas-ured. So we could test our approach andadjust it as we learned, we extended invi-tations to return to campus only to grad-uate students, rising seniors, and studentsfacing certain hardships, plus some

L I K E S O M A N Y I N S T I T U T I O N S

around the world, MIT made the abrupttransition to online teaching in the midstof the pandemic, thrusting all 1,251 of itsspring 2020 courses online in late March.To try to understand what this experiencewas like for the faculty and the students,we sifted through faculty and studentsurveys conducted at the end of thespring semester by the Office ofInstitutional Research and interviewedover 30 faculty members. We will touchon three areas – faculty’s experience withonline teaching, teaching remotely fromhome, and student reactions to learningonline.

Teaching onlineFaculty reaction to transitioning onlineran the gamut from seeing it as an oppor-tunity to treating it as a burden, although

2

Vol. XXXIII No. 2 November/December 2020

Robert Berwick (Vice-Chair)Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Christopher CumminsChemistry

*Sally HaslangerLinguistics and Philosophy

*Jonathan A. King (Chair) Biology

Helen Elaine LeeComparative Media Studies/Writing

Ceasar McDowell (Secretary)Urban Studies and Planning

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

*Ruth PerryLiterature Section

*Nasser RabbatArchitecture

Balakrishnan RajagopalUrban Studies and Planning

Robert RedwinePhysics

Warren SeeringMechanical Engineering

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 10-335Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458E-mail fnl@mit.edu

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

01 MIT’s Plan for the Spring Semester Cynthia Barnhart Teach Talk 01 Moving Abruptly Online: What it was like for Faculty and for Students Shigeru Miyagawa and Meghan Perdue

Editorial 01 I. Science Returns to Informing Federal Policies II. The Suri and Fisher Reports on Outside Gifts

05 The MIT Corporation: Reviewing Governance Suzanne L. Glassburn

07 Nationwide Unemployment Insurance Fraud Scheme

Teach Talk 12 Teaching Under Covid: Losses Outweigh Gains David Geltner, Alan Jasanoff, Caroline Jones

14 The Problem with Philanthropy Sally Haslanger

In Memoriam 16 Angelika Amon Tyler E. Jacks

18 LGBTQ+ Scientists and STEM Timothy F. Jamison

19 Does MIT Support DEI Education in STEM? Jared D. Berezin

21 MIT Volpe Construction Plan Will Damage Faculty Housing Initiative

22 The Final Commencement Richard Stanley

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo Credit: Page1: Gretchen Ertl; Page 16: Constance Brukin, courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archives

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

3

fuel industry, the Chemical ManufacturersAssociation, Pharmaceutical Manufac-turers Association, US Chamber ofCommerce, and the Defense Industryexerted far too much power over nationalpolicy. The choice of John Kerry to lead theClimate efforts is a promising sign thatscience will have a substantive role inshaping climate policy. But Biden’s failure to be concerned thatthe Pentagon budget consumes more thanhalf of US discretionary spending isdeeply troubling, though perhaps not sur-prising, given the Defense Industry’sability to spend billions of taxpayer dollarsto advance their interests. The UnitedStates currently spends more onnational defense than China, India,Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany,United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, andBrazil – combined. Perhaps a new over-sight position to contain the spiralingPentagon budget is warranted. Quoting Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Thisconjunction of an immense militaryestablishment and a large arms industry isnew in the American experience. The totalinfluence – economic, political, even spir-itual – is felt in every city, everyStatehouse, every office of the Federalgovernment. We recognize the imperativeneed for this development. Yet we mustnot fail to comprehend its grave implica-tions. Our toil, resources and livelihoodare all involved; so is the very structure ofour society.” We hope the new administration willheed the urgent demands of those whoelected them, and tap into the nation’sappetite for change by putting the people’sinterest at the head of the queue.

Editorial Board of the MIT Faculty Newsletter

* * * * *

The Suri and Fisher Reports onOutside Gifts T H E E S TA B L I S H M E N T O F T H E

Ad Hoc Faculty Committee on Guidelinesfor Outside Engagements (“SuriCommittee”) and the Ad Hoc FacultyCommittee to Review MIT Gift Processes(“Fisher Committee”) came as a responseto the widespread concern among faculty,students, staff, and alumni about the han-dling of the bin Salman, Epstein,Schwarzman, and other donations.(Student committees were also consulted,and their reports appear as appendices.) The reports from the two committeesmake clear that the members of the com-mittees received substantive input fromthe MIT community. The two reports arethorough and thoughtful in attempting toarticulate values and principles for accept-ing gifts, and in the latter setting up proce-dures to establish whether or notprospective gifts satisfy the standards set.We appreciate the Suri Committee’s rec-ommendation that these matters require aStanding Committee, and with the FisherCommittee, the need to establish a GrantsAcceptance Committee for ongoingreview of proposed gifts. Similarly, the“Red Light” and “Yellow Light” formula-tions are clear and appropriate. Yet some of us were hoping that thecommittees would address the errorsmade, raise the issues of accountability,and address again the actual cases thatlaunched the whole endeavor to structureoutside engagements at MIT. It wouldhave given the reports much more credi-bility and authority had past errors beendiscussed and responsibilities assigned,and corrective actions suggested. Instead,both committees were directed only toaddress future gifts, as yet unreceived. The opening paragraph of the SuriCommittee Executive Summary asks “Arewe inadvertently helping bad actors‘launder’ their reputations through theirassociations with MIT?”. The answer tothis question is “yes” for those cases thatbrought this issue to a head. For example,among the “Red Lights” listed in Section5.1. #2 is: “Has this individual directly

engaged in, funded, or otherwise supportedany gross violations of political, civil, orhuman rights; or serious violations of thelaws of war?”. Human rights include polit-ical, civil, economic, social, and culturalrights and also violations by non-stateactors such as the Houthis in Yemen, asthe UN has concluded, or violations byStates such as Saudi Arabia.

Continuing in Bad CompanyIn spite of the accomplishments of theSuri Committee, there remain questionsabout past and future gifts from StephenSchwarzman, whose name, now closelyassociated with MIT, is in the news, butnot for making the world a better place orfor the “betterment of mankind.” Thistime it is for deploying the exploitativepower that is his hallmark and making theworld a worse place for millions of itsinhabitants in the process. Last year it wasrevealed that his company, the BlackstoneGroup, was one of the driving forcesbehind the deforestation of the Amazonrainforest, further endangering theclimate of the planet and ignoring therights of the indigenous peoples who livethere1. Schwarzman is one of the richestmen in the world and the damage causedby his activities spreads far beyond therainforest.2

His Blackstone Group has been con-demned by the United Nations3 for exac-erbating the worldwide housing shortageby “the financialization of housing” – thelarge-scale scooping up of foreclosedhomes at bargain-basement prices follow-ing the financial crisis of 2008, feedingthose properties back into the rentalsector at steeply increased rents, onerousfees and leases, and then moving to evictthem when renters fall behind. On the

1 https://theintercept.com/2019/08/27/ama-zon-rainforest-fire-blackstone/2 https://www.housinghumanright.org/mod-ern-day-robber-baron-the-sins-of-blackstone-ceo-stephen-schwarzman/3 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24404&LangID=E

Science Returns to Informing Federal Policiescontinued from page 1

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

4

whole, the company is making it harderfor millions of men, women, and childrento find decent affordable places to live andpushing them into greater poverty – viola-tions of human rights as understoodtoday.4 Given that an overwhelmingnumber of these renters are Black andother people of color, Blackstone’s actionsare indeed against Black lives5.Additionally, Schwarzman has beenknown for financing the campaign tofrustrate California’s recent attempts in2018 and 2020 to introduce a rent-controlmeasure which would have benefitedmany ordinary folks and for mounting anunsuccessful effort to stop New York’s newpro-tenant housing laws in 2019.

Schwarzman is part of the super-rich classthat exploits and extracts profits from themost marginalized people at home and inthe world. Although these moves wouldhave activated the “Yellow Lights”described by the Suri Committee, andperhaps even “Red Lights,” the GiftAcceptance Committee which has been

proposed to review such cases will not bein place until July 2022, and its charge willnot include revisiting current or past gifts. Charitable and philanthropic “giving”has long been a favored mode of reputa-tion laundering by the super-rich,although vulture capitalism brings with ita certain opprobrium when it is noticed.[See in this issue, Sally Haslanger’s “TheProblem with Philanthropy” (page 14)].There is a fine line between the pragmaticand the squalid, and many think we arewell across it here. The Institute is, orought to be, a global beacon of excellencein the application of practical intelligencefor the betterment of the human condi-

tion. Schwarzman’s Blackstone Groupworks for neither of these principles. In the town meeting on the Suri andFisher reports, there was attention to con-sidering gifts on a case by case basis for awhile and building up a set of precedentsor “case law”. The Schwarzman andEpstein donations are examples of such

“case law”, both to determine what shouldbe done in the future in cases like this and,more generally, to consider how toaddress what is reasonably seen as a pastmistake. The Suri/Fisher reports advocate theneed for reform. They offer a new set ofpractices according to which everyresearcher at MIT should think abouttheir relationship to funding sources,however small. We heartily agree. Butwhat will be the consequences for thosewho try to subvert or get around the man-dated processes?

