mit faculty newsletter, vol. xxix no. 4, march/april 2017web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/294/fnl294.pdf ·...

in this issue we offer commentary on activities by the current U.S.administration relating to the budget and immigration (see below); two pieces byChair of the Faculty Krishna Rajagopal (page 4); events and activities on the April 18 Day of Engagement; Day of Action (page 7); and “Leadership Training inAcademia” (page 14).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXIX No. 4March/April 2017

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 10

On Immigration andHumanist Values

The Long- andShort-Term BudgetChallenges for R&DSupport

continued on page 8

ALL TH E ORGAN I ZATION S OF TH E

scientific and academic communities haveexpressed grave concern over the budgetcuts proposed by President Trump to theNIH, EPA, and related civilian agencies, aswell as to the arts and humanities. ScienceMagazine (24 March 2017) detailed theoverall problem for basic research. TheNew York Times, the Boston Globe, andother major news outlets echoed, in partic-ular, the concern for the undermining ofbiomedical research. President Reif cor-rectly pointed out in his March 27 letterthat the proposed cuts would have a signif-icant negative impact on MIT campusresearch activity. This comes on top ofcampus concern over the restriction onimmigration and travel, addressed in thearticle by Prof. Rabbat in this issue (page 1). The proposed effort to undermine theAffordable Care Act would have deprived

EditorialTrump’s Budget CutsNIH, EPA, and CivilianPrograms to FundWeapons Contractsand Foreign Wars

continued on page 3

San Francisco Airport Muslim Ban Protest

William B. Bonvillian

I M M I G R AT I O N ( H I J R A ) I N T H E

Islamic consciousness is first and foremostan act of liberation. The ProphetMuhammad migrated from his native city,Mecca, to the city of Yathrib (later namedMadina) to escape persecution and pre-serve his faith. So crucial was that journeyto the formation of the budding religionthat it marked the beginning of the Islamiccalendar, which was moreover named afterit (First Hegira year = 622 CE). Immigration remained a valiantundertaking for centuries to come. It ani-mated great movements of oppressedindividuals and communities across vastdistances to protect their faith and have achance to live freely as happened after theSpanish Reconquista in the fifteenthcentury when both Spanish Muslims andJews immigrated to North African andOttoman cities, or after the Russian colo-

Nasser Rabbat

T H E F E D E R A L B U D G E T F O R

research and development (R&D) facesmajor budget challenges ahead, both longand short term, which could have a pro-found effect on university research. Thelong-term challenge stems from theincreased spending required because ofthe nation’s aging demographics, particu-larly the cost of health care. In the shortterm, there is a major battle shaping upover the federal fiscal year 2018 budgetbecause of the Trump administration’splans to cut taxes, raise defense spending,and fund new infrastructure, whichwould be offset by cuts in domestic dis-cretionary spending, where most R&D islocated. Finally, it is becoming increasinglyclear that the country has been experienc-ing social and economic disruptions to itsworking class, which has thrown a wild-

2

Vol. XXIX No. 4 March/April 2017

*Aron BernsteinPhysics

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Manduhai BuyandelgerAnthropology

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Christopher CumminsChemistry

Woodie FlowersMechanical Engineering

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Stephen J. Lippard (Treasurer)Chemistry

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

*Ruth Perry (Vice Chair)Literature Section

*Nasser RabbatArchitecture

Patrick Henry WinstonElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

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 [email protected]

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

01 The Long- and Short-Term Budget Challenges for R&D Support William B. Bonvillian 01 On Immigration and Humanist Values Nasser Rabbat

Editorial 01 Trump’s Budget Cuts NIH, EPA, and Civilian Programs to Fund Weapons Contracts and Foreign Wars

From The 04 Listening, Learning and Teaching, and Outreach; Faculty Chair Teaching and Learning Computational Thinking and Algorithmic Reasoning Krishna Rajagopal

07 MIT April 18: Day of Engagement; Day of Action

13 Teaching this spring? You should know . . .

14 Leadership Training in Academia Charles E. Leiserson

M.I.T. Numbers 16 Campus Research Expenditures FY 2007-2016

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credit: Page1: Daniel Arauz - 2017/01/28 SFO Airport #NoBan #NoWall #RefugeesWelcome Protest, CC BY 2.0,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55553939

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2017

3

millions of Americans of health care withcurrent therapy and procedures. However, itleft open advances in prevention, diagnosis,and treatment that would alleviate future illhealth and disease. The proposed NIH cuts,if enacted, put such progress in gravedanger. As has been pointed out in an op-edin the NY Times (Osterholm and Olshaker,24 March 2017) the proposed budgetignores non-military threats to our nationalsecurity, such as continuing threats frominfectious diseases. The immediate impact of these cutswould be the defunding of graduate stu-dents, postdoctoral fellows, and researchtechnicians here at MIT and at institutionsthroughout the country. Unfortunately, very few of these analysesreferred to above accurately describe thebudget processes at work. The civilian pro-grams were not cut to satisfy small govern-ment advocates; they were cut in order tofinance the enormous $54 billion increase inPentagon spending, including nuclearweapons modernization. The Pentagonbudget was already some 54% of the entireCongressional discretionary budget lastyear. As the NY Times (March 16, 2017)stated clearly: “President Trump’s 2018budget blueprint released on Thursday pro-poses cuts in discretionary spending formost government agencies to pay for largeincreases in military spending.” BudgetDirector Mulvaney was quite clear in speak-ing with Republican Governors: “By way ofdefending such extensive cuts, Mr.Mulvaney said simply that the WhiteHouse’s priority was military spending andthat other reductions were necessary toadvance that goal.” (Alexander Burns, NY Times, March 22, 2017.) The U.S. already spends more on the mil-itary than the next seven largest economiescombined, including Russia (Figure 1). Theproposed increase in U.S. Pentagon andweapons spending is on the order of theentire Russian military budget. The U.S. does not face invasion by hostilepowers on either our northern or southernborders. Thousands of nuclear weapons on

hair-trigger alert did not prevent terroristsfrom attacking Paris subways, Moscow the-atres, or Middle Eastern mosques. Neitherdid they keep North Korea from proceedingwith their nuclear weapons programs. Thepath to peace goes through diplomacy andeconomic and humanitarian aid – notPresident Trump waving nuclear swords of

Damocles. This has been dramatically shownby the completion of the Iran treaty (inwhich MIT’s Prof. Moniz was instrumental). The former Director of MIT’sWashington office, William Bonvillian, offersa detailed and informative review of federalbudget policies, from a very different per-spective than that offered here (see page 1).He focuses on the pressures for fundingSocial Security, Medicare, and other man-dated programs. The pressure for increasedmilitary spending is given only a very minorrole in the limiting effects on the civilianside. However, we note that Social Security

and Medicare are trust funds, and not avail-able for Congressional disposition, whereasNIH and Pentagon spending must comefrom income taxes through Congressionaldiscretionary spending. Rarely mentioned in this debate overbudget priorities is the profitability of theseinvestments. It is very difficult to extract sig-nificant corporate profits from public educa-tion, biomedical research, and environmentalprotection. In contrast, defense corporationsare among the most profitable of Americanindustries, reflecting preferential particulari-ties in Pentagon contracts. A significant frac-tion of these billions of dollars will go tocorporations in the form of monopoly con-tracts – since the contracts cannot be out-sourced to the Chinese or Malaysians orMexicans. The contracts are “cost plus,” withsignificant profit guaranteed above the actualcosts of production, by Congressionalmandate. Finally, many of these contracts arescreened from standard government auditingby national security claims. In assessing these differences, we find itperhaps most useful to present the federalbudget in the pie chart below. If nothingelse, at least this makes very clear howsmall a fraction of the overall budgetscience is (~3%), compared with thePentagon budget (54%).

