These are undeniably challenging times, perhaps among the most perilous in MIT’s history. At this moment, the Institute’s strength and resolve may face an unprecedented test. So, how should a major research university navigate an existential crisis while staying true to its mission and values? Like other world-class institutions, MIT has long prided itself on excellence, inclusion, and innovation, embracing a unique collective “can-do” problem-solving ethos. And has lived up to that pride. Yet as the administration preemptively enacts sweeping, top-down budget cuts – all put forth as necessary precautions against potential federal overhead cuts and the looming threat of an endowment tax – these very principles are being called into question. They rock the very foundations of the Institute.

The cuts are extensive, and the consequences are severe. Notably, DEI scholarship programs have been canceled, RA and postdoc contracts have been left unrenewed, and a hiring freeze has been imposed. Soon, we might very well be asked to prepare for staff layoffs. Also concerning are the propositions emerging in this frame of preemptive austerity: among these are cuts for libraries, replacing human workers with AI, for example, and using this crisis as an opportunity to push through changes that would normally face resistance.

We certainly acknowledge and support the administration’s responsibility to manage finances prudently and plan for economic uncertainties, and we agree that numbers matter, and matter a lot. Yet, this apparently singular emphasis on budgetary matters – devoid of clear and strong reaffirmation of fundamental values and principles – is deeply troubling. This sole focus on finances undermines its very intent: it overlooks the fact that people are willing to make significant sacrifices when there is a clear and unwavering commitment to the shared values we uphold. People will accept cuts, not simply point to cuts for others. Instead, stark as it may seem, this moment evokes Oscar Wilde’s timeless critique: “[They] know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

We cannot enable this crisis to erode what makes MIT exceptional. We must stand firm in upholding the values that define the Institute. Now more than ever, we must protect the very foundations that make MIT strong:

• Science and Humanities Together Define MIT. MIT’s remarkable transformation over the past two decades has been driven by a dynamic integration of science and the humanities – one that recognizes how the trajectory of scientific research and its societal applications depend on a deep understanding of philosophy, history, sociology, the arts, and more. Rooted in an increasingly diverse community, MIT’s interdisciplinary strength is neither incidental nor accidental; it is fundamental to MIT’s problem-solving ethos. This interdisciplinarity fuels innovation and enables meaningful contributions to society, the nation, and the world; it addresses urgent and growing challenges such as the climate crisis, income inequality, artificial intelligence, gender equity, the energy transition, and public health; to note the most obvious. However, if we fail to effectively communicate the value of science – if we cannot demonstrate the tangible impact of rigorous, ethical research – then those who seek power through deception and misinformation may well prevail. That is, MIT does more than pioneer groundbreaking solutions; it shapes future leaders in both the public and private sectors who are dedicated to fostering lasting, socially responsible change. Now more than ever, we must reinforce – not weaken – our commitment to educating these future leaders as critical citizens first, and as engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs second. To abandon this foundation in a moment of financial anxiety would be a profound error.
  
  
• Democracy Begins at Home. In a healthy democracy, institutions must serve as guiding lights, actively upholding and embodying democratic ideals. This stance requires more than just stating our values – it means embedding democratic principles into our own governance, especially in critical decisions like budget cuts that threaten mission-driven programs such as DEI. Faculty governance and participation are vital to ensuring such decisions maintain their integrity. If we fail to uphold democracy within our own institution, we weaken our ability to advocate for it, or even protect it, on a larger scale. For MIT, an institution dedicated to advancing a better world, this responsibility is even more urgent. At a time when democracy is under threat and its fundamental principles are being eroded, we must make a deliberate effort to hold firm to procedures and principles that ground our own decisions as legitimate. Moreover, when executive orders or political forces put members of our community at risk – whether directly or indirectly – MIT must take a stand. Silence is not neutrality; it is complicity.
  
  
• Academic Freedom is Our Collective Power. Academic freedom is the cornerstone of MIT’s success – not just as an individual right, but as a collective force that unites scholars in the shared pursuit of knowledge. This principle is fundamental to MIT’s mission and must be fiercely protected. Without it, we risk weakening the intellectual rigor, creativity, and fearless inquiry that long define our community. This is not a fight MIT can or should take on alone. Defending academic freedom requires a coordinated, strategic response from America’s 4,000 colleges and universities. MIT has already taken important steps, such as joining peer institutions to challenge the NIH’s overhead cuts in court. Now is the time for bold and unwavering leadership. The Institute must take an active role in mounting a strong defense against the federal government’s escalating attacks on higher education including restrictions on faculty teaching about race, gender, or climate change, threats or retaliation against students, faculty, or universities, bans on DEI initiatives, limitations on university governance, or politically driven research budget cuts. The stakes are simply too high for inaction.
  
  

If MIT must truly prepare for the worst, we – faculty, students, and staff – must ask: What kind of institution will we become in the process? Are these budgetary decisions aligned with the values we claim to uphold? And when the crisis passes, will MIT still be the institution we believe in, or will it have traded its core principles for short-term financial expediency? These are not just questions of numbers and money – they are questions of identity, legacy, and the future we choose to build.

The choices we make today will shape MIT for generations to come. This is a responsibility that cannot and must not rest solely with the Institute’s executive leadership. We are ready to support and endure sacrifices when they come with a clear and steadfast commitment to core values. Let us not allow this crisis to pass without seizing it as an opportunity to unite around the values we all uphold for the greater good, rejecting divisions and fractures that only serve to weaken us. When future generations look back, they will see an Institute that stood resolute in its mission – not one that faltered in a moment of uncertainty. Or, as Pete Seeger – no stranger to MIT[*] – once called upon us to sing:

“The only thing we did was right
 Was the day we started to fight
 Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.” [**]

—

[*] See: Sarah H. Wright, “Pete Seeger talks and sings about community and technology”, April 12, 2000, MIT News Office, https://news.mit.edu/2000/seeger-0412.

[**] “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize” is a folk song that became influential during the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It is based on the traditional song, “Gospel Plow,” also known as “Hold On,” “Keep Your Hand on the Plow,” and various permutations thereof. The lyrics to the modern Civil Rights version of the song, “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize” are often attributed to Alice Wine from Johns Island, South Carolina.” (cited from: https://secondhandsongs.com/work/226128/all)

Editorial Subcommittee

Back to top