Editorial Subcommittee

4 For Schwarzman’s recent anti-rent controlactivities in California, see https://www.busi-nesswire.com/news/home/20200914005889/en/%E2%80%98Yes-on-21%E2%80%99-Special-Report-%E2%80%98Modern-Day-Robber-Baron-The-Sins-of-Blackstone-CEO-Stephen-Schwarzman%E2%80%99.Scholarship on the links between evictionsand poverty is extensive. See e.g.,https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mdesmond/files/desmond.evictionpoverty.ajs2012.pdf5 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/07/pri-vate-equity-blackstone-anti-racism-housing

The Suri and Fisher Reportscontinued from preceding page

Schwarzman is part of the super-rich class that exploitsand extracts profits from the most marginalized peopleat home and in the world.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

5

Suzanne L. GlassburnThe MIT Corporation: Reviewing Governance

T H E M I T C O R P O R AT I O N is theInstitute’s governing board and, at fullstrength, has 78 members. Because it isdifficult for such a large body to benimble, much of the responsibility forgoverning the Institute has long beenvested in a subset of the Corporation, theExecutive Committee. Last academic year, reflecting on someinitiatives the Institute had undertaken inthe recent past and on the Epstein crisis, anumber of Corporation members hadquestions about the role of the fullCorporation in MIT’s governance. Inresponse, the Corporation voted to estab-lish an Ad Hoc Committee onGovernance and charged it with examin-ing the respective roles of the ExecutiveCommittee and the greater Corporation.The committee ultimately did not recom-mend changes to the responsibilities ofthe two bodies, but did propose a numberof amendments to MIT’s Bylaws. Some ofthe amendments were intended to docu-ment good governance practices, andothers were intended to provide opportu-nities for more Corporation members toserve on standing committees of theCorporation. The Corporation adoptedthe amendments at meetings in May andAugust. One of the significant changes effected

by the amendments is the expansion ofthe purview of the former MembershipCommittee, now named the Governanceand Nominations Committee, to includeresponsibility for ensuring that theCorporation operates in accordance withgood governance practices. The commit-tee’s specific tasks, therefore, include,

among others, reviewing the effectivenessof the Corporation’s governance struc-ture, overseeing an annual self-assessmentprocess of the Corporation and its stand-ing committees, assessing whetherCorporation members have potentialconflicts of interest, and organizing newCorporation member orientation. The

committee was historically chaired by theChair of the Corporation, but as a resultof the amendments, is now chaired by anon-officer Corporation member. The new Bylaws encourage broaderengagement of Corporation members in anumber of ways. The term limits for mostof the Corporation’s standing committeeshave been structured in a mannerdesigned to encourage periodic rotationsin and out of the committees. Members ofthe Executive Committee, other than theChair of the Corporation and thePresident, may not simultaneously serveon the Governance and NominationsCommittee, and the overlap between theExecutive Committee and the Risk andAudit Committee has been reduced fromtwo members to one. Finally, all members

of the Corporation’s standing committeesare elected annually, rather than for multi-year terms, to allow the Corporation toreview the makeup of the standing com-mittees each year. The effect of these amendments,together with a general sentiment favor-ing broader engagement of the member-

ship, has resulted in a lot of new faces onthe Corporation’s standing committees,especially the Executive Committee, theRisk and Audit Committee, and theCorporation Joint Advisory Committeeon Institute Affairs. The Corporation alsohas a new Chair, Diane Greene SM’78,and a number of new members, includingHeather Cogdell ’89, Drew Faust, MichelleLee ’89, SM’89, Adrianna Ma ’96, M.Eng’96, Indra Nooyi, Adedoyin Olateru-Olagbegi ’20, Janet Wolfenbarger SM ’85and Mark Wrighton. You can find theCorporation membership, the standingcommittees’ membership and theamended Bylaws on the MIT Corporationwebsite: https://corporation.mit.edu/.

Last academic year, reflecting on some initiatives theInstitute had undertaken in the recent past and on theEpstein crisis, a number of Corporation members hadquestions about the role of the full Corporation in MIT’sgovernance. In response, the Corporation voted toestablish an Ad Hoc Committee on Governance andcharged it with examining the respective roles of theExecutive Committee and the greater Corporation.

Suzanne L. Glassburn is Vice President andSecretary of the Corporation (slglass@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

6

members of our research enterprise. Weindicated then that, if all went well underthat plan, we would bring back first-years,sophomores, and juniors in the spring, sothat every undergraduate class would havethe opportunity to be on campus for atleast one semester this academic year. In assessing whether we could proceedwith the spring plan we initially envi-sioned, we returned to the guiding princi-ples that informed our July decisions:

• Protect the public health of our entirecommunity by reducing the number ofpeople on campus;

• Preserve our ability to deliver onMIT’s mission of teaching and research;

• Enable all students to stay on track totheir degrees; and

• Remain dynamic and flexible in ourapproach, recognizing that the pan-demic’s course may require MIT tochange direction (and plans).

To arrive at a decision for the spring,we re-examined the community’s exten-sive due diligence that informed PresidentReif ’s July announcement. We evaluatedCovid-19’s worsening local and nationaltrajectory as well as projections for itspath this coming winter and spring. Andwe looked to the lessons we’ve learned sofar this fall about managing life oncampus. With nearly three months of thesemester behind us, we have been able tocontain the spread of the virus by makingcareful choices about access to campusand by implementing rigorous testing,tracing, isolation, and compliancesystems. But nothing has been moreimportant than the sustained effort bythose accessing campus this fall to adhereto the social compact of the Covid era.This compact – which we all need to con-tinue to abide by now more than evergiven the concerning uptick in cases

across Massachusetts, the country, and theworld – requires us to take responsibilityfor our own health, and for each other’s.

What we decided about the springOur plan for the spring is much like ourplan for the fall but involves a differentundergraduate cohort. And, just as we didwith our preparations for the fall, we areapproaching the spring mindful of thefact that the pandemic’s persistent gripcould force us to pivot at a moment’snotice.

Specifically, as we had hoped, allcurrent first-years, sophomores, andjuniors who would like to live and learnon campus are invited to do so. In order toaccess campus facilities, they will need toreside on campus. Seniors facing circum-stances related to their safety, living condi-tions, visa status, or other hardship haveapplied for campus housing throughthe Student Housing Assistance ReviewProcess (SHARP). A total of 122 seniorshave been granted SHARP housing for thewinter and/or spring. We will make a decision by the end ofthe fall semester about whether seniorswho choose to live nearby can have accessto campus facilities in the same way thatgraduate students who live off campus donow. We will be able to make a moreinformed determination after we learnmore about our ability to manage thehealth of our community during coldweather, with Covid-19 prevalence on therise and flu season beginning, and after wesee how many first-years, sophomores,and juniors will access campus in thespring. Other key details of our current spring2021 plan:

• Research operations will continue asthey are now, as will graduate student

education, which will follow the modifiedspring semester calendar described below.This could change depending on Covid-19 infection and transmission on campusand in the broader community.

• Just as in the fall, many of our subjectswill be taught exclusively online, withsome opportunities for undergraduatesliving on campus and some graduate stu-dents to have in-person instruction.Departments will continue to makearrangements to ensure all students are

able to stay on track with their degreeprogress.

• Because cold weather makes it harderto socialize outdoors and because the to-and-fro of spring break travel presents anobvious risk of viral spread, the springsemester will start two weeks later for allstudents; instruction will be entirelyonline for the first two weeks to accom-modate a one-week quarantine period forall on-campus students; and we willreplace spring break with several longweekends distributed throughout thesemester.

• IAP 2021 will be all virtual and beginon Monday, January 4, 2021 and end onFriday, January 29, 2021.

• We aim to continue to follow keyresidential life policies to reduce the pos-sibility of infection and transmissionwhile enabling safe, meaningful socialconnections: • The undergraduate pod program andthe graduate residential visitors policy willbe available to students in the spring. • Undergraduate students residing oncampus will be required to be on a mealplan, which MIT will continue to subsidize.

MIT’s Plan for the Spring SemesterBarnhart, from page 1

continued on next page

Specifically, as we had hoped, all current first-years,sophomores, and juniors who would like to live and learnon campus are invited to do so. In order to accesscampus facilities, they will need to reside on campus.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

7

• There will be no competitive winterseason athletics (a final determinationabout spring sports will be made in thecoming weeks).

• Restrictions on visiting student andscholar appointments will continue intothe spring term as will our current travelguidelines for the MIT community.