Trump’s Budget Cuts NIH, EPA . . .continued from page 1


Figure 1

Editorial Subcommittee

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXIX No. 4

4

Krishna RajagopalFrom The Faculty ChairListening, Learning and Teaching, and Outreach;Teaching and Learning ComputationalThinking and Algorithmic Reasoning

Listening, Learning and Teaching, and OutreachO N E O B V I O U S TO P I C F O R T H I S

column is impacts of the new U.S. admin-istration, including impacts on MIT, andresponses at MIT: essentially every facultymember with whom I have talked over thepast two months – in any context aboutanything – is seeing or feeling impacts, isconcerned about how we should respond,and is spending considerable timereading, talking, and thinking about both.However, I do not want to write aboutspecific developments – for example,changes to visa regulations and processes– that are changing so fast that they maymorph between when I write this columnand when you read it. I am also not goingto write about our shared, and enduring,values. They serve us well; indeed, we relyupon them and we embody them in manythings that we do and say. But, since I haveno sense that we are questioning ourvalues, and since this column is a conver-sation among ourselves, writing aboutthem does not seem needed. Instead, in the first half of this column,I have decided to share some examples ofthings that I have seen faculty membersdoing that have been prompted by thecurrent national moment but that are atthe same time, in my book anyway, thingsthat we really should be doing in any cir-cumstances. Please email me [[email protected]] with other examples. What are faculty doing? First, listening. Many faculty have beentalking, in gatherings of all sizes from twopeople on up. One of the most commonthings I have heard people talking aboutboils down to the importance of listening

in addition to talking. Listening to peoplewith varying perspectives and experience.Listening, with attention, to our differ-ences. Listening to students. To staff. Tofaculty colleagues. Listening is alwaysimportant, but it has struck me how manyhave stressed its importance recently. Inmy experience most of the time most ofus are doing this well, but each of us cannevertheless look for further opportuni-

ties to hear and share differing views, andto listen. Next, learning and teaching. These areof course central to what we as professorsdo, so it is natural that when facultymembers respond to national events weask ourselves how we can better under-stand their origins, context, and conse-quences, and how we can provide ourstudents with the tools to do the same. — It is clear that there are major long-term social, political, and economic issuesin America that require close attention. Inresponse, members of the MIT commu-nity have launched Mens et ManusAmerica [shass.mit.edu/news/mens-et-manus-america-initiative-site], a non-partisan initiative that is convening a seriesof research-informed lectures and discus-sions to explore these issues, providingeach of us with opportunities to learn. Our

SHASS and Sloan colleagues leading thisinitiative aim to frame key questionsincluding: What can MIT do to helpaddress current challenges in the U.S., andbolster the health of our democracy? — As I write this column, the mostrecent Mens et Manus America event wasa talk by the sociologist Arlie RussellHochschild about why some Americansvote in ways that may, to others, seem

against their self-interest. (The video and a report are available here:[shass.mit.edu/news/news-2017-mit-arlie-hochschild-discusses-us-political-divisions-and-finding-common-ground].) As youwill see, Hochschild has listened in a waythat few of us can and, consequently, shehas things to say about U.S. political divi-sions and actions for finding commonground from which many of us can learn.We can all look forward to learning fromfuture events in this series. — What about teaching? We have ashared responsibility to prepare our stu-dents as citizens, sending them out intothe world with the tools they need to playa role in strengthening civil society and torecognize when it is at risk of corrosion.Only some among us can rise to the chal-lenge of teaching to the present nationalmoment. But, all of us are advisors and

Next, learning and teaching. These are of course centralto what we as professors do, so it is natural that whenfaculty members respond to national events we askourselves how we can better understand their origins,context, and consequences, and how we can provide ourstudents with the tools to do the same.


5

mentors, formal and informal, whetherfor undergraduate students, graduate stu-dents, or postdocs. As we advise under-graduates on class selection, colleagues inSHASS have provided us with a new Webpage [shass.mit.edu/undergraduate/programs/courses-current-issues], consisting of acurated listing of SHASS classes related tocurrent social, political, and economicissues in the U.S. I have heard more thanone colleague ask how we can best adviseour students when they ask for classesalong these lines; this Web page will helpus, and our advisees. SHASS has alsodeveloped another listing of resources[shass.mit.edu/mission/great-challenges/citizenship] that should be of interest toall of us and to those whom we mentor atany level, called 21st Century Citizenship:Resources for Understanding andEngagement. — Although it may already havepassed by the time that you are readingthis, let me mention that April 18 is MIT’ssecond annual “Together in Service”[togetherinservice.mit.edu] day and that,in addition, a group of students, faculty,and staff have planned a “Day ofEngagement/Day of Action” [https://www.dayofaction.mit.edu] devoted toengaging with the political, economic, andsocial challenges facing us. And, outreach. We have at this pointseen only a sketch of the first budget fromthe new U.S. administration. However,many aspects of the priorities signaled inthis sketch (and in other ways) withregard to research and innovation,science and technology, the humanities,social sciences and the arts, are of deepconcern. Here, we know that these arefoundations upon which America buildseverything from economic growth tonational security, from cures for diseasesto new industries and infrastructure, aswell as new ways to strengthen oursociety and sustain our environment.Most of us are still in the early stages ofplanning how we can respond, but muchthat I am hearing falls under the rubric ofredoubling our efforts at outreach, viamany means, to better get the word outthat building these foundations, and

investing in the next generation who willdevelop them further for the generationafter, has been and continues to be soimportant for the nation, and the world.This is outreach that we have long seen asimportant but that we may not have pri-oritized in our overly full day-by-day,semester-by-semester, lives. Some amongus can reach out via diverse media.

Others are planning visits to the offices ofour representatives in Washington or arehelping our students to do so. Manyfaculty are thinking about outreach tofriends and neighbors, to business leaderswhom we know, to schools, and withincivic organizations and the communitiesin which we live. Remembering that eachof our students and postdocs connects totheir own home community, we shouldsupport them in whatever outreach theymay be doing. As I hear from you, I mayshare examples of initiatives, even at theone or few faculty scale, in my nextcolumn. Let’s see what we can do,together.

