There's a lot of misinformation going around (some of it coming straight from administrator messaging) that I would like to clarify in the interest of public sanity and de-escalation. I'll be answering some common misconceptions. (Source: MIT grad student; I have been heavily involved in research regarding encampment demands, and have read negotiation transcripts. Edit: have also been involved in the protests!)

• Misconception: "Protestors rejected a reasonable offer from admin"

The demands from the protestors (and their subsequent amendment) were to end sponsorship of MIT research by the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD). MIT has an existing policy (the 2021 Suri guidelines) to reject funding from institutions that are involved in human rights violations. It chose to enforce these guidelines to end collaborations with Skolkovo Institute in Russia (due to their invasion of Ukraine) and with the Saudi oil company ARAMCO (due to their assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi).

The administrators outright refused to enforce this policy with regards to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. They made vague offers of future meetings with the International office and demanded protestors end the encampment in exchange for this. When pressed about the Suri guidelines and their application to the IMOD, they said they likely wouldn't apply because of the "nuance" of the situation. This is ludicrous and I explain it in the next misconception.

• Misconception: "But the Suri guidelines don't apply in this case"

More detailed information about the guidelines and their applicability is provided here but I will summarize here:

The 2021 Suri Report provides a way to evaluate and reject unethical “grants, gifts, and any other associations and collaborations involving MIT with governments, corporations, foundations, or private individuals, domestic or foreign” by sorting them into "red light" and "yellow light" categories. “Red lights” must be automatically rejected. An abbreviated version of the categories was published here. Of note is the following “red light” violation: 

“Do the institutional partner’s policies and their enforcement in this engagement involve a gross violation of political, civil, or human rights?”

On p. 19 of the detailed report, “gross violations of human rights” are defined as follows:

“It is generally assumed that genocide, slavery and slave trading, murder, enforced disappearances, torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged arbitrary detention, deportation or forcible transfer of population, and systematic racial discrimination fall into this category. Deliberate and systematic deprivation of essential foodstuffs, essential primary health care, or basic shelter and housing may also amount to gross violations of human rights.”

The Israel Military has committed hundreds of human rights violations against Palestinians since the start of the war. A small fraction of the instances include targeting refugee camps, schools, and hospitals; arbitrarily displacing, disappearing, torturing, and executing civilians; creating artificial famine and drought; mass destruction of housing; assassinating over 100 journalists and 250 humanitarian workers; and calling, on the record, for a genocide. There is unequivocal and abundant proof of them committing 9 out of the 11 violations listed in the Suri guidelines, and they have been sent to the Hague for the possibility of another one.

This isn’t even getting into the political and civil rights violations happening, particularly in the West Bank.

• Misconception: "But Skoltech is different because it was an 'institutional partnership'"

In 2022, when MIT ended its collaboration with Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (which it had helped establish), 45 grants were immediately cut, impacting 26 PIs (per 2022 and 2023 financial reports; for IMOD only 3 grants would be ended, affecting only 3 PIs). Exchange programs, recruitment avenues, and MIT-taught Skoltech classes were canceled, in addition to these grants. The sponsorship constituted $16 million – 10x more than the current IDF sponsorship. MIT unilaterally stopped (without input from graduate students or faculty) its affiliation with Skoltech, and provided transitional funding for the impacted scientists at MIT. This is no different from what would happen if it ended sponsorship of research by IMOD (and it was orders of magnitude more impactful).

• Misconception: "But MIT doesn't have the money to meet these demands"

The research ties in question (~$1.6 million in active grants) constitute <0.05% of MIT's standing budget (~$5 billion). When MIT ended its research collaborations with Skolkovo Institute, $16 million worth of grants (10x more than the IMOD grants) were immediately terminated.

• Misconception: "But they're targeting students/postdocs and their salaries"

A central part of the protestors’ demands is to provide transitional funding to workers impacted by the funding change. This was done when sponsorships by Skoltech and ARAMCO were ended. Protestors are not targeting the workers or their ability to do the research itself. Lab members were contacted before the protests to hear their input and assure them that transitional funding is a central demand.