It’s important for all students consid-ering returning to campus for the spring(or in the case of first-year undergradu-ates, coming to campus for the firsttime) to know what life at MIT will belike. The Covid-19 policies and proce-dures in effect this fall will largely stay inplace but we will work with our entirecommunity to make sure we stay con-nected and create opportunities to safelysocialize.

GratitudeThe students, faculty, and staff who areregularly accessing MIT’s campus this fallas well as those who are studying orworking remotely have been essential tothe success of the fall semester so far andcontribute to our belief that we can safelyextend our unique mind, hand, andheart educational opportunities to a largercohort of students in the spring.

MIT’s Plan for the Spring SemesterBarnhart, from preceding page

Cynthia Barnhart is Chancellor and FordFoundation Professor of Engineering (cbarnhar@mit.edu).

Nationwide Unemployment InsuranceFraud Scheme

D U R I NG TH E PAN D E M IC, AN unem-ployment insurance fraud scheme hasbeen targeting unemployment assistanceprograms across the country. Those whoare committing the fraud are believed tobe using stolen personal informationfrom earlier national data breaches. Thereis, however, no indication that thesefraudulent claims stem from any breach ofMIT data. If you receive correspondence from theDepartment of Unemployment Assistance(DUA), such as a notice of application, anapproval letter, or a DUA debit card, or ifyou otherwise learn that an unemploy-ment claim has been filed in your name,

information about what to do is availableon the Human Resources website:https://hr.mit.edu/unemployment-fraud.The most important step to take is to fill outthe DUA’s fraud reporting form promptly. The usual process for unemploymentapproval is that as soon as a person files aclaim with the DUA, the DUA contactsCorporate Cost Control (CCC), MIT’sunemployment claims administrator,with information about the claim. CCCimmediately alerts MIT to the claim andconfirms whether the claim is legitimate.If it is not legitimate, CCC swiftly notifiesthe DUA of the fraud, and the claim isstopped.

Unfortunately, due to the dynamics ofthe pandemic, and in an effort to provideincome to those who need it, there havebeen instances where the DUA hasapproved unemployment benefits beforeverifying that the individual is no longeremployed. CCC and MIT are objecting toclaims that are not legitimate as quickly aspossible. If you have any questions, contactyour Human Resources Officer, or LianneShields (Director, Employee and LaborRelations), at lshields@mit.edu.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

8

a large portion of the faculty expressedenthusiasm. When describing the onlinetransition as an opportunity, facultynoted, “It turned out better than Ithought” and “I encourage more remoteteaching in the future.” Some were non-committal about its value: “it is reasonablebut definitely not ideal,” and whendescribing it as a burden one personnoted, “It just doesn’t work.”

Adapting courses for remote teachingTransitioning the courses online proved tobe an enormous task. One facultymember noted, “this is an entirely newmethod of teaching for us and we havevery little experience of what works andwhat doesn’t.” Some had difficulty cover-ing all of their content. “Everything gotscaled down and back,” reported onefaculty member, while another noted “thenature of my hands-on class just doesn’twork remotely” and that “I’m mourningthe lost learning outcomes.” Othersreported that they were able to transitiontheir course without much loss, noting,“the course had minimal deviation fromthe format used in the prior ten years” ofteaching. While many found the transition toonline teaching overwhelming at first,most were up to the challenge. TheInstitutional Research survey and theinterviews we conducted revealed apicture of instructors engaging creativelyand energetically not only to teach online,but to do so with a fresh attitude towardsteaching. One instructor said that beforethe pandemic, his department hadmonthly faculty meetings that were notalways well attended, but once they beganteaching online, a weekly faculty meetingwas attended regularly by the majority ofthe faculty. The conversation at theseweekly meetings inevitably turned toteaching – from how to use a tablet todraw equations to how best to utilize theZoom breakout rooms. The discussionswere engaging and animated, and rein-forced the broader sense of responsibility

that the faculty have to students and theimportance of interacting with them. When asked why there was such a keyinterest in teaching once the shift wasmade to online, the answer was revealing.According to one instructor, in a face-to-face classroom, we know – at least wethink we know – how to teach because wewere taught that way as students. With theswitch to online teaching, there was noprior experience to fall back on, so thatthey had to think through even the mostbasic steps in ways they had never had todo before. Many spoke enthusiastically about theonline teaching experience, seeing it as anopportunity to try new ways of teaching.One observed that “my teaching is always

changing, this will accelerate it, push it innew directions,” while another said “Igrew a lot as a teacher by being forced tothink outside the box; pedagogically it wasan exciting time.” Many faculty restruc-tured the class to emphasize small andlarge group discussion and experientialexercises, rather than spending the major-ity of the class time lecturing. In describ-ing the overall experience, one observed,“This semester was easily the mostrewarding teaching experience I ever had.The challenges we faced require innova-tion, nimble thinking, and a willingness totry things that might fail. We as educatorsmust rise to that challenge and overcomeit in order to help our students grow andcontinue their intellectual and profes-sional journeys.” In all, the majority ofMIT faculty found that teaching onlinewas indeed possible, with 89% agreeingthat it would be reasonable to continue toteach their subject remotely if needed.(See charts next page.)

Pass no record gradingWhen the spring semester was abruptlyshifted online, MIT decided to enact the“pass no record” grading policy to reducethe burden on students and faculty.Faculty reacted to this policy in differentways. Some were frustrated that there was“no way to hold students accountable”and that “emergency grading greatlylowered the performance of the majorityof students in the class.” Others did notfeel impeded by the grading policy,holding that the students are “youngadults who should be held responsible fortheir learning.” Still other faculty foundthe grading policy liberating, feeling thatit allowed them to focus more on teachingand less on tests and grades.

Discovering new opportunitiesSome were surprised to learn that teach-ing online worked fine, or even better forparticular topics, with one instructornoting, “I discovered that a particularcomponent of a course I was teachingworked so effectively that I would con-tinue to offer it in an online format inthe future, even when we’re back to100% on campus teaching.” Others wereexcited about the opportunities thatteaching online could bring, such asallowing for guest lecturers to join theclass from anywhere, or even collaborat-ing with professors teaching similarcourses at other institutions to createmixed group assignments and give stu-dents an opportunity to work with col-leagues from around the world. Whenwe exit this remote learning experienceand return to the physical classroom,we’re hopeful that some of these innova-tions will be maintained, such as asyn-chronous online learning to add to the

Moving Abruptly OnlineMiyagawa and Perdue, from page 1

continued on next page

While many found the transition to online teachingoverwhelming at first, most were up to the challenge.The Institutional Research survey and the interviews weconducted revealed a picture of instructors engagingcreatively and energetically not only to teach online, butto do so with a fresh attitude towards teaching.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

9

face-to-face classroom teaching, asnoted in Sarma 2020. Engaging with students online calledfor an entirely different set of skills, andmany voiced concern about their ability tomanage the technology and maintain asense of community, although some dis-covered ways to connect with studentseven more effectively once online. “I thinkthe learning was a little bit deeper thanwhen we’re in the classroom,” observedone. Similarly, some faculty found a sur-prising boon to the level of engagementonce online, observing that “it felt muchmore relaxed than a usual classroom,things became a little bit more informal.”Many faculty reported that office hoursonline were much more successful than inperson, and others found that holdingoffice hours immediately after the classallowed for a lively informal discussionthat rarely occurred on campus. This sudden change allowed for a re-evaluation of the teaching practices thatwere previously unquestioned. Said oneinstructor, “Having to change the courseso dramatically did give me more focus onwhat was meaningful and important. Forinstance, a midterm exam and formal lec-tures became much less important,whereas student mentoring . . . andfinding ways to support group interactionwere more important.” Across the

campus, there was a significant interest inmaking classes more interactive, to spendmore class time working in groups,solving problems, and discussing issuesand less time lecturing. The satisfaction of the faculty is shownin the survey, to which 830 instructorsresponded (56% response rate). Nearly80% said that they were pleased or verypleased with the student learningachieved, and 75% were pleased or verypleased with the quality of instruction theywere able to offer. (See charts next page.) While many instructors found positiveelements to transitioning to online teach-ing, there were many challenges as well.Some didn’t find it as fulfilling as teachingin person. One bluntly remarked, “This isnot the kind of teaching I want to do.” Thefrustration with online teaching was par-ticularly pronounced in hands-on or lab-based courses, which had to shift focusaway from learning technical skills toexperiment design and analysis. Otherslamented, “This semester was terrible. Ihad to lower my standards.” Most agreedthat “teaching via Zoom is exhausting.”