* * * * * * * * * *

Teaching and Learning ComputationalThinking and Algorithmic ReasoningL A S T A P R I L , D E A N F O R U N D E R -graduate Education Denny Freeman and Icharged a working group consisting ofProfs. Eric Grimson (EECS; Chair),Deepto Chakrabarty (Physics), MichaelCuthbert (Music and Theater Arts), PekoHosoi (Mechanical Engineering), CaitlinMueller (Architecture), James Orlin(Sloan), and Troy Van Voorhis(Chemistry) with conducting an in-depthstudy of what algorithmic reasoning andcomputational thinking mean in thecontext of the education of MIT’s under-graduates across all five Schools. After

having incorporated substantive feedbackfrom many students and faculty inresponse to an early draft, the WorkingGroup has now completed its final report[web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/2017-01_computational_thinking_requirement_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf]. I encourage all faculty members toread the report in full. It is the product of

a sustained deliberation. The WorkingGroup gathered, considered, debated, andsynthesized multiple perspectives. Theirresulting analyses and conclusions are dif-ferent from, and stronger than, anythingthat any individual could have done. As you will see from their report, theWorking Group explored how faculty andstudents across the full breadth repre-sented by our five Schools use computa-tional thinking; the intellectualframeworks employed in computationalthinking and algorithmic reasoning; andthe extent to which these are already beingtaught. They also found wide agreementacross MIT for a set of topics that wouldbe valuable for students to understand. As one conclusion of their study, theWorking Group recommends that MITshould acknowledge algorithmic andcomputational thinking as an explicitexpectation of all our graduates, as theybelieve that it should play a role for stu-dents in all parts of the Institute. TheWorking Group describes several impor-tant reasons why every MIT undergradu-ate should be articulate in computation asa mode of thought and a means of com-munication. I expect that different readerswill resonate most strongly with differentcomponents of the Working Group’s argu-ment. In my case, I value the distinctionsthey draw between mathematical andcomputational thinking. And, I follow

continued on next page

As one conclusion of their study, the Working Grouprecommends that MIT should acknowledge algorithmicand computational thinking as an explicit expectation ofall our graduates, as they believe that it should play arole for students in all parts of the Institute.


6

their observation that because computersare transformational agents in the twenty-first century, our students should be cog-nizant of the impact of computation ontheir fields and should graduate from MITas technological citizens of the twenty-firstcentury with an understanding of the par-adigms of computing – just as we expectthem to be cognizant of the paradigms of(for instance) biology. That said, what struck me most in theirargument was the way that the WorkingGroup sees computational thinking as amode of communication. Developing asuccessful written or oral presentationcrystallizes initially vague ideas into a tightlogical argument or crisp description.And, one of the best ways to crystallize aninitially vague idea for how to solve aproblem is via the discipline of formulat-ing and coding an algorithm that a com-puter could execute. Articulation of one’sideas in a manner such that a computercan execute them requires precision,clarity, and logical rigor. So does commu-nicating ideas comprehensibly to otherpeople. The converse makes the analogyparticularly sharp: the two best ways that Iknow by which I can shatter the belief thatI understand how something works(when that is in fact not the case) are totry to teach it to a good student who ques-tions everything or to try to formulate itas an algorithm that can be coded. As you turn this analogy over in yourmind, you start to realize that it has possi-ble implications for how computationalthinking could be embedded throughoutour curriculum in ways that are analogousto how we think about teaching commu-nication via CI-H and CI-M subjects intandem. Just as we expect our students tolearn to write well in their CI-H subjects(and not just to be proficient withgrammar) we would like our students tolearn foundational concepts in computa-tional thinking and algorithmic reasoningwell (and not just how to code). Thiscomes through loud and clear in theWorking Group report. The report also

explicitly lays out the advantages of pro-viding our students discipline-specificexperiences with computation, the com-putational analogue of the motivationsbehind our CI-M’s. The Working Group has consideredhow to accomplish the goals they articu-late for the computational education ofMIT undergraduates, and has recom-mended two options as worthy of further

development. Connecting computationalthinking to domain-specific contextsacross different intellectual disciplines isessential. Therefore, in both of the optionsfavored by the Working Group, at leastsome elements of computational thinkingwould be taught in subjects that aredesigned for a major, or designated assuitable for a major. In these ways, stu-dents would see computation in thecontext of a discipline that appeals tothem, thus increasing the utility of whatthey learn. In one of the options, thiswould be preceded by a requirement totake one of a small group of six-unitintroductions to computational thinkingoffered at different levels for students withdifferent backgrounds. Combining a common foundationand discipline-specific instruction wouldbe comparable to the combination of CI-H and CI-M classes in the communi-cation requirement, while the ability toembed six units of computational think-ing within a larger class also finds ananalogy in some of the ways in which ourstudents satisfy the Institute LaboratoryRequirement. I hope that the recommendations ofthe Working Group spur faculty anddepartments to develop subjects that useand teach computational thinking in thecontext of their major, along the linesdescribed in the report. Funds to support

development of such courses will be avail-able from Dean Freeman’s office as earlyas this summer. Information about apply-ing for funding can be found here:[due.mit.edu/initiatives/algorithmic-reasoning-and-computational-thinking-call-proposals]. I am grateful to the Working Group forthe sketches they have developed thatprovide options for how a requirement in

computational thinking might be imple-mented, and for laying out the advantagesand challenges of each approach. Furtherdevelopment is now required. Forexample, the Working Group notes thatoptions for incorporating a computa-tional requirement should avoid adding asignificant burden on our students andrecommends that a careful major-by-major study be done of the impact of allo-cating a REST subject to computationwhen considering that as a potentialimplementation path. They also note that,for engineering majors, the impacts onABET accreditation of implementationoptions for adding a computationalthinking requirement should be analyzed.The Committee on the UndergraduateProgram (CUP) is the appropriateStanding Committee of the Faculty toconsider these questions and, more gener-ally, to consider how best to proceed. TheCUP has now begun this work. Although much remains to be done, Iam most grateful to the Working Groupfor bringing this important Institute-widediscussion to this point. Their analysis,findings, and recommendations provideall of us with the impetus to take impor-tant next steps. Here again, let’s see whatwe can do, together.

From The Faculty ChairRajagopal, from preceding page

Krishna Rajagopal is a Professor of Physics,a MacVicar Faculty Fellow, and Chair of theFaculty ([email protected]).

I hope that the recommendations of the Working Groupspur faculty and departments to develop subjects thatuse and teach computational thinking in the context oftheir major, along the lines described in the report.


