What is the role of higher education institutions in unprecedented times? How can we reimagine MIT’s mission in this moment of urgency? What should our response be when universities are labeled as the enemy? While these questions offer no easy answers, the recent flurry of Presidential Executive Orders, that directly and indirectly threaten members of our community, should compel us to reevaluate the convictions we once considered self-evident. The threat is real, and it won’t stop at the doors of 77 Mass. Ave.

As a community, we undoubtedly have differing opinions on the pace, scope, and boldness of the initiatives we should pursue. And yet, even a brief look at our recent past reveals how MIT upheld core convictions during challenging times by acting with courage, creating meaningful impact, and moving with expedience. These examples could serve as a foundation for where we begin.

• For courage, recall President Charles Vest’s response following the September 11, 2001 attacks. In October 2001, President Bush issued Presidential Decision Directive No. 2, which required the federal government, in consultation with the higher education community, to identify “sensitive areas of study” that should be off limits for students from certain countries[1]. Vest courageously resisted the federal government’s interference in MIT’s research and education. He alerted the faculty to the possibility of federal funding cuts in response to his decision. He was not alone in this stance; major US research universities joined him, recognizing the threat to academic freedom posed by the executive branch. His 2002 essay, “Response and Responsibility: Balancing Security and Openness in Research and Education”[1], is essential reading for understanding what it takes for a major research university to uphold fundamental principles, in this case, academic freedom.
  
  
• For impact, consider the 1999 Hopkins-Potter Report, A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT, which revealed that many tenured women faculty at MIT faced professional marginalization, often coupled with inequities. The report found that women faculty received lower salaries, less space, and fewer resources for their research than their male counterparts, and were often excluded from key decision-making roles within their departments[2]. The report was groundbreaking both within and outside MIT. Inside the Institute, President Vest set a goal of achieving gender equity moving forward. The study was expanded to all other Schools at MIT and led to the creation of the Council on Faculty Diversity, tasked with addressing the root causes of marginalization and the ongoing underrepresentation of women and minorities on the faculty, while developing institutional solutions to these issues[3]. Outside MIT, the challenges highlighted in the report resonated widely, revealing a universal problem for professional women and underrepresented minorities in the US. The report set in motion a fundamental shift toward Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks in academia, the federal government, and corporate America. The 1999 Hopkins-Potter Report[2] and its 2002 update, “The Status of Women Faculty at MIT”[3], are essential reading for understanding what it takes for a major research university to confront a societal issue and help guide the arc of history toward justice.
  
  
• For expedience, consider the speed with which MIT responded to the Covid-19 pandemic. Whether or not you agree with the specific approach, there is no denying that MIT’s community-driven response helped us not only navigate the pandemic but emerge stronger. In the face of such critical existential challenges, expedience is crucial. Notably, we should recall that within that expedience, MIT found ways to protect its most vulnerable by continuing to provide housing to those for whom returning home would have proven unsafe. The rapid campus closure minimized the virus’s impact on our community, while the quick reopening allowed us to rise above the pandemic, which now feels almost like a distant memory.
  
  

Once again, courage, impact, and expedience are at stake as we reassess our convictions in the face of unprecedented challenges. For instance, the federal government’s interference today echoes the 2001/02 threat to academic freedom following September 11, a struggle President Vest faced. The push to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at federal, state, and corporate levels has already reached MIT’s doorstep, and won’t stop at the entrance doors of Lobby 7. The 2023 Supreme Court decision effectively ending affirmative action has already impacted the representation of underrepresented minorities in our admissions, who, once enrolled, face disproportionately high scrutiny in MIT’s disciplinary process for alleged violations of institute rules. Federal research proposals are now being screened for DEI-related language, which can lead to grants being rescinded, while across-the-board cuts to federal research funding are threatened, including a cap on indirect cost reimbursements. While MIT has now joined a federal lawsuit alongside peer institutions to block these cuts, we must recognize that the pressure to conform in order to maintain federal and corporate funding could ultimately erode academic freedom, which has been in jeopardy since October 7, 2023.

If you believe this is just politics and that we, as faculty, should stay out of it, please rest assured that politics will come for us. In other words, the time for bold action is now. As the past has shown, we have the ability to reimagine MIT by championing a vision and committing to a mission of higher education in the United States that embodies courage and impact, and acts with expedience. We certainly have the capacity – now, the question is: do we have the will?

Editorial Subcommittee

[1] Charles M. Vest (2002). “Response and Responsibility: Balancing security and openness in research and education,” Report of the President For the Academic Year 2001-2022, 1126 MITP-o246/alt/db r6

[2] The Faculty Newsletter had a special edition on the topic in March 1999: https://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html

[3] N. Hopkins, L. Bailyn, L. Gibson, E. Hammonds (2002) “The status of women faculty at MIT: An overview of reports from the Schools of Architecture and Planning; Engineering; Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences; and the Sloan School of Management,” MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. 144, The Status of Women Faculty at MIT.

Back to top