Teaching from homeHousing and family circumstances posedchallenges for many faculty and students.Some noted that their home internet orcomputer equipment was not up to the

task of teaching online, and in some casesthat problem was exacerbated by theirpartner also working remotely or theirchildren learning remotely at the sametime. Some younger faculty members livein accommodations that are not con-ducive to teaching online. Said one, “Ihave no office space in my home becausehousing in the area is expensive for ajunior faculty member. I chose to balancenearness to MIT campus against squarefootage in my home intending to use myoffice at MIT for most teaching activities.”An instructor who lives alone spoke ofhaving to spend all day in a small, clut-tered apartment that led to a feeling ofisolation. Taking care of children while teachingat home posed a particularly challengingsituation. A single mother found herselfhaving to homeschool her children andtake care of them throughout the daywhile teaching online. Another singleparent of a young child noted, “some kindof child care would have made an enor-mous difference.” Although providingchildcare at home while teaching was dif-ficult, one faculty member said, “No way Icould have been a parent and a professorhad I been required to be on campus inperson. It would have forced me to takeleave if I could not have taught remotely.”

Moving Abruptly OnlineMiyagawa and Perdue, from preceding page

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

10

StudentsThe IR student survey had a 30% responserate, with 3,342 students responding out ofthe 11,010 who were invited.Undergraduates had the highest responserate (39%), followed by Master’s students(29%), and Doctoral students (22%). Students generally were appreciative ofthe efforts MIT made to create onlinecommunities for learning and other activ-ities, with 73% somewhat or stronglyagreeing with the statement, “I feel likepart of the MIT community.” Administrators are also seen in a posi-tive light, with over two-thirds (67%) ofstudents somewhat or strongly agreeingwith the statement, “MIT administratorsare genuinely concerned about my

welfare,” although 16% somewhat orstrongly disagreed with the statement.Undergraduates reported lower levels ofagreement, with 61% somewhat orstrongly agreeing. Although 84% agreed that they weresupported by their family and friends,understandably, around 85% of the stu-dents reported that their engagement withfellow students in their major or programand with friends had become worse ormuch worse with the pandemic. Most students had adequate hardware,software, and internet access for onlineclasses. They were split on their reactionto the Zoom lectures, with 42% of respon-dents agreeing (somewhat or strongly)with the statement, “Generally, class ses-

sions held on Zoom or similar technologywere effective for my learning” while 45%disagreed with that statement. (The other14% chose Neither agree nor disagree.) Seventy-seven percent of the studentsagreed that the amount of contentcovered in remote learning was reason-able, and 88% agreed that the EmergencyGrading policy eased the stress of thesecond half of the semester. On the other hand, there were clear dis-satisfactions with online learning itself,with students’ views diverging from that ofthe faculty. When asked about the state-ment, “I was able to focus during onlinesessions as well as I do in in-person classes,”79% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Moving Abruptly OnlineMiyagawa and Perdue, from preceding page

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

11

Furthermore, 70% agreed with thestatement, “I had a difficult time learningin this new, self-directed environment,”which contrasts sharply with the facultysurvey in which 80% were pleased or verypleased with the student learningachieved. We attribute the difficulty the studentshad to a number of factors. The largestreported impact on their ability to learnwas general stress related to Covid-19,with 71% of respondents agreeing thatthis stress made it difficult to learn. Also, just as the faculty had to learn toteach online, students had to learn tolearn online; but unlike the faculty, whohad access to workshops and informal ses-sions with colleagues in which theyexchanged tips for online teaching, stu-dents were mostly left to themselves tofigure out how to learn in this new envi-ronment. Forty-four percent agreed thatlack of access to campus support servicesmade it difficult to learn. Learning whilebeing at home was also a factor, as 64% ofthe respondents agreed that distractionsin their living arrangement made it diffi-cult for them to learn.

There was sufficient dissatisfactionthat 53% of the students felt that theywould rather take a semester off than do itvia remote learning.

In closingThe sudden transition to online teachinghas spurred the faculty to undertake inno-vations and to question practices longtaken for granted, such as noninteractivelectures and high-stakes exams. As aninstructor remarked, “In the long run, it’sbeen absolutely great for our teaching.”Although the majority expressed enthusi-asm, others did not feel that it worked sowell. Teaching effectively online not onlyrequires innovation and creativity, but theplace for teaching – the home – also mustmeet certain basic requirements. This hasexposed vulnerabilities among those whodon’t have the necessary housing, andfamily situations that forced alreadyoverextended faculty members to take onadditional burden. The students appreci-

ated the nimbleness with which MITmoved to make it possible for them tolearn online, as well as the care that theInstitute leadership and the facultyshowed. However, having to learn online

brought challenges caused by beingoutside the safe learning environment ofthe classroom, with some struggling withhome situations that impeded learning,and many inadequately prepared to learnonline, all the while living under the stressof the pandemic.

Moving Abruptly OnlineMiyagawa and Perdue, from preceding page

We attribute the difficulty the students had to a numberof factors. The largest reported impact on their ability tolearn was general stress related to Covid-19, with 71%of respondents agreeing that this stress made it difficultto learn.

This work was in part supported by agenerous grant from the Michelson20MM Foundation. Parts of this articleare excerpted from an article in InsideHigher Ed by Miyagawa and Perdue.

Shigeru Miyagawa is Senior Associate Deanfor Open Learning and Professor of Linguistics(miyagawa@mit.edu);Meghan Perdue is Digital Learning Fellow inthe School of Humanities, Arts, and SocialSciences (mperdue@mit.edu).

Help us help you. We are a group of MIT Sloan Students trying to better understand your impressionsof MIT Medical’s services. Please fill out this anonymous, short (~3 min) survey. We are interested inyour perceptions and experiences whether or not you have used MIT Medical before. Though manynorms and processes have changed due to the pandemic, please answer these questions as thoughthis was a normal year. Participate here.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

12

David GeltnerAlan JasanoffCaroline Jones

Teach TalkTeaching Under Covid: Losses Outweigh Gains

COVI D HAS PR E S E NTE D ALL walksof life with unique and unprecedented chal-lenges. But there can be some silver linings.Now near the conclusion of our fall semesterafter a spring of dizzying turnarounds, whatcan we say, “big picture,” about how remoteonline teaching is going at MIT? Here’s a view assembled from experi-ences the three of us have had. Importantly,we don’t claim to be broadly representative,but perhaps our report from the trenchespresents an informative sampling of diverseexperiences with 100% remote online teach-ing and learning. One of our subjects is a synchronouslyconducted graduate seminar with neitherquantitative nor hands-on components,1

while the others are traditional “MIT type”courses that have used disparate styles toconvey basic, largely quantitative materialusing lectures and problem sets.2 Thesethree subjects have been able to reach stu-dents prohibited from being on campus,whether by Covid or visa snafus – and theyare in multiple time zones that span the

planet. Because they lack laboratory orstudio elements, these classes encompass thegeneral types of subject material and stylesof teaching that can probably best lendthemselves to online remote learning. Withthat in mind, considering them points tosome general strengths and limitations ofthe educational environment we now workwithin.

Some good news? . . .One of us (Geltner) had some prior experi-ence with online teaching that enabled him,by investing the better part of the summer,to convert his subject to an entirely “flippedclassroom” approach, that is, material pre-sented asynchronously in lecture videos andother media, with live classes only forengagement and interaction/discussion,review of the problem sets, and consolida-tion of the learning.3 Some learning scien-tists consider this flipped teaching approachto be most effective for online remote learn-ing where lecturing is involved.4 Withsupport from those experts (e.g., coachingfrom MIT Open Learning), Geltner redevel-oped and uploaded his entire 12-unit courseelectronically and has been using a widerange of the really very impressive tools andcapabilities of the MITx platform.5 This

format is going very well. Geltner is teachingas much (maybe even slightly more) mate-rial than he has traditionally been able toassign (now in pre-recorded lectures andvarious other modalities), and all the evi-dence so far suggests that among the 47mostly graduate students (including somemid-career), learning and, importantly,retention, is at least as good, maybe evenslightly better than with his traditional in-person teaching. And students seem to begenerally pretty satisfied with the combina-tion of stored lectures and online liveengagement. The asynchronous deliverymixes up the type of learning experience(reading, videos, exercises, self-administeredimmediate-feedback quizzes, online discus-sion forums), breaks it up into bite-sizechunks, and gives the students flexibility inmanagement of their time.

Some bad news . . .In Jones’s graduate Methods seminar, bycontrast, it has been a struggle to composethe kind of community that was taken forgranted in the usual intimate classroom(equipped with a blackboard for sponta-neous insights, and a projector for pre-planned content presentations). Zoom-zombihood was a real threat after any given50-minute timespan, whether the studentwas coming from 10 pm in Dubai or 5 am inCalifornia. So, Jones broke the seminarblock into “solidarity cohorts” of five, eachof which met for a half hour to frame theirthoughts about difficult concepts, before thegroup of all 17 participants could join toshare in discussion. (The professor, note, is“on point” for all of these slots.) This mech-anism helped, but students needed many

1 Colloquially known as “HTC Methods,” thesubject 4.661 rotates among faculty in theHistory, Theory, and Criticism (HTC) sectionof the Department of Architecture. It currentlyhas 17 graduate students enrolled, primarilyfrom the Architecture Department; 12 arePhD candidates and 5 enrolled at theMaster’s degree level. 2 Geltner is teaching 11.431/15.426,“Introduction to Real Estate Finance &Investment,” with 47 students from Sloan,the Center for Real Estate, the Departmentof Urban Studies, Harvard cross-registrants,and a smattering of MIT undergrads;Jasanoff is teaching 20.420, “Principles ofMolecular Bioengineering,” a required classfor first-year graduate students in BiologicalEngineering, jointly led by Professor ErnestFraenkel.