7

J O I N U S ! A N E T WO R K O F M I T

faculty, students and staff are puttingtogether their know-how and learning toplan a remarkable day of instruction,inspiration, discussion, and celebrationthis coming April 18th. The event is opento all in our community, plus the publicand colleagues at other universities. ThisDay of Engagement, Day of Action (dayofaction.mit.edu) is a response to thepolitical, economic, and social challengesfacing the U.S.A. today, a call for renewedcivic engagement from the scholars, stu-

dents, and staff of our community, inspiredby MIT's historic leadership in the March 4Movement of 1969 (science.sciencemag.org/content/163/3872/1175). That earlier movement focused on ashared concern with military research.Today’s movement aims to meet pressingchallenges to long-held ideals and aspira-tions for our country. We want to informourselves about a set of very pressingissues, including (in no particular order) –hate crimes and discrimination on thebasis of sex, gender and gender identity,race, ethnicity, religion, disability, andcountry of origin; the waning of fact-based debate with resulting corruption ofthe public sphere; declining job opportu-nities in the workforce; climate changeand disparities in access to a healthy envi-ronment; the concentration of wealth inthe hands of a few; voter suppression andthreats to the democratic process; the

fragmentation of political discourse; theever-present possibility of nuclear war;the long-term expansion of executivepower in our federal government; ouruniversity's own role in reshaping thelocal, national, and global socioeconomiclandscape; and many more. By poolingour understanding and experiences asindividuals we can better position our-selves to meet these challenges throughcollective action. The day will run from 10 am to 9 pmand will include interactive forums, lec-tures, workshops, music, art, celebration,and discussion. All the events of the dayare open to the public, our colleagues atother universities, and members of thecommunity. More than 60 activities willbe centered in and around the StataCenter and the Student Center, and thelist continues to grow. The currently con-firmed events are:

Accountability Without Democracy

by Lily Tsai

Ask a Philosopher Booth

by New England Public Philosophers

and MIT Philosophy Students

Assembling a Founder's Toolkit: Workshop

on Making Start-Ups LGBTQ-Inclusive

organized by Sloan LGBTQ

Beyond Bathrooms: Bureaucracy and

Queer Youth

by Alex Nally / MA Commission on LGBTQ Youth

Building a Checklist for Cities: What

Actions are Required to Secure

Progressive Urban Agendas

organized by Students of the Department of

Urban Studies and Planning

Bystander Intervention

by Libby Mahaffy

Climate Justice and Energy Democracy:

An Introduction

by Fossil Free MIT

Current Municipal and State Political,

Social and Economic Struggles

panel discussion moderated by Jonathan King

Day of Action Data Rescue

organized by Civic Data Design Lab + DUSPviz

Disobedience and its Reward

by Joi Ito

Ending Political Corruption in

Massachusetts

by Represent.Us Boston

Environmental Justice Volunteer Fair

featuring local environmental justice

organizations

Eugenics: A Continuing Legacy?

by Erica James, Amy Moran-Thomas, and Stefan

Helmreich

Free Speech / Hate Speech

by Wendy Salkin and Ronni Gura Sadovsky

General Strike!: Immigration Justice and

Movimiento Cosecha

by DUSP Action, Solidarity MIT, and Cosecha

Gentrification: Beyond Displacement

panel discussion featuring Aatmaja Pandya,

Léopold Lambert, Molly Rose Kaufman, Ken

Reeves, and Sarita Daftary-Steel, organized by

DUSP Students of Color Committee

Gerrymandering: Mathematics and fairness

in theory and practice

by Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group

How to Use Media Cloud for Activism

by Natalie Gyenes and Anushka Shah

Illiberal Democracies

panel discussion moderated by Jeff Ravel

Inequality and Brexit

by John van Reenen

Literature: Light in a Time of Darkness

organized by Helen Elaine Lee, Ruth Perry, and

additional speakers

Make Change, Make Zines! A Day of Action

Zine-Making Space

organized by Anna Boutin, Alena McNamara,

Sofia Leung, Rhonda Kauffman

Multicultural Stories and Activities for Kids

Multimedia Protest Party

organized by Paloma Duong and Ian Condry

Nuclear Weapons and Survival

by R. Scott Kemp



8

nial expansion in the Caucasus in the latenineteenth century, which forced count-less Circassian Muslims to move to theMiddle East. The term hijra survivestoday in various Islamic languages: amuhajir in Pakistan, for instance, is anindividual who had fled India afterPartition in 1947 and relocated to thenew Islamic country. The importance of this redemptive actshould have resonated within theAmerican psyche, Americans having beenreared on the stories of religiously perse-cuted communities from the old conti-nent, especially Britain, finding refuge inthe New World. Pilgrims, Puritans,Quakers, Huguenots, Mennonites, Amish,

and Jews were all oppressed faith groupswho fled Europe in the sixteenth, seven-teenth, and eighteenth centuries to seektheir religious freedom in America. Thesame could be said about larger groups ofnonconformists, including the morenumerous English Catholics, ScottishPresbyterians, and German and SwedishLutherans who came to America in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Thelessons of religious discrimination thatthese immigrants brought with them haveinspired some of the most fundamentallyhumanistic principles expressed in theFirst Amendment to the Constitution,namely “Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”In this definitive act of separating churchand state while respecting freedom of

worship, the U.S. set the path for otherliberal democracies to follow. It is thus both perplexing and depress-ing to witness the confusion caused byPresident Trump’s executive orders, popu-larly known as the “Muslim Ban.” The dis-appointment stems less from the virulentrhetoric used by President Trump and hisinner circle of conservative advisors, whonever hid their demagogic intentions,against all immigrants. It is rather directedat the American political and intellectualclasses who should be much more alert tothe dangers the “Muslim Ban” representsto the core values of the American civilsystem and its Constitutional safeguards.Both in its first fiasco version and itssecond supposedly measured one, the Banpretends to be merely a preventive proce-dure aimed at plugging holes in the

On Immigration and Humanist ValuesRabbat, from page 1

Putting a Price on Carbon in MA

panel discussion featuring MA Rep. Jen Benson

(37th Middlesex), Sam Anderson (counsel to MA

Sen. Mike Barrett, 3rd Middlesex), Chris Knittel

Resistance on Film

organized by Ezra Haber Glenn / DUSP

The Making & Future of the Iran Nuclear

Deal

by R. Scott Kemp

Philosophy and Racial Justice

by Kevin Richardson

Poetry Across Borders

organized by Nick Montfort and Ed Barrett

Protest Songs: Old and New

Ruth Perry and friends

Protest, Nonviolence and Civil

Disobedience

discussion moderated by Lisa Rivera and

Gina Schouten

Recharging for the Activist

organized by MIT Radius / Technology and

Culture Forum

Science & Society Carnival

by Students of the History, Anthropology, and

Science, Technology, and Society (HASTS)

program

Social Emergency Response Center (SERC)

by Ceasar McDowell

Strategies for Improving the Quality of

Jobs

by Tom Kochan

Taking Action Against Climate Change

by Fossil Free MIT

The Challenge for R&D Funding in the

Administration's New FY18 Budget

by William B. Bonvillian

The Ethics of Big Data

by Kate Vredenburgh and Ronni Gura Sadovsky

The Future of U.S. Healthcare Policy

by Jonathan Gruber

The intersection between the law and

design in combatting hate in marginalized

communities

panel discussion organized by Jules Rochielle,

Nulawlab

The Legacy of Inequity in Federal Housing

Policy

by Roberta Rubin

The Legacy of Protest at MIT

by Radius / The Technology and Culture Forum at MIT

What is a refugee? Separating myth from fact

by Serena Parekh

White Folks Holding One Another

Accountable to Dismantle Racism: The

Role of White Accountability/'Caucus'