• Misconception: "MIT doesn't actually do research for the IDF"

Here is one of the ~dozen MIT publications we’ve found that explicitly mention the IMOD as a sponsor: 

"Sentinel cells programmed to respond to environmental DNA including human sequences”

Many are published in journals (e.g. IEEE, where many drone swarm papers are published) that don’t require listing acknowledgements, though.

• Misconception: "Protestors are trying to end collaboration with Israeli colleagues"

The demands do not say anything about collaborations between MIT and Israeli researchers. The demand is to end sponsorship of MIT research by the Israeli ministry of defense (identified by its sponsor ID #001134 in the MIT financial records). 

• Misconception: "Protestors are impinging on faculty academic freedom"

The demands do not mention the research itself, which can (and certainly would) continue. In fact, the PIs who would be affected by the funding change have many other grants (IMOD sponsorship is a negligible amount, ~0.01-1% of each lab’s budget) for very similar projects. The issue is with the sponsorship of the projects. Academic freedom does not include the freedom to accept sponsorship from unethical sources.

• Misconception: "MIT can't cut ties with the IDF because Israel is an ally of the US"

This isn't a valid reason to silence criticism of, or cut ties with, the Israel Military (again, Israeli military, not citizens, not even the government). MIT should not engage with entities committing gross human rights violations, regardless of US foreign policy. Also – I would again like to draw your attention to the case of the Saudi company ARAMCO and MIT's ending of those research collaborations.

• Misconception: "Protestors were harassing Jewish students"

First of all, no, a thousand times no. This would be unequivocally denounced at a protest.

I would also like to note that a significant fraction of protestors were Jewish (part of the Jews For Ceasefire organization, one of the largest organizations in the Coalition for Palestine).

If you actually meant Israeli students, also no.

If you actually meant counter-protesting MIT Israel Alliance students, also no. They regularly entered the encampment and walked around freely, eating our food (which we offered them), blasting music, and harassing us. Some of them took our criticism of Israel's military and the ongoing genocide as a personal attack on them, which you can interpret as you wish.

• Misconception: "Protestors were chanting hateful things"

First -- there are videos going around where someone has mistranslated an Arabic chant as "death to Zionists" or worse, "death to J---". The protestor was actually chanting "death to Zionism" but the contextual translation is more mild. Closer to "down with Zionism."

A debunk of these (frankly racist) intentional mistranslations is here

Edit: formatting

Edit 2: uncensored some words (Sorry, I didn't know how Reddit content filtering worked!)

Hey everyone! I’m a prospective MIT student and I just wondered, does it ever occur to you guys that u go to MIT? Like u don’t go to a normal school, you go to MIT. I thought of this because I wondered, does Gordon Ramsay ever realize that he’s the pinnacle of cooking? Does Cbum ever realize he’s the pinnacle of bodybuilding? Do these people that I hold in high regards understand the position they’re in or is it just too surreal for them to understand. I want to know, generally, do you guys see yourselves as the pinnacles of students? Like does it ever occur to you guys that of all the science schools in the world and of all the students in the world you’re on top? Thanks to everyone for answering!!!

MIT cancels lecture due to a Professor's opinions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/

Genuinely curious about what makes it difficult?

Should have been clearer in my title:

By the means of divestment, I mean cutting research ties with the IDF.

Hello,

There is a huge story going on in crypto world which MIT media labs play huge role as massive abusing of power is ongoing.

Briefly: Neha Narula and Ethan Hailman are both abusing their power to shame publicly IOTA (cryptocurrency) - They lie about their founding and they act deliberately to harm IOTA with no proof of something being wrong!

Who should I contact at MIT to get attention to this actually criminal acts by MIT part?