3 Presumably at least somewhat lessinvestment would be required going forward.4 To this point, we thank Krishna Rajagopalfor pointing out the World Economic Forumsummary found here:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/returning-to-the-classroom-will-be-a-chance-to-rethink-its-purpose/5 See MIT Open Learning’s helpful resourceedited by Jim Goodell and Aaron Kessler atthis URL: https://openlearning.mit.edu/mit-faculty/residential-digital-innovations/science-remote-learning.

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

13

more visits to office hours than usual, toachieve the kind of confidence in theirlearning that usually begins to swell aftermid-semester, as they approach theirresearch topic for a final scholarly paper. Jasanoff ’s graduate core class facesrelated problems. Lectures in this coursehave used PowerPoint in the past, and thetransition to Zoom has been friendly to thismedium. Discussion during remote classeshas been remarkably robust, abetted bysmart and articulate students. Below thesurface, however, things are less well. Innormal times, successful lecturing involvestaking the temperature of the room, probingthe class as a whole with didactic questionsand remedying quizzical looks with supple-mentary lessons. As with many challengingscience classes, a major part of studentsuccess in Jasanoff ’s course also has to dowith multipolar interactions peripheral tothe classroom itself. These include theimpromptu Q&A entertained before andafter lectures, the free-form exchanges oftraditional office hours, and the intensiveinterplay that takes place among studentsthemselves, often at late-night homeworksessions. All of these crucial in-person ingre-dients are severely attenuated in the remotelearning format, despite efforts to compen-sate using Zoom recitations and other meet-ups. The loss of traditional interactions thusmakes it far more difficult to tailor educa-tional content to diverse backgrounds,placing unnatural burdens on teachers andtrainees alike.

The crucial problem: What’s missing . . .And there’s more bad news. All three of usagree that the new formats are not nearly asmuch fun as good old in-person classroomteaching and on-campus interaction. Wespeak for ourselves, but we feel sure this istrue for the students too. When we speak of“fun” here, we don’t mean frivolous orsuperficial fun. What we mean is intellectualfun – the shared adventure of a flash ofinsight, somewhere in the room, the “light-bulb moments,” the opportunities for stu-dents to jump up and add something to the

blackboard, or for faculty suddenly to thinkof a new way of framing an explanation.Sure, there are some of these spontaneousevents that burst into the Zoom chat – a life-saving feature that builds community in thisparallel online stream of comments, appre-ciation, questions, and added references. Butthese flashes are noticeably fewer than intypical in-person teaching, and harder tobuild on from the chat. How often does ithappen, even after 30 years teaching, thatwhen we are giving a lecture in person we’llhave an insight in mid-sentence . . . “Gosh, Inever looked at it that way before . . . .” Theenergy of anticipation in the room, theslight performance anxiety of the “stand anddeliver,” the affection that builds for andamong students, our continuous work toreframe existing knowledge to accommo-date emerging research, science, and schol-arship – these are surely elements of why theteacher, too, finds moments of real inspira-tion in the classroom. Whether respondingextemporaneously to a question asked spon-taneously by a student, or having one’sinherited and honed approach challengedby an incisive student mounting a black-board critique – we find our development asintellectuals is stunted in online exchange. Why is it that online teaching/learningfalls short in these ways? Part of the reason issurely that we are simply not at our mostengaged when we are online. Without thephysical classroom, we lack the heightenedstate of arousal motivated by the presence ofother people and the many social stimulithat impinge on us, usually below the radarof our consciousness. In three-dimensionalspace, others invite our gaze with theirs andconvey the salience of classroom discoursethrough facial expressions and body lan-guage we are hardwired to attend to.6 Suchstimuli rarely make it through the Zoominterface. The energy of the classroom likelyowes itself in part to the strangeness of theclassroom space itself – and the fact that we

dissociate it from areas for deskwork ordomestic activities that mingle readilyduring the Covid era. Like the social envi-ronment provided by our peers, the three-dimensional topography we traverse everytime we enter the classroom primes us phys-iologically for thinking and learning, forstaying sharp and giving our best. When wego online, we lose these cues and insteadreceive a plethora of electronic distractorsthat work further against the pedagogicalmission.

Our hope for the future . . .As MIT contemplates the post-Covidcampus, we want to offer our impassionedtestimony about the costs to group learningexperiences and “intellectual fun” we havefelt in the virtualized classroom. These fea-tures are the essence of the MIT experience.Indeed, they are the essence of the collegecampus experience everywhere, the core ofthe research university, and the dream ofSocratic pedagogy since “the groves ofacademe.” At least for our courses, whichinclude lecture/problem set and seminarformats, online teaching can do much of thejob of transferring specialized information,historical knowledge, and tools of thought. But we expect everyone teaching thesetypes of all-online subjects would agree withus that they miss out on the sort of enrich-ing interpersonal interactions that lured usall to MIT in the first place; and they fall des-perately short in the “spark department,”which is where creativity and innovationhappen. College is not, or should not be, just“cookbook” learning. It is a shared endeavorthat benefits from all of the physical andsocial resources of the university. In thesedifficult times, our fervent hope is that theInstitute will find imaginative ways tomarshal its resources to the fullest, ensuringthat our faculty and students can soonrecover what is most special about an MITeducation.

6 Notably, staff have also shared with usthat they experience “an unexpected inca-pacity” when it comes to taking notes fromcommittee meetings on Zoom. A task thatseemed routine “in real life” seems unac-countably difficult when sorting what isimportant in the flattened interface of thescreen.

Teaching Under CovidGeltner et al., from preceding page

David Geltner is Professor of Real Estate &Finance, Department of Urban Studies andPlanning, Director of Research, Center for RealEstate (dgeltner@mit.edu);Alan Jasanoff is a Professor in the Departmentof Biological Engineering (jasanoff@mit.edu);Caroline Jones is a Professor in theDepartment of Architecture (cajones@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

14

Sally HaslangerThe Problem with Philanthropy

CHAR ITAB LE G IVI NG I S ON E of thefew things in the world that seems to bewholly good. Philanthropy, often charac-terised as private action for the publicgood, appears to earn the originalmeaning of the term: love of humanity.What could be a better example of virtue? There’s no question that individualgiving to worthy causes provides impor-tant relief from state failures to promotejustice and well-being. Philanthropy canalso provide key support to resistancemovements. Yet since wealthy foundationssuch as the Gates Foundation and GatesTrust hold assets that surpass most coun-tries, there is reason to be concernedabout the political significance of large-scale philanthropy. Large-scale philanthropy is an exerciseof power that is fundamentally undemoc-ratic. Since charitable giving brings taxbenefits, large-scale philanthropy canundermine the people’s will in favour ofthe donor’s own values. In effect, taxpay-ers subsidise the freedom of the rich torealise their own idiosyncratic vision ofwhat is good while simultaneously depriv-ing democratically chosen programmes ofvaluable public funds. (See Reich 2018.) The structure of philanthropy aroundthe world is increasingly a manifestationof plutocracy – government by thewealthy. Rewarding large-scale philan-thropy through tax-relief and other subsi-dies gives the rich even more power thantheir wealth already provides to create asociety that furthers their interests at theexpense of others. In fact, the decline of democracy andthe rise of vast wealth disparities producesa looping effect: through funding political

campaigns and legislative lobbying alongwith media management of publicopinion, the rich can influence the gov-ernment to protect the institutions andpractices that enable them to accumulateeven greater wealth. Wealth begets powerand power begets wealth. And the cyclecontinues. Of course, not all large-scale philan-thropy is the same. Donations to the arts,

research, education and poverty reliefwould seem to be more benign forms ofgenerosity. However, we should hesitatebefore drawing broad conclusions. Let’sconsider the role of philanthropy in theacademic world. With the decline of US governmentalsupport for higher education, colleges anduniversities rely increasingly on bigdonors. Science is expensive and themoney has to come from somewhere, soresearch is often paid for by the super-rich. However, there are serious problemswith academic plutocracy that involveburnishing reputations, neglectingresearch in the public interest, and mar-ginalizing humanistic and artistic endeav-ours. To adapt Balzac, behind many greatfortunes there are great crimes. It is diffi-cult to hold the wealthy accountable forethically questionable actions in any case,

and large-scale philanthropy can makethem untouchable. For example, thenotable academic philanthropist, StevenSchwarzman, CEO of Blackstone, has anestimated net worth of $19.2bn. He recentlygave $300m to MIT and £150m to Oxford.Schwarzman benefited personally fromthe sub-prime mortgage crisis whichcaused millions to default on their homeloans.