Groups

organized by members of the White Person’s

Accountability Group (Ora Gladstone, Libby

Mahaffy, and Ryan Kruis)

World Music Hangout

organized by the Lewis Music Library and the

International Student Office

Affinity Spaces available throughout the day

Day of Engagement/Day of Actioncontinued from preceding page


9

already excessive visa vetting system andprotecting the borders of the UnitedStates from “Islamist terrorists.” But,besides the false pronouncements itmakes about terrorism and the exclusivelyIslamic identity of its perpetrators, theBan actually undermines the fundamentalprinciples of equality before the law,

freedom of belief, non-discrimination,and separation of state and church, allenshrined in the Constitution, in additionto its contemptuous disregard for the req-uisite input from the two other branchesof government: the legislative and thejudiciary. As expected, reactions to the Ban fromacademic, cultural, and political institu-tions on the whole have been critical.Many have condemned it for its legaloverreaching or, more often, for its unde-niable harm to the proper functioning oftheir operation, while noticing its overallcorrosive effect on liberal Americanvalues. This is at least how one can readthe slew of statements issued by universi-ties, museums, and academic associationsafter the Ban’s first iteration (no similaroutcry occurred after the second). Theletter sent to President Trump onFebruary 3, 2017 by 48 top U.S. universitypresidents, including President Rafael Reifof MIT, for instance, states that the order“threatens both American higher educa-tion and the defining principles of ourcountry.” It continues to assert that theBan “specifically prevents talented, law-abiding students and scholars from theaffected regions from reaching our cam-puses. American higher education hasbenefited tremendously from thiscountry’s long history of embracingimmigrants from around the world. Their

innovations and scholarship haveenhanced American learning, added toour prosperity, and enriched our culture.” All these objections are valid, and allreflect the concerns of these distinguishedsignatories. But the universities’ letter, andother countless similar ones, misses thebig picture. The assault embedded in the

“Muslim Ban” is not just directed againststudents and researchers from specificcountries, or Muslims, or even refugees ingeneral. It is a trial balloon in a concerted,ideologically motivated effort aimed at aset of values that together make up thefiber of our American democracy. This should be clear to anyone watch-ing the unfolding of the Trump adminis-tration’s appointments, policies, andpublic statements. Notwithstanding hissmokescreen-like and seemingly impulsivetweets, President Trump is systematicallyand resolutely implementing all of hiscampaign promises, no matter how out-landish they might have seemed when firstuttered. He is doing that by issuing oneexecutive order after another aimed at dis-mantling the achievements of his prede-cessor and by shrewdly placing likemindedpeople in leading positions, who will helphim realize the radical changes in ourpolitical system he wants, each in theirtried and tested area. Thus, for example,we have an Education Secretary who doesnot believe in public schools, an AttorneyGeneral who is highly critical of the gainsin civil rights over the last 50 years, a HUDSecretary who wants to reduce publichousing, and an Administrator of the EPAwho is skeptical of climate change, andwho publicly doubted that carbon dioxideis a primary contributor to globalwarming. We also have clear indications

that the Trump administration is planningto drastically reduce funding for theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) and tototally eliminate the National Endowmentfor the Arts (NEA), the NationalEndowment for the Humanities (NEH),the Institute of Museum and LibraryServices (IMLS), and the Corporation forPublic Broadcasting (CPB). There is a distinct pattern here that isnot to be taken lightly or blamed on theerratic methods of governing that theTrump administration seems to haveadopted. The pattern is ideological and it isnot just neo-liberal, advancing the privateover the public in every domain, as manycommentators have observed. In its anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, anti-factual, dis-criminatory, and isolationist stances, it isanti-humanist to the core. By anti-human-ist, I do not mean the values of EuropeanEnlightenment as established around thesame time as the drafting of the AmericanConstitution and later much criticized. Imean universal humanism as it has evolvedthrough tremendous struggles all over theworld to redress the wrongs wrought on alldisenfranchised people everywhere. This isthe humanism that was inscribed in anumber of international documents, mostnotably the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights (1948), adopted after theatrocities of World War II, the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights (1950), andits updated and enlarged version, TheCharter of Fundamental Rights of theEuropean Union (2000), which explicitlytakes into account the “changes in society,social progress and scientific and techno-logical developments.” This is also the humanism that definesthe spirit behind all of our federal, scien-tific, and cultural endowments threatenedwith funding cuts nowadays, and under-lies the mission of American higher edu-cation despite recent shifts toward a moreentrepreneurial orientation. It is thehumanism that we – educators, scholars,researchers, scientists, and intellectuals –ought to relentlessly reaffirm, promote,and defend.

Nasser Rabbat is the Aga Khan Professor in theDepartment of Architecture ([email protected]).

The assault embedded in the “Muslim Ban” is not justdirected against students and researchers from specificcountries, or Muslims, or even refugees in general. It is atrial balloon in a concerted, ideologically motivated effortaimed at a set of values that together make up the fiberof our American democracy.


10

card into the ability of the political processto manage these developments.

The Long-Term ChallengeAs noted, federal spending on R&D faces agrowing challenge due to the growth offederal entitlement spending, principallyfor health care. Let’s first look at whereR&D spending stands over time as a per-centage of the nation’s Gross DomesticProduct (GDP). Why compare R&D toGDP? Because this percent tells us aboutthe size and strength of the nation’s com-mitment to R&D over time; internation-ally, this is a widely used benchmark tocompare R&D investment levels, which, ofcourse, are related to a nation’s innovationcapability and corresponding innovation-based economic growth. As the figurebelow (from NSF 2016 S&E Indicators)shows, when federal and private sectorspending on R&D are combined, U.S.R&D has been holding relatively stablesince the mid-1960s, now at 2.8% of GDP.

This percentage is no longer thehighest level among competitor nations,but still strong. However, when we look atthe components, we sense possible troubleahead. While federal R&D reached 1.8%in the mid-’60s, it had fallen by 2013 toless than half that level, to 0.8%. It wasoffset by growth in private sector R&D,which correspondingly rose from around0.8% in the ’60s to 1.8%. The problem isthat we are comparing apples to oranges,and they are not interchangeable: thepublic sector predominantly fundsresearch and the private sector predomi-nantly funds development. Research anddevelopment are, of course, related: devel-opment tends to leverage off of researchover an extended period; although there isa significant lag time, a reduction inresearch commitment will eventuallycatch up to affect development capability.The optimal curve from an economicgrowth perspective would be two parallelrising lines, so the growth in one can keepleveraging continuing growth in the other.The U.S. now has an “X” curve – the linesare not growing in parallel.