Original report : https://github.com/mit-dci/tangled-curl/blob/master/vuln-iota.md

Debunking :https://medium.com/iota-demystified/debunking-the-iota-vulnerability-report-c40fb07a6ae8

Email conversation between MIT labs and IOTA foundation : http://www.tangleblog.com/2018/02/24/full-emails-ethan-heilman-digital-currency-initiative-iota-team-leaked/

Hey MIT grad students, 

At the upcoming June GMM, there’s a dangerous amendment being proposed by the self-styled “Rank and File” caucus that we need to oppose. Their amendment (see GSU member portal) says every “collaboration” (from an instagram post to advertising a rally) with any external “partisan” group would have to be voted on at a GMM, which happens only once a month.

What’s wrong with the amendment specifically:

The amendment uses absurdly broad definitions for “partisan”, “external”, and “collaboration, and fails to define “political activity” — the amendment’s point #3 makes the GSU’s association with any political group up for dispute and subject to yet another GMM. The amendment will add needless bureaucracy and open the doors for abuse by minority factions, which will disempower the union by causing it to have to pause its actual work of building labor power and responding quickly to threats, in favor of endless  campaigning to get people to come to GMMs and vote to allow us to respond.

I have voiced these concerns to a few people organizing with RnF, but have only heard back promises of good faith, that the people that penned this amendment will not dream of abusing it. This doesn’t make sense. An amendment threatening to alter a constitution has nothing to do with the people that wrote it, but everything to do with how it might be interpreted. Its very existence allows anyone to pose an issue with the GSU’s collaboration with any group engaged in any political activity. 

Worrying tendencies of RnF more broadly:

RnF organizers have loudly proclaimed their dislike for the union being “too political.” But the very existence of a union is political. And at this moment, everything from our funding to our visas is political. So what does RnF not like about the politics of a union? RnF’s desire to quell the “politics” out of the GSU didn’t coalesce until pro-Pal organizing on campus, and its members have voiced opposition to GSU standing behind the pro-Pal students threatened with evictions, suspension, and expulsions.

Through their amendment, RnF has found a convenient trojan horse for their agenda to “depoliticize” and disempower the GSU: a shared distaste for PSL. Their current amendment is attempting to stop the union from associating with PSL, but it will be much more sweeping than this, as I’ve argued above. I don’t agree with PSL’s politics/strategy either, but they show up at every rally for every cause we care about, like science funding, Rümeysa, etc. and it would be a tall order to avoid them. Co-sponsoring a rally does not mean endorsing a political agenda, it means endorsing the cause of a rally.

Through this amendment and their other actions on campus, RnF organizers are attempting to strip decision away power from the executive board — that is, people that were democratically elected to serve this role. Opening up more decisions to democratic voting sounds great, but RnF organizers don’t understand (or worse, they do) how much the union will slow down and lose power as a consequence.

Think we don’t have time to get to the really important stuff during GMMs now? Wait until you also need to vote for whether we can take part in every single protest and rally (assuming they didn’t already take place by the time of the vote). 

Want to have more GMMs? Enjoy endless GSU campaigning, which means stewards have less time to build union power and work on a fair contract, and are constantly focused instead on turning people out to GMMs. 

I don’t have time for 3 hour GMMs to vote on whether to have a rally. My friends are scared shitless that they’re gonna be picked off the streets by ICE, people’s funding is getting threatened and cut and they’re sick about not being able to finish their PhDs. But these “rank and file” dissenters think debating about procedure and pinning people against union leadership is what’s important right now.

Let’s stay united, agile, and powerful. Vote NO on this harmful amendment and vote down the RnF insurgent attacks on union power

Now that the Harvard president has resigned, the pack is coming for MIT's president. I hope she withstands the pressure.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/business/sally-kornbluth-pressure-claudine-gay-resignation/index.html

Riddle me this reddit. If MIT has the “smartest” people in the world how come they don’t know what a “U” looks like? You would assume that people at the MassachVsetts InstitVte of technology would have atleast learned the alphabet correctly.