Jeffrey Epstein was a major donor toscientific research and contributed mil-lions to Harvard and MIT, with the hope,among other things, to “seed the humanrace with his DNA.” He was also a levelthree sex offender, and although he nevermade it to trial for additional allegations,he was plausibly engaged in long-term sextrafficking. The Koch brothers donatemoney to universities across the US andare also known for their misinformationcampaigns about climate change andefforts to repeal social security andminimum wage. And the Kingdom ofSaudi Arabia is responsible for untoldhuman rights violations, including thetorture of feminist activists and themurder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Yetthis does not stop universities fromaccepting donations from the CrownPrince.

continued on next page

With the decline of US governmental support for highereducation, colleges and universities rely increasingly onbig donors. . . . However, there are serious problems withacademic plutocracy that involve burnishing reputations,neglecting research in the public interest, andmarginalizing humanistic and artistic endeavours.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

15

Some argue that there is no problem inaccepting large donations from the super-wealthy because there is no such thing as“dirty money”, or that using bad moneyfor good is the best thing we can do tooffset the bad actions that generated it.But burnishing the reputation of donorscan prevent them from being held respon-sible for the “great crimes” that producedtheir money, or legitimise illicit practicesthrough association with prestigious,well-respected institutions like universi-ties. But as Theodore Roosevelt said ofRockefeller: “No amount of charities inspending such fortunes can compensatein any way for the misconduct in acquir-ing them.” Moreover, gift exchange is reciprocal,whether this is intentional or not.Although gifts do not require immediatecompensation, the point of gifts is tocreate or sustain relationships, and suchrelationships involve reciprocity of somekind. When academic institutions enterinto dependence relationships with badactors, they are vulnerable to influence inways that are at odds with the ideals ofacademic integrity. This has been shownto be the case for Harvard’s relationshipwith Jeffrey Epstein. Corporations also donate to highereducation through sponsored research.This is not exactly “philanthropy” becausethere are explicit agreements betweenresearchers and industry that specify thenature of the project and its goals, thetiming, funding, and so on. A substantialportion of scientific research would not bepossible without such sponsorships. Andthere is no doubt that such research isoften useful for a variety of applicationsbeyond the intended corporate use. However, even if not philanthropy,such arrangements are at risk of fosteringacademic plutocracy. Corporations con-tribute millions to labs in order topromote and guide research thatimproves their product and enhancestheir likelihood of making a profit. Somewould argue that this is an important part

of what research universities are for. But itis also clear that this funding model incen-tivises research on certain topics and notothers, promoting certain ends and notothers. Although all inquiry is value-laden,there is little oversight or reflection con-cerning which values are guiding research.Scientific inquiry and engineering proj-ects that address systematic injustice andthe needs of the poor and marginalised donot have the same access to corporatefunding. And those who have ethical scru-ples about the funder or the product areleft with difficult choices: sign up or giveup. It is also a common complaint amongthose in the arts, humanities, social sci-ences, and even those engaged in purelytheoretical science, that universities havebeen “corporatised”. This means, amongother things, that disciplines unable toattract large donors are often perceived as“luxuries” and have lost power in theacademy. As a result, we are seeing signifi-cant reductions in funding for thehumanities and even cuts to liberal artsprogrammes. The corporatisation of the universityalso means that senior administrativeposts are often filled by those who areeffective in attracting “big money” andorganising the institution to be maximallyefficient – not in producing knowledge,but in sustaining itself financially.University administrators’ focus onfinances is the predictable result of astructural problem: the state’s relinquish-ment of its responsibilities to higher edu-cation. Treating universities as places wherecorporations can outsource their researchand development has profound socialconsequences. Education in the arts,humanities and social sciences allows fordeep reflection on democratic values; itexpands our horizons by exposing us todifferent points of view; it provides histor-ical self-understanding; and it gives us theskills to communicate creatively acrossdifferences. Unlike a corporation, a university is aplace that supports the simultaneous

pursuit of scientific and critical inquiry:the interaction between different disci-plines, including natural and socialscience, law, medicine, liberal arts and cre-ative arts, promotes objectivity. In short,academic plutocracy – governance by thewealthy and those who must court thewealthy – undermines democracy and thepursuit of knowledge. In the US at least, there is little hope forchanges at the federal or state level toaddress these problems. We need morediscussion of what might be done. Thereshould be greater transparency, accounta-bility, and oversight for research projectsthat depend on philanthropic or corporatefunding. For example, universities should,in collaboration with researchers, articu-late clear ethical guidelines for acceptanceof gifts and sponsorships and institutemeasures to uphold these guidelines.Greater democratic self-governance couldmake universities more responsive topublic concerns. And new funding modelscould redirect a percentage of donations toresearch in the public interest that does notattract the attention of corporations andlarge-scale philanthropists. None of these suggestions would solvethe problems completely. Money willalways play a role in determining whatscience does, just as monied interests willalways play a role in what public institu-tions and services are offered. But thestakes are high for the academy and fordemocracy generally. The question iswhether power ought to lie in the hands ofa few rich individuals and corporations or,if not, how we should better organize thecollective pursuit of knowledge. Clearly,the wealthy are already in charge. Theirphilanthropy needs to be checked and thestate must fulfil its responsibilities to thepublic.

The Problem with PhilanthropyHaslanger, from preceding page

Note: This article was originally pub-lished as part of the New Statesman'sphilosophy column: Agora. You canfind a link to the original publicationhere.

Sally Haslanger is the Ford Professor ofPhilosophy and Women’s & Gender Studies(shaslang@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

16

Tyler E. JacksIn MemoriamAngelika Amon

The following is a resolution presented atthe November 18, 2020 Institute FacultyMeeting.

IT I S WITH D E E P SAD N E SS that werecord today a memorial resolutionmarking the passing of Professor AngelikaAmon, our valued colleague, a ground-breaking researcher, an inspiring mentor,and a friend. Angelika passed away onOctober 29, 2020 at the age of 53, follow-ing a two-and-a-half-year battle withovarian cancer. Described by many as aforce of nature and a scientist’s scientist,Angelika brought unmatched passion andintegrity to everything she did. In addi-tion to her many achievements in bio-medical research, Angelika was a gifted

and dedicated teacher and a belovedmentor. She was also an outspoken advo-cate for equality and justice. Although herlife was too short, Angelika’s legacy willlast long into the future. Angelika Amon made profound con-tributions to our understanding of thefundamental biology of the cell, decipher-ing the regulatory networks that governcell growth and division in yeast, mice, andhuman cells, and shedding light on age-old questions at the heart of the cell cycleand the causes and consequences of chro-mosome mis-segregation. Her studiesdetermined that carrying even a singleextra chromosome significantly impactsthe physiology of the cell, disruptingimportant processes such as protein

folding and cellular homeostasis. She like-wise showed that the presence of an extrachromosome sets off a cascade of negativeeffects within cells that may underlie someof the health problems associated specifi-cally with Down syndrome. Still otherwork from the Amon lab has shed light onthe relationship between how cells grow,divide, and age. Among other insights, thiswork has revealed that once cells reach acertain large size, they lose the ability toproliferate and are unable to reenter thecell cycle. This can result in senescence, anirreversible form of cell cycle arrest, andtissue aging. Her body of work illuminatesimportant relationships between deep cellbiological investigation and our under-standing of human disease, and exempli-fies the importance of discovery researchin the broader scientific enterprise. Born in 1967, Angelika grew up inVienna, Austria. Playing outside all daywith her three younger siblings, she devel-oped an early love of biology and animals.She said that she could not remember atime when she was not interested inbiology, initially wanting to become azoologist. But in high school, she saw anold black-and-white film from the 1950sabout chromosome segregation in the lily,and found the moment that the sisterchromatids split apart breathtaking. Sheknew then that she wanted to study theinner-workings of the cell and decided tofocus on genetics at the University ofVienna in Austria. Angelika continued her doctoral workthere under Professor Kim Nasmyth at theInstitute for Molecular Pathology, earningher PhD in 1993 and making her first sig-

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

17

nificant contributions to our understand-ing of cell cycle dynamics. Her doctoral work led to major discov-eries about how one stage of the cell cyclesets up for the next. Her appreciation forthe elegant genetics in Drosophila beingdone in Ruth Lehmann’s lab at theWhitehead Institute led her to move to theUnited States in 1994 to pursue post-doc-toral studies, where, unbeknownst to herat the time, she would make her perma-nent home. After Ruth’s departure to NewYork, Angelika was awarded a prestigiousWhitehead Fellowship, and she began thework that would be instrumental in estab-lishing her as one of the world’s leadinggeneticists: understanding how yeast cellsprogress through the cell cycle and parti-tion their chromosomes. In 1999, Angelika joined the faculty atMIT in the Department of Biology andthe MIT Center for Cancer Research, thepredecessor to the Koch Institute. A fullprofessor since 2007, she also became theKathleen and Curtis (1963) MarbleProfessor in Cancer Research, co-directorof the Alana Down Syndrome Center atMIT, associate director of the Paul F.Glenn Center for Biology of AgingResearch at MIT, a member of the LudwigCenter for Molecular Oncology at MIT,and an investigator of the HowardHughes Medical Institute. Her pathbreaking research has beenrecognized by many awards and honors,including the National ScienceFoundation Alan T. Waterman Award, thePaul Marks Prize for Cancer Research, theNational Academy of Sciences Award in