Not only is the research share of GDPfunding on the decline, science fundingacross sectors is not uniform. The figure,next page (from AAAS), shows the sharprise in total health research stemmingfrom the doubling of research funding forthe National Institutes of Health (NIH)between 1998 and 2003, although thislevel has been stagnant since then, offsetslightly by a funding increase last year.Other scientific fields have experienced(using 2015 dollars) either a modest riseor stagnation between 1970 and 2016. But the pressure on science support isabout to increase because deficits are aboutto grow again. The Congressional BudgetOffice’s 2016 Baseline estimates of federaldeficits shows that although federal deficitsrose sharply due to the Great Recession in2008-09 to $1.4 trillion, they steadily fellback with the economic recovery to pre-recession levels by 2015. However, the CBOestimates show upcoming progressivedeficit increases returning to the trillion-dollar level by 2024. The figure (next page) shows theAAAS’s estimates of the growth in entitle-ment spending during the Obama admin-istration; this spending is “mandatory”because the government must meet itsobligations to Social Security, Medicare,and Medicaid recipients. This is the criticalfactor leading to federal deficits. In con-trast, the government’s “discretionaryspending” is in decline. This categoryincludes the federal government’s non-entitlement spending for defense and non-defense government programs, from theNavy, to national parks, to NIST (NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology).This decline includes overall R&D spend-ing at the major research agencies. Thechart shows that entitlements (particularlyhealth care) are absorbing all and more ofthe increases in federal expenditures, andthis trend will accelerate as the demo-graphics of an aging population expand. To summarize, the long-term prospectfor federal domestic discretionary spend-ing, home of all non-defense R&D, is notpretty; R&D will face growing pressureparticularly from mandatory health careexpenditures for decades to come.

Budget Challenges for R&D SupportBonvillian, from page 1

Ratio of U.S. R&D to Gross Domestic Product, By Roles of Federal, Business, and Other Nonfederal Funding for R&D: 1953-2013

Notes: Data for 2013 include some estimates and may later be revised. The federally funded data representthe federal government as a funder of R&D by all performers; the business-funded data have a similar func-tion. The Other nonfederal category includes R&D funded by all other sources – mainly universities and col-leges, nonfederal government, and other nonprofit organizations. The gross domestic product data usedreflect the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s comprehensive revisions of the national income and productaccounts of July 2013.

Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, NationalPatterns of R&D Resources (annual series).

Science and Engineering Indicators 2016


11

The Short-Term Budget ChallengeIn 2012, as federal deficits still hoveredabout the trillion dollar level, the politicalparties agreed to a process to cut federalspending known as “sequestration.” WhileDemocrats protected entitlement spend-ing from cuts and Republicans preventedany tax increases, both agreed to focusdeficit reduction on federal discretionaryspending, a secondary priority for both.Following an initial budget cut of one tril-

lion dollars, sequestration cut domesticand defense discretionary spending byanother $1.2 trillion, imposed over adecade, from 2013-2023. Since federalR&D is discretionary spending, R&D wascut as well. Congress subsequently modi-fied the cuts in budget agreements cover-ing fiscal years 2014-2017, and R&Dspending has recovered to approach 2012spending levels. The figure, next page(from AAAS) shows, for major science

agencies, first, the budget stimulus duringthe Great Recession where R&D was a sig-nificant beneficiary, and, second, thebudget cuts imposed by sequestrationstarting in 2013. The figure shows theextent to which the agencies have recov-ered from sequestration. But just as R&D spending was recover-ing from sequestration – which remainsin place until 2023 – the new budget forfiscal year 2018 submitted by the Trumpadministration proposes to deliver a moredraconian blow. The President mademajor campaign pledges to increasedefense and infrastructure spending aswell as to cut taxes. In its budget “blue-print” of March 16, 2017, the administra-tion is seeking a $54 billion increase inDefense programs (and $2 billion inHomeland Security), which it proposes tooffset with corresponding cuts to domes-tic discretionary programs. Some R&Dhighlights are identified below: • NIH would be cut by $5.8b, or 18% to$25.9b and its institutes and centers are tohave a “major reorganization.” • The Department of Energy would becut by 5.6% ($1.7b); within it, the Officeof Science would be cut by $900m (17%)and ARPA-E (Advanced Research ProjectsAgency-Energy) ($300m) would be elimi-nated; while not specified, the Budgetindicated applied research at the Offices ofEERE (Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy), Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy,and Electricity would be cut by $2b. • EPA would be cut by $2.6b (31%) andits Office of R&D would be cut by $233mor 93%. • NASA would be cut by 0.8% to$19.1b, funds would be increased forPlanetary Science (by 16% or $270m) andreduced for Earth Science (down $100m),with a new emphasis on manned mis-sions. NASA’s education programs includ-ing Space Grant would be eliminated. • The Commerce Department wouldbe cut by 16% ($1.5b); within Commerce,NOAA (National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration) researchand education would be cut by $250m(eliminating coastal and marine manage-


Trends in Federal Research By Discipline, FY 1970-2016obligations in billions of constant FY 2016 dollars

“Other” includes research not classified (includes basic research and applied research; excludes developmentand R&D facilities). Life sciences are split into NIH support for biomedical research and all other agencies’support for life sciences.

Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development series. FY 2015 and2016 data are preliminary. Constant-dollar conversions based on OMB’s GDP deflators. © 2016 AAAS

Growth in Federal Entitlement (“Mandatory”) Spending 2008-2017Average Long-Term Spending in the Last Four Obama Budgets

Relative 10-year changes by spending type in the FY 2014-2017 budgets, adjusted for inflation

*Includes proposed outlays for the discretionary functions or subfunctions containing DOD RDT&E, NSF,NASA, USDA R&D offices, DOE R&D offices, NIH, NIST, U.S. Geological Survey, Institute for EducationServices, and VA Medical & Prosthetic Research. Based on AAAS analyses of historical OMB data from pastrequests. © 2017 AAAS

$35

$30

$25

$20

$15

$10

$5

$01970 1973 1976 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

All other life sciences

Engineering

Physical Scis.

Env. Scis.

Math/Comp. Scis.

Social Sciences

Psychology

Other

NIH Biomedical Research


12

ment), climate and climate observing pro-grams cut by some 20%, and the SeaGrant program eliminated; NIST’s(National Institute of Standards andTechnology) budget is not specified but itsManufacturing Extension Partnershipwould be eliminated. • NSF was not mentioned in the docu-ment, although it was in a list of “other agencies” scheduled for an overall cut of9.8%.