Yikes

Edit: undergrad speaker went off the rails and started shouting pro-Palestine remarks, and a small group of undergrads disrupted the ceremony as well as booing/not allowing the president to speak

I'd like to get involved with some effort to boost the Harris campaign at MIT -- since MIT students come from all over the country and some students might be turned off by her stance on Gaza -- but I can't find any ways to do so. MIT Democrats seem to be inactive for the past three years.

Is there any way to support the campaign specifically as an MIT student? I thought that I could best support her campaign in my own community instead of calling people thousands of miles way.

Hi everyone, I’m a pre-frosh and I just got my AP scores back.

I’m proud to say I got a 5 on Calculus BC, but unfortunately, I received 2’s on both Physics C: Mechanics and E&M. Honestly, it was one of the most embarrassing academic moments I’ve experienced. I’ve never come close to failing an AP exam before, and the only tests I’ve consistently struggled with in high school were ironically physics.

This has really shaken my confidence, especially as I prepare to start at MIT. I know I’m probably overthinking it, but these scores have made me question whether I’m ready for the kind of rigor MIT is known for.

If any of you have advice, perspective, or tips especially if you’ve been through something similar, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks so much for helping a pre-frosh out a month and a half before I move in!!

God Bless

This is a comprehensive, thoughtful, and pretty devastating take-down of the MIT leadership’s cancelling of the Carlson lecture and of what the writer sees as their lack of commitment to academic freedom.

Direct Quotes from Below Article: “Preliminary data from several states over the past several months suggests that 99.5 percent of covid-19-related deaths occurred among unvaccinated people”

“Although there is compelling evidence that delta is more transmissible, there is limited data on whether it is more likely to result in severe illness”

“health experts caution that there is not yet conclusive evidence that delta causes more severe disease. Hospitals serving areas where it is surging have reported admitting more young and middle-aged covid-19 patients, but that may be because they are less likely to be vaccinated.”

“Real-world data suggests that all three vaccines authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration offer strong protection against severe disease and death from the delta variant, although they appear to offer less robust protection against minor to moderate infections”

“A study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 36 percent effective against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant after the first shot of the two-shot regime, but 88 percent effective after the second shot”

“In terms of preventing hospitalizations from delta, a separate PHE paper suggested that the Pfizer vaccine was 94 percent effective after the first shot and 96 percentile effective after the second”

“Health experts said that, because the Moderna vaccine uses the same technology as the one from Pfizer, they extrapolate that it offers similar protection”

“health experts anticipate that it will cause surges in communities where vaccination rates are lower”

“There is little research on [delta symptoms], but some people have reported symptoms such as a headache, sore throat and runny nose, without the hallmark covid-19 signs, such as a loss of taste and smell”

“There is no indication the delta variant is more virulent if it infects children…However, because delta is more contagious than earlier variants, children are at somewhat greater risk of infection”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/07/delta-variant-covid/

My opinion on the facts: It sounds like if you are vaccinated the delta variant gives you the symptoms of the flu/a cold. There is no evidence that delta results in more severe cases or deaths among the vaccinated, which all of MIT has to be by 7/30. Therefore, this mask requirement is not necessary. Additionally, there are no children under the age of 12 running around MIT. The masks were supposed to be a temporary thing. Covid will be with us forever. People have to not be idiots and get the vaccine. However, once they do the data shows we don’t need to flip out and reinstate mask requirements. I get that the CDC recommended wearing masks again indoors, but MIT is not the general population where there are idiots who are not vaccinated walking around. We all got the vaccine, let us go back to normal life.

Update 8/11/21:

According to MIT's email today: 0.0008% of vaccinated individuals have a breakthrough infection resulting in death. https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/08/breakthrough-infections . This number includes the immunocompromised.

Additionally, you may say: What about kids! They aren't vaccinated. Let's look at that data. https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/ Key takeaway: 0.00% to 0.03% of child COVID-19 cases results in deaths.