Molecular Biology, the Ernst Jung Prizefor Medicine, and the Human FrontierScience Program Nakasone Award. Lastyear, she won the Breakthrough Prize inLife Sciences and the Vilcek Prize inBiomedical Science, and was named to theCarnegie Corporation of New York’sannual list of Great Immigrants, Great

Americans. She was also a member of theNational Academy of Sciences and theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences. Angelika’s astonishing intellect, deepcuriosity, and infectious humor made hera sought-after and well-beloved teacher,mentor, and colleague. She was generouswith her time and her sharp insights,developing a deep network of scientificcollaboration and friendships. She tookgreat delight in helping young scientistsfind their own “eureka moments,” and hasmentored more than 80 postdocs, gradu-ate students, and undergraduates.Angelika was a fearless advocate forscience and the rights of women andminorities and inspired others to fight aswell. She was outspoken in her support ofresearch and causes she believed stronglyin. She was a role model for young female

scientists and spent countless hours men-toring and guiding them in a male-domi-nated field. Every member of her lab wasvalued, and she took great care to listenand learn from all of them. Outside thelab, Angelika had a deep appreciation formusic, politics, the New England Patriots,and all manner of scientific exploration.

Angelika is survived by her husbandJohannes Weis, her two daughters Theresaand Clara Weis, and her three siblings andtheir families. Our thoughts go out to herfamily and loved ones, members of herlab, and, indeed, to all members of ourcommunity. In honor of how much Angelika meantto us professionally and personally: Be itresolved that the Faculty of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, atits meeting of November 18, 2020, recordsits profound sense of loss on the death ofour beloved friend and colleague AngelikaAmon, and expresses its deepest sympathyto her family.

In Memoriam: Angelika AmonJacks, from preceding page

Angelika’s astonishing intellect, deep curiosity, andinfectious humor made her a sought-after and well-beloved teacher, mentor, and colleague. She wasgenerous with her time and her sharp insights,developing a deep network of scientific collaborationand friendships. . . . She was a role model for youngfemale scientists and spent countless hours mentoringand guiding them in a male-dominated field.

Tyler E. Jacks is the David H. Koch Professorof Biology, Director, Koch Institute for IntegrativeCancer and Chair, MIT Research Ramp UpLightning Committee (tjacks@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

18

Timothy F. JamisonLGBTQ+ Scientists and STEM

I HOPE TH I S FI N D S YOU and yourswell. I write with a fourfold purpose – toshare with you a recent article in Nature,to offer a personal perspective, to high-light some important resources, and tofacilitate connections among LGBTQ+colleagues at MIT. The article itself, “How LGBT+ scien-tists would like to be included and wel-comed in STEM [science, technology,engineering and mathematics] work-places,” may be found here, and I wouldlike to start by thanking GeorgeBarbastathis and Lorna Gibson for bring-ing it to my attention. I found it to beheart-wrenching, inspiring, and construc-tive, from the very first word of the article– “Invisible”. It provides summaries ofimportant studies whose data indicate aprofound sense of marginalization ofLGBTQ+ scientists. In fact, the data illus-trate the troubling reality that exclusion-ary, offensive, or harassing behaviors arecommon experiences. Even more moving in my view are thesix personal accounts of experiences ofLGBTQ+ scientists. For example, fromKaela Singleton, who is a postdoc in devel-opmental neuroscience, is Black, uses she-series pronouns, and identifies as queer:“A professor once brought up my queer-ness in class as a deficit in my cognitiveprocessing.” I note the tragic irony of the

comment vis-a-vis her chosen field ofstudy. J.J. Eldridge (she/they), a professorof astrophysics who is transgender andidentifies as non-binary, upon seeing ananti-trans article posted on the Facebook

page of a conference they had organized: “. . .[I]t was the worst thing I’ve experi-enced – my entire self was being calledinto question.” I encourage you to readthese and the other four personalaccounts in the article. I mentioned above that my impression

of the article was also “inspiring” and“constructive.” A wonderful example ofboth I found in the account provided bySean Vidal Edgerton (he), who is gay,queer, and a virologist and scientific illus-trator. He and his colleague LaurenEsposito are co-founders of 500 QueerScientists, a website whose originalprimary aim was to raise awareness andnow, about two years after its launch, fea-tures biographies and contact informa-

tion of 1340 (as of this writing) LGBTQ+scientists. In its own words, the impactand ongoing goal of this site is to “ensurethe next STEM generation has LGBTQ+role models; help the current generation

recognize they’re not alone; create oppor-tunities for community connections andgreater visibility within STEM.” That many at MIT may have had experi-

ences comparable to those highlighted in thearticle saddens me. George (gbarb@mit.edu)and Lorna (ljgibson@mit.edu) have let meknow that they are eager to hear fromLGBTQ+ colleagues. The InstituteCommunity Equity Office (ICEO) andInstitute Harassment and DiscriminationResponse (IDHR) office are other importantMIT resources. Please, of course, also feel freeto contact me. Timothy F. Jamison is Associate Provost andRobert R. Taylor Professor of Chemistry(tfj@mit.edu).

It provides summaries of important studies whose dataindicate a profound sense of marginalization of LGBTQ+scientists. In fact, the data illustrate the troubling realitythat exclusionary, offensive, or harassing behaviors arecommon experiences.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

19

Jared D. BerezinDoes MIT Support DEI Education in STEM?If so, creating DEI-M subjects could help

W E ’ R E I N S P I R E D TO OV E R C O M E

our shortcomings as long as we’re awareof them. When it comes to diversity,equity, and inclusion (DEI) at MIT, ourlongstanding shortcomings have gainednewfound attention over the past sixmonths. Students, staff, faculty, andadministrators have hosted meaningfulevents, re-introduced previously ignoredrecommendations, put forth newdemands, and the Institute hasannounced the beginnings of a DEIstrategic plan. Yet even in this moment of heightenedInstitute consciousness, a central questionremains: will DEI education always be rele-gated to the margins of education at MIT? When looking at the full listing ofundergraduate subjects, we can be heart-ened by those that focus on issues of racialand social injustice in literature, history,media, and culture, as well as in manage-ment, philosophy, and urban planning.With a few exceptions, these subjects existalmost entirely in SHASS. In contrast, DEI learning is nearlyinvisible in STEM (science, technology,engineering and mathematics) class-rooms. Certainly, some technical instruc-tors provide DEI-related lectures,assignments, or modules, but these arerare and often tangential to the primaryfocus of the subject. DEI learning oppor-tunities in STEM occur primarily in theform of extracurricular workshops,events, committees, and working groups.These are asterisks clinging to work that ismuch more valued at MIT. Outside of classrooms, systemicinequities are rarely at the forefront ofdepartmental meeting agendas, hiring

decisions, tenure priorities, and curricu-lum planning. For MIT students, teachers,and staff, DEI work is overwhelminglyextracurricular, voluntary, and segregatedfrom the existing reward structures of theInstitute. Will MIT ever value the DEI labor ofour community members, including ourteachers and students? Will MIT ever pri-oritize DEI education across the curricu-lum, including within STEM majors?

A call for Diversity, Equity, andInclusion in the Major (DEI-M) subjectsOne possible way to center DEI educationwithin the STEM curriculum would be tocreate a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion inthe Major (DEI-M) subject in everydepartment. The DEI-M subject couldfocus on the historical, ongoing, and antic-ipated systemic injustices within the specificdiscipline. For example, a DEI-M subject inCourse 22 could involve an examination ofracial and gender oppression withinnuclear science and engineering (NSE),both in academia and industry. The DEI-Msubject might also explore how the prod-ucts and technologies developed in thefield impact marginalized communities,both positively and negatively.

The DEI-M subject could also reviewcase studies of prior and current anti-racist and anti-misogynist activism withinthe particular field. The coursework couldalso be change-oriented, with assignmentsthat ask students to generate research-based DEI interventions in academic andindustry contexts. Ultimately, students inevery major would have the opportunityto interrogate the DEI landscape of theirchosen field, imagine what justice could

look like in their profession, and considerhow they might generate positive change.