These cuts come in a context of a pro-posed 10.2% reduction across domesticagencies, including a 21% cut atAgriculture and a 28% cut at State.Because the cut in domestic discretionaryprograms (domestic spending is cut from$516b under current law to $462b) is bal-anced by a corresponding increase indefense spending (which increases from$549b to $603b) there is no effect on thegrowing budget deficit. There is an ironyhere: only some 16% of the total federalbudget is now in the domestic discre-tionary category; this category is nowsuch a modest part of the total budget thateven massive cuts in this category havelimited effect on the deficit. AlthoughCandidate Trump pledged to bothbalance the budget and pay off thenational debt of $19 trillion in eight years,he has been unwilling to address manda-tory spending, which (plus interest on thedebt) is over 60% of federal spending. The March document is only a prelim-inary budget – a full budget will be sub-mitted in May. The new budget will stillhave to clear Congress. While most hadbeen assuming that the administrationcould use the Budget Resolution andfollow-on Reconciliation process to pass itoutside of the Senate filibuster process, thedeficit increase required by the proposeddefense spending may trigger a 60-voterequirement in the Senate, which meansthat both parties will have to consent tothe changes, likely triggering complex pro-cedural maneuvers that will determinewhether these cuts will go into place.

To summarize, there are long-termbudget pressures primarily due to theaging demographics in the U.S. and thecorresponding cost of health care pro-grams. Budget deficits, after declining inthe recovery from the Great Recession, arerising again. This puts ever-growing pres-sure on federal discretionary spending,source of R&D spending. Meanwhile, inthe short term, just as science agencieshave been recovering from the sequestra-tion cuts imposed in 2012, the President’sFY2018 budget proposal makes major andunprecedented cuts in R&D programs. Amajor legislative battle late this spring willdetermine whether and to what extentthese R&D cuts will go into place.

The Growing Challenge in Making theCaseOf course, R&D is not part of the problem;it is arguably part of the solution becauseof its potential to contribute to economicgrowth through technological innovation.Even a modest increase in growth helpsoffset the demographic effects of risingmandatory spending and the budgetdeficit. Although MIT’s Robert Solow ledthe development of innovation-basedgrowth theory, so far neither politicalparty has fully accepted this as core doc-

trine. In a way, the two political parties stillseem locked into the two pillars of growththeory from classical economics thatSolow’s work displaced: Republicans tendto embrace capital supply and Democratslabor supply theories. While both factorsremain important, they are not the domi-nant causative growth factor Solow identi-fied: technological and related innovation.Arguably, until this is better understood,R&D support will remain under long- andshort-term budget pressures. However, this foundational argumentfor R&D is getting harder to make.Economist David Autor and his colleaguestell us our society increasingly looks like abarbell, with a quite successful uppermiddle class on one bell, a thinned-outmiddle, and the other bell, a growing,lower pay, lower end services sector. Thisin a nation that has long prided itself onits social mobility and economic opportu-nity. Instead, for example, median incomefor men without a high school diplomahas declined by 20 points between 1990and 2013, and those with a high schooldiploma or some college declined by 13points. We have a growing underclass thatis increasingly our middle class. Laboreconomist Richard Freeman arguesAmerica’s growing income inequality is

Budget Challenges for R&D SupportBonvillian, from preceding page

S&T Agency Budgets in the Obama YearsPercent change from FY 2008 levels, constant dollars

*Includes nuclear, fossil, efficiency and renewables, grid research, and ARPAE.Based on AAAS analyses of historical agency data. © 2017 AAAS


13

reaching developing world levels.Economic historian Peter Temin’s newbook, The Vanishing Middle Class, docu-ments just that. He shows, for example,the declining middle class share ofnational income from 60% to 40%between 1971 and 2014, and the stagna-tion of wages for manufacturing workersbetween1975 and 2014, despite significantproductivity gains. In this context of growing economicinequality, technological advance is not

necessarily viewed as an unalloyed good;an increasing part of the working classsees it as a job threat. We face a growingproblem of jobless innovation.Universities, with their rising costs, are toooften viewed as elite bastions, not enginesof mobility, despite arguments to the con-trary. Challenges to our society are now athand regarding quality job creation, man-ufacturing, the future of work, and educa-tion and training that can raise skills andeconomic opportunities. Can universities

play a role in thinking through theseproblems? Can MIT? Arguably, universi-ties need to be part of the solution, andseen to be part of the solution, to theseproblems. The university research modelitself may have a stake in the outcome.

Teaching this spring? You should know . . .. . . the Faculty regulates examinations and assignments for all subjects.

View the complete regulations at web.mit.edu/faculty/teaching/termregs.html. Select requirements are provided below for reference. Contact Faculty ChairKrishna Rajagopal at [email protected] with questions or requests for exceptions.

No required classes, examinations, oral presentations, exercises, or assignments of any kind may be scheduled after the last regularly scheduled class in asubject, except for final examinations scheduled through the Schedules Office. The last class day for all subjects is Thursday, May 18, 2017.

Undergraduate SubjectsBy the end of the first week of classes, faculty must provide:

• a clear and complete description of the required work, including the number and kinds of assignments• the approximate schedule of tests and due dates for major projects• an indication of whether or not there will be a final examination, and• the grading criteria and procedures to be used

By the end of the third week, faculty must provide a precise schedule of tests and major assignments.

Regularly scheduled academic activity between 7 and 10 pm always takes precedence over evening review sessions or exams/quizzes. Hence:• Evening review sessions should be optional, and should be described as such. It is good practice to announce them explicitly as being for

those students who do not have classes on the evening in question; some instructors schedule two review sessions to provide alternate times.• In the case of an evening exam/quiz, you must make available an alternate time for any students with such a conflict.

(Note: Evening exams/quizzes may be scheduled only on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday)

When held outside scheduled class times, tests must: • not exceed two hours in length • begin no earlier than 7:30 pm when held in the evening, and • be scheduled through the Schedules Office

In all undergraduate subjects, there shall be no tests after Friday, May 12, 2017. Unit tests may be scheduled during the final examination period. For each undergraduate subject with a final examination, no other test may be given and no assignment may fall due after Friday, May 12,2017. For each subject without a final examination, at most one assignment may fall due between May 12 and the end of the last regularly scheduled class in the subject.

Graduate SubjectsBy the end of the third week, faculty must provide:

• a clear and complete description of the required work, including the number and kinds of assignments• the schedule of tests and due dates for major projects• an indication of whether or not there will be a final examination, and• the grading criteria and procedures to be used

For each graduate subject with a final examination, no other test may be given and no assignment may fall due after Friday, May 12, 2017. For each subjectwithout a final examination, at most, either one in-class test may be given, or one assignment, term paper, or oral presentation may fall due between May 12and the end of the last regularly scheduled class in the subject.

Student HolidaysThere are no classes on the following dates: Monday, February 20 (President’s Day); Monday, April 17 (Patriots’ Day); and Tuesday, April 18.