Now let's compare these numbers to the flu. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html In 2019-2020 22,000/38,000,000 flu cases resulted in death. That is 0.05% of flu cases resulting in death. In 2018-2019 34000/36000000 = 0.09%.

We did not wear masks for this 0.05% chance of dying from the flu. And these numbers include the deaths from the immunocompromised. The death numbers from COVID are orders of magnitude less than the flu. Wear a mask if you a germaphobe, but otherwise there is no need.

I want to

So while 99.99% of the world has had a bad month, not Bill Ackman. The Hedge Fund Manager, husband of Prof. Neri Oxman of the Media Lab (allegedly onetime BF of Brad Pitt) turned $27 Million into $2.6 Billion! https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/bill-ackman-hedge-profits-billions-coronavirus-tanks-stock-market-economy-2020-3-1029035562

Maybe he can fund research at the Media Lab in the future so he won't have to write to MIT and tell them that his wife isn't connected to the Epstein mess!!

https://www.axios.com/joi-jeffrey-epstein-ties-mit-media-lab-professor-8384aa42-32d4-42dc-a0eb-54e23bcdee3a.html

I’m a parent of a freshman and could really use some perspective from current students, alumni, or other parents.

After some tough conversations, my student shared that there’s a lot of access to alcohol and edibles in their social circles, and that they’ve been participating significantly more than I expected. They mentioned situations where people drink or use enough to pass out. I also sense some adverse effects in what I believed was their values and decline in academic performance (though that could be due to the step function rigor) or motivation of being part of different communities that they sought out by themselves in HS.

If I’m being honest, and I realize this may come across as an overreaction, I’ve been feeling pretty shaken. It’s hard to reconcile the student who used to be so energized by building things, outdoor adventures, and close friendships through engagement in different communities that they built independently in HS with what I’m seeing now. I know college brings change, but this isn’t quite what any of us had in mind when they started at MIT.

I understand that college is a time for independence and experimentation, and I don’t want to overreact or control their experience. At the same time, I’m worried about their well-being and safety, especially in situations involving heavy intoxication. I’m also concerned that some of this may conflict with MIT policies and local laws and drug testing for internships. I’d hate for it to impact something they’ve worked so hard to achieve.

For those who’ve been through MIT recently, how common is this kind of environment, and how do students typically navigate it in a balanced way? For parents, how have you stayed supportive without overstepping?

I’m not looking to judge anyone or generalize, just trying to better understand what’s normal and how to approach this thoughtfully as I have an urge to overstep my boundaries and I don’t want to do that. I’d really appreciate hearing your experiences.

The Epstein/MIT posts that have appeared in this sub over the last few days appear to be from posters outside the MIT community, and the only reasonable assumption is that they're meant to get folks here riled up.

First, thanks to MIT participants at large for mostly not taking the bait!

Second, further Epstein/MIT posts will be deleted by "ze mods" with extreme prejudice when they are clearly not from the perspective of the MIT community.

Please keep topics MIT-centered.

What were the practical skills you learnt after completing a CS major at MIT given that MIT CS is a bit too theoritical when compared to berkeley and stanford. What were the most foundational classes you took?

What projects did you build on your own?

Now to preface this, I know what I'm asking about the workload of a top 3 computer science school. I'm not *that* stupid.

I'm currently a junior in high school and am looking at colleges. I've been programming for around 7 ish years seriously, and I am very motivated in this field. My interests lie in music as well, and I have many creative projects that I am undergoing.

My current school doesn't offer a lot of rigor and is a very relaxed school, but the coursework at MIT seems so fun whenever I look at the curriculum. I'm not the best general student, but I can keep a solid 4.0 GPA and am working on getting better at standardized tests. I've been going around the colleges subreddits that I have an interest in and asking them this question (because who better to ask the students?):

What is the workload like in the computer science department? I know it is a lot, but I am curious of those who have relaxed in school how the transition was.