Is DEI education necessary for STEMmajors?Some might argue that a STEM majordoes not need to understand DEI issues inorder to be a “successful” computer scien-tist, or a “great” physicist, or an “innova-tive” chemist. This perspective suggeststhat learning about systemic injustices hasno place within STEM education, becausethere is much more important technicalwork to be done. It’s high time we expandour conceptions of “success,” “greatness,”and “innovation” for the sake of our stu-dents and future generations.

continued on next page

When looking at the full listing of undergraduatesubjects, we can be heartened by those that focus onissues of racial and social injustice in literature, history,media, and culture, as well as in management,philosophy, and urban planning. . . . In contrast, DEIlearning is nearly invisible in STEM (science, technology,engineering and mathematics) classrooms.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

20

While some STEM faculty might beexcited to welcome a DEI-focused subjectwithin their department, others might feelreluctant. Reactions might include:“There’s no room in our curriculum forDEI stuff,” “Don’t they have HASS classesfor this sort of thing?”, and “Who wouldeven teach this in our department?” Thesetypes of imagined responses are under-standable. The inclusion of a DEI-Msubject would require financial andhuman resources, as well as an expansionof the department’s educational mission.The reticence to “make room for DEIstuff” may also stem from the desire toavoid the discomfort of sharing with stu-dents the oppression that exists withinour own disciplines. Fortunately, we have a model for suc-cessful curriculum integration at MIT: theCommunication Requirement frame-work. Prior to the launch of theCommunication Requirement, MIT stu-dents reported a lack of communicationgrowth during their undergraduate years,and alumni reported their unpreparednessfor the communication work expected ofthem in their professions. MIT respondedto this knowledge gap by embedding com-munication instruction across the curricu-lum, including the development ofcommunication-intensive (CI) subjectswithin STEM majors. Beginning with theclass of 2005, undergraduates have beenrequired to complete both CI-H and CI-Msubjects, each of which contributes to theirlearning in different ways. The CI-M sub-jects serve a unique and targeted purpose –they are situated directly within the majorsto engage students in the communicationpractices of their specific field. These sub-jects are typically taught by an instruc-tional team with relevant areas ofexpertise.

We could learn from the success of thisintegrated model in the effort to embedDEI learning across MIT. Situating DEI-Msubjects within the majors would makethe content urgently relevant and readilytransferable for students, while communi-cating a broader message that DEI teach-ing and learning is valued at MIT. Sinceeach DEI-M subject would be tailored to aspecific field, a teaching team with variedlived experiences and expertise rather

than a single instructor would likely beneeded. Assembling such an instructionalteam would require developing an effec-tive hiring process and securing financialresources. The hiring process itself couldbe a team effort among MIT’s officers fordiversity, department heads, faculty, stu-dents, and ICEO John Dozier.

Is MIT ready to center DEI educationwithin the STEM curriculum?Improving the systemic injustices under-lying our school and society, includingthose within the disciplines we teach,requires an all-hands-on-deck commit-ment. Embedding this difficult workwithin all majors, and rewarding students,teachers, and staff for their DEI laborwould represent a turning point in thepurpose and scope of technical educationat MIT.

Imagine scrolling through the MITsubject listings and seeing a DEI-Msubject in every department. Imagineseeing justice woven into the fabric oftechnical learning at MIT. Every studentcould leave the Institute ready “to workwisely, creatively, and effectively for thebetterment of humankind,” as the MITmission urges. We could provide thou-sands of undergraduates the opportunityto critically examine their chosen field,

and incorporate justice as part of, ratherthan separate from, their technical work. To develop an inclusive curriculum,however, our Institute leaders would need tobelieve that there is a role for DEI educationwithin STEM, and that such an endeavorwould be worth the trouble and investment.I think an experiment that attempts toembed DEI learning within the STEM cur-riculum – whether through DEI-M subjectsor some other explicit approach – is cer-tainly worth a try, and I hope you do too. If you support embedding DEI learn-ing within STEM education at MIT youcan add your name and ideas to this form,which will be shared with MIT leadershipin the coming weeks.

Does MIT Support DEI Education?Berezin, from preceding page

Fortunately, we have a model for successful curriculumintegration at MIT: the Communication Requirementframework. . . . We could learn from the success of thisintegrated model in the effort to embed DEI learningacross MIT. Situating DEI-M subjects within the majorswould make the content urgently relevant and readilytransferable for students, while communicating abroader message that DEI teaching and learning isvalued at MIT.

Jared D. Berezin is a Lecturer II, Writing,Rhetoric, and Professional Communication(WRAP) in the Department of ComparativeMedia Studies/Writing (berezin@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2020

21

MIT Volpe Construction Plan Will Damage Faculty Housing Initiative

WE AR E WR ITI NG TO B R I NG to yourattention an issue that has deeply troubledus. For the many years we have been atMIT there has been concern about thelack of opportunities for students andfaculty to develop out-of-class social andintellectual exchanges. The faculty, livingat some distance from the campus due tothe availability and the cost of housing inCambridge, made this aspiration difficultto achieve. But, an initiative started under theleadership of president emeritus PaulGray, led a group of MIT faculty andstaff to develop a residential projectclose to the campus that would helpbring older and younger members ofour community closer together. Aftermany trials and difficulties due to therecession of 2008, a suitable location wasfound at 303 Third Street in Cambridge,adjacent to the campus and facing on toa sun-filled open space at the VolpeTransportation Center. Although the recession compromisedthe full realization of the initial intent,many of us persisted in buying our homesat 303 Third Street. Many of the condo-minium units remained as rental unitsand a large proportion of the renters cur-rently are MIT students or are affiliatedwith MIT. In 2016, MIT’s InvestmentManagement Company (MITIMCo)acquired our neighbor, the 14-acre VolpeTransportation Center site. The City ofCambridge undertook a series of studies,along with MIT and communitymembers, regarding how best to developthis property. The following year MITsought and received zoning changes that

significantly increased the developmentrights on the Volpe site. Four of the 14acres were set aside for a new Volpe

Transportation Center building. Theremaining 10 acres were to be developed60% for commercial buildings and 40%for residential buildings. The develop-ment was also required to provide 25% ofthe site for public open space.

MITIMCo’s architect produced foursuggested site plans for the development.Only one of the plans did not do serious

damage to our homes which face the site.We expressed our preference for the leastdestructive of the plans and shortly there-after, in 2017, MIT suspended further dis-cussions about the planning of theremaining site, explaining that they were

Current MITIMCo Proposal

continued on next page

MITIMCo’s architect produced four suggested site plansfor the development. Only one of the plans did not doserious damage to our homes which face the site.

303 Third Street

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXXIII No. 2

22

going to focus on construction of the newVolpe building. For three years we have waited patientlyfor a revival of discussions. Then, suddenlyin the last few weeks, MITIMCoannounced a plan that would place a 250-foot-high building in very close proximityand broadside across the full length of our85-foot-high building, which is fewer than40 feet away. The result will be that we willno longer have the light, air, and sunshinethat has made our homes habitable andenjoyable. The Investment ManagementCompany has several other developmentchoices for the site that do not do the harmtheir current plan would impose on us andthe MIT student families that live in ourbuilding. These options meet the develop-

ment criteria established by the City andare consistent with MIT’s desire for a rea-sonable economic return. We seek your assistance and support toconvey to the MIT authorities responsiblefor the Investment ManagementCompany to have them refrain fromdoing irreparable damage to our homesand to destroy the years of effort that wentinto fulfilling Paul Gray’s and our dreamof creating an island of MIT civility inKendall Square. We would be grateful if you couldexpress your support for preserving ourhomes and the initiative it represents bywriting to MIT President Rafael Reif(reif@mit.edu), Denis Bovin ’69, Chair ofthe MIT Investment ManagementCompany (bovin@alum.mit.edu), andDiane Greene, Chair of the MITCorporation (dgreene@mit.edu).

If you would like more information, orto contact the authors, please write: BobSimha (simha@mit.edu).

Rosemary Booth Prof. Jack Dennis, Department of ElectricalEngineering and Computer ScienceMartha Goodway ’57, Materials Science,Smithsonian Institution Prof. David Litster, Department of Physics Gerald O’Leary, BS ’63, MS & EE ’65,Lincoln Lab Prof. Bjorn Poonen, Department ofMathematics Roger Roach, Whitehead Institute O. Robert Simha ’57, Department of UrbanStudies and Planning Jane Sanford StabileLawrence Stabile ’74, Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science

MIT Volpe Construction Plancontinued from preceding page

Richard StanleyThe Final Commencement

T H E H E AT WAV E M E R C I F U L LY

departed New England just one day pre-ceding the 246th commencement cere-mony of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology. The usual opening pomp wasabsent. MIT’s President expressed her pro-found sadness and regret that the Class of2115 would be MIT’s final graduating class.

After the ceremony this august institu-tion would close its doors forever. Theeighteen students solemnly received theirdiplomas in the 108-degree heat. It wentwithout saying that all of them majored inenvironmental engineering.

Note: This is a flash fiction story that willappear in the anthology 81 Words. Allstories in this anthology have exactly 81words.

Richard Stanley is a Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Mathematics (rstan@math.mit.edu).