As free speech on campuses faces scrutiny nationwide, asking tough questions has become more critical than ever. At MIT, The Pulse emerged from the recognition that many faculty members feel their perspectives are not represented – whether due to personal choice, fear of retribution, structural barriers, or even the passage of time. Created by Michael Short and Peko Hosoi, The Pulse seeks to foster open, participatory inquiry, enabling faculty to voice concerns, challenge norms, and promote diverse perspectives through a transparent three-step process of feedback and voting. Importantly it brings out those broadly supported perspectives on a relatively short time scale, allowing faculty to influence MIT’s priorities in new ways, both retrospectively and perhaps even prospectively.

MIT’s decentralized structure poses challenges to the collective expression of faculty perspectives. Departments and Schools operate independently, making it difficult to identify and address shared concerns across boundaries. Faculty meetings are limited in scope, time, and attendance, while Institute committees are by nature slow and not necessarily representative of the faculty at large.

Adding to these structural hurdles is MIT’s lack of systematic reflection, “lessons learned” processes. The absence of “mea culpa” amplifies the need for a platform like The Pulse – an anonymous, independent forum where no question is too controversial. By enabling faculty to propose, prioritize, and vote on questions, The Pulse has the potential to channel the full breadth of MIT’s intellectual diversity, providing a mechanism for aligning the faculty community with coherence around key issues.

In an era of social media and rapid information spread, fears of doxxing, defamation, and misinterpretation inhibit open expression. By ensuring anonymity The Pulse focuses our attention on ideas rather than personalities. Questioning drives innovation in an environment where curiosity meets openness.

The Pulse serves to remind us that asking tough questions is not an act of defiance but a commitment to excellence.  While still an experiment, it has already sparked essential conversations that might otherwise have gone unspoken, from administrative accountability to pursuit of major institutional initiatives. 

This issue of the Faculty Newsletter seeks to open a dialogue about The Pulse as a work in progress, inviting deeper analysis and discussion. The Pulse is not without its weaknesses or its critics.  It does not provide a rigorous measure of opinion.  Its sometimes lighthearted choice of response options could enable the voice of faculty members to be misrepresented by those who might choose to do so. For starters, Professors Hosoi and Sheffi, both former and current Pulse question Keepers, have penned their perspectives. We hope this conversation will enhance our experience, enabling faculty to better identify areas for improvement and help shape MIT’s future.

Back to top