Thank you! Have a nice day.

so i got accepted into both uf and mit but i've been agonizing over which to pick. so far, here are my considerations (chemical/materials engineering major, low income, first-gen, planning to get master's degree)

uf:

-cost: offered me a full ride

-program: decent for my major (but it's not MIT obviously), got into honors

-distance: in-state so it's close to home/can visit more often. maybe not far enough from home for me to explore/try environments i might like?

-socialization: i vibe with the social atmosphere more (i haven't really clicked with people from New England area). i also have friends who already go there or plan to, and i have a housing plan already set up if i do go. it's an SEC school (boo, but love the school spirit), however i'd lowkey just ignore that part (i mean, it's a big school anyways)

-living: familiar with day-to-day living there. still intense and the discomfort/growth im looking for in challenges exists even if it's not MIT

-post-grad: thinking of working in the Florida region after college but not sure. i am much more limited for opportunities if i do intend to leave the south (no MIT name brand)

mit:

-cost: expected $11k+ a year, expected to increase (parents helping to pay). apparently mit has a high ROI so maybe this isn't as significant, but i do feel bad being unable to bring it down anymore

-program: it's MIT so i figure their chemE is good

-distance: oos, travel expenses not covered in my fin aid package for more than one round trip ticket basically. although it's not a significant factor i'd like to also note that i do not handle Florida cold well so i might just die the moment i get there

-socialization: attended admitted students event and did not click with any of the adMITs (or alumni for that matter - they kinda had a superiority complex and immediately assumed i wasn't immediately committed to MIT due to finances, and that kinda rubbed me the wrong way). tbf there were only 5 other students but it was hella awkward. worried that i won't find my people, especially at such a small school in a new environment. I was unable to attend CPW so i can't really compare it to anything else out of my own experience. zero housing plan whatsoever (roommate, dorm style, building)... i've also heard that some of the dorms don't have A/C??

-living: as a burnt-out senior, i'm not sure i'm capable of meeting the intensity of the workload, esp as an engineering major, as my mental health/self-care has already suffered this year and that's something i've also been wanting to prioritize for myself

-post-grad: i've wanted to live in an urban area but this might not be for me and maybe im delusional, but great job opportunities in NE regardless, especially for MIT over UF degrees

honestly not sure what i'm leaning towards. opening my MIT acceptance letter i wasn't even happy about it because i was just filled with the dread of having to decide. afterwards i was excited but i feel more disillusioned than when i applied. but i know this is a great opportunity (both are, one more than the other) and i do want to make a profitable career so i can do things i want to do later in life, however i do want my college experience to be happy and not stuck in constant sleepless nights.

any opinions/insight/personal experience would help as commitment day is fast approaching and i am still so so torn.

I'm not sure if it was just me, but I had no idea that the flu vaccine was required, and I just received an email yesterday saying that students have to submit proof of vaccination by December 2.

I have no problem with the mandate, but it seems a bit unfair to have put this restriction and giving student so little time to fulfill the obligation. CVS and Walgreens are all booked up at this point, and MIT Medical also doesn't have any appointments as far as I can tell. If anyone has any insight or thoughts on this, it would be much appreciated.

By acceptable I mean acceptable by MIT standards. I've also heard that MIT students stretch the number of courses taken to something like 5/3 of the semester's minimum required

On the blog post for rejected students is the song "I will survive" essentially plastered mid center page. Of course they'll survive!
Even just having that video there shifts the overton window so far making it seem like MIT admissions is a life/death/survival situation.

(Which in my opinion, couldn't be further from the truth -- college doesn't determine your future).

And on most of the blogs, even non-admittance related: They're all careful to never explicitly brag, but still the subtle I live a stress-free, fun!!, prank-filled life highlighting the best parts never dutifully acknowledging the downs. I understand branding is key, but perhaps some changes need to be made, for the betterment of society. let me know if you have any thoughts :)