Collaboration Policy and Expectations for Academic ConductDue to varying faculty attitudes towards collaboration and diverse cultural values and priorities regarding academic honesty, students are often confused aboutexpectations regarding permissible academic conduct. It is important to clarify, in writing, expectations regarding collaboration and academic conduct at thebeginning of each semester. This could include a reference to the MIT Academic Integrity Handbook.

William B. Bonvillian is a Lecturer for STSand Politcal Science. For 11 years he wasDirector of MIT’s Washington Office (until thispast February). These comments are drawnfrom a talk he gave at the Institute FacultyMeeting on February 15, 2017([email protected]).


14

Charles E. LeisersonLeadership Training in Academia

A PROFE SSOR I S WOR KI NG with anew PhD student on a difficult researchproblem. One night, the professor solves theproblem. The next day, he excitedly tells thestudent the solution. “Now, all we have todo is write it up, and you’ll have your firstpaper!” the professor exclaims. Threemonths later, the student drops out. Theprofessor wonders why. Leadership is tricky. Often, it’s not untilafter the fact that we realize the impact ofour actions on those we lead. Many of usin the universities develop our leadershipskills over time by trial and error.Ironically, we educate our students intechnical topics that couldn’t possibly belearned by trial and error alone. But whenit comes to learning about leadership, howmany of us take the trial-and-error routewithout ever taking steps to improve ourleadership skills through education? Businesses recognize the educationalgap faced by individuals who assumeleadership positions. According to Bersin& Associates, a human-resources researchfirm, corporate spending on managementand leadership training exceeds $14 billion per year. MIT’s own SloanSchool of Management offers compre-hensive courses on leadership skills, butthe vast majority of MIT faculty have notexperienced even one day of leadershipeducation. That was my situation in 1999. I hadbeen on the MIT faculty for 18 years, andI thought I knew something about leader-ship. After all, I had tenure! I had super-vised about 20 PhDs and over 30 Master’sand Bachelor’s students. But there was somuch I did not know, and I did not evenknow that I did not know. I had to leave

MIT to be humbled, and then I was readyto learn.

A Stint at AkamaiIn 1999 I began a two-year leave ofabsence from MIT to serve as Director ofSystem Architecture at AkamaiTechnologies, then a nascent MIT spin-

off, now a Fortune 1000 company locatedhere in Cambridge. As we ramped up, Ihired roughly 70 of the 100 softwaredevelopers that made up Akamai’s engi-neering staff. Many of them were people Iknew directly or indirectly through uni-versity contacts. Former professors andstudents took on corporate roles andresponsibilities, and some, like myself,who had never before been tasked withmanagement in the corporate world, tookon leadership positions. Akamai’s engineering team includedmany brilliant people whose entire careerup to that point had been spent in acade-mia. Some of my own former PhD stu-dents left good jobs in academia to jointhe team. Quite a few people on the teamwere, or are now, faculty at MIT and othertop-ranked universities.

But guess what? We sucked! Despiteour immense talent, we were completelydysfunctional, and the other managersand I were at our wits’ end on how tocope. People became angry, arrogant,jealous, spiteful, and vindictive, to namejust a few emotions. As time went on,things got worse. Many on the team

expressed disappointment that they hadleft the comfortable confines of universitylife. Fortunately, our VP of HumanResources at the time recognized theproblem and brought in ChuckMcVinney, a talented management con-sultant with expertise in teamwork andleadership training. Chuck began byrunning a couple of offsite workshopsfor the engineering leaders. We becameeducated in such topics as situationalleadership, dealing with diversity andconflict, providing effective feedback,fostering creativity, and how to build amotivated team that leverages individ-ual talents. Remarkably, after only twoworkshops, things at Akamai com-pletely turned around. The workshopcontent wasn’t that hard, but if you

When I returned to the Institute, I realized that my MITcolleagues also coped with problems similar to thosethat the engineers at Akamai had faced. We were allconstantly dealing with a host of “people” issuesinvolving our students and colleagues. Although aprofessor is a leadership position, virtually no one at MITin those days had any leadership training.


15

didn’t know it, you could easily be con-founded by the way human nature playsinto everyday technical work. The aca-demically trained leaders simply hadnever been exposed to this kind of edu-cation before.

Back at MITWhen I returned to the Institute, I realizedthat my MIT colleagues also coped withproblems similar to those that the engi-neers at Akamai had faced. We were allconstantly dealing with a host of “people”issues involving our students and col-leagues. Although a professor is a leader-ship position, virtually no one at MIT inthose days had any leadership training.Although not as dysfunctional as what Iinitially experienced at Akamai, it seemedto me that many MIT research and teach-ing teams were operating far below theirfull potential. Determined to make a difference (Iguess I had learned some leadershipskills), I sat down with Chuck to adapt hismaterials and to develop new materialsspecifically for MIT clientele. Chuck and Ioffered our first leadership workshop in2002 to a group of 12 MIT computer sci-entists. Over the next few years, we refinedour materials and broadened participa-tion to include the Department ofElectrical Engineering and ComputerScience, the School of Engineering, andthe School of Science.

On the RoadIn 2005, Chuck and I started offering ourleadership workshop to professors outsideMIT, and over the years have provided thiseducation – through customized offerings– to Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard,and Purdue, among other places, as well asabroad in India and Singapore. Over 95%of the faculty who have participated in aworkshop have rated it A or A+. When a potential client asks about thebenefits of these workshops, I point tothree specific outcomes: • Saving time. Anticipating and avoid-ing workplace conflicts allows technicalacademic teams (and their leaders) tospend more time on the work that trulymatters to them. • Strengthening teams. Leveraging thediversity in the way people think allows aleader to form more creative and produc-tive teams. • Fostering empathy. By understand-ing how learning curves affect emotions, aleader can better foster and maintainstudent motivation.

Know ThyselfBut probably the main outcome of ourworkshops is that academic leaders learnabout themselves and how to more pro-ductively shape the future by usinghuman-centered leadership skills to lever-age technical work. It’s easy to put theblinders on and simply do things that your

peers will applaud – or complain whenyour work is misunderstood. But byunderstanding your own ways of thinkingand becoming educated in teamwork andleadership, you can lead others towards acompelling vision of a better world. Bylearning how your own leadership styleaffects others, your technical work canhave the widest-possible impact, and youcan guide it in a direction that makes it rel-evant and meaningful to society. Our workshops also provide a “clear-ing” for participants to practice and reflecton the skills of human-centered leadershipin a safe environment. Participants learn asmuch from each other as from Chuck andme. Our workshops involve interactiveactivities, self-assessment instruments, andgroup discussions. As one participant said,“Two days well spent!” (For informationabout a two-day workshop this summer,see: shortprograms.mit.edu/lsf.) There’s a good reason why businessestoday are spending billions of dollars peryear to educate their employees in leader-ship and management training.Universities would run much more effec-tively if we were to follow their lead. Byinvesting just a fraction of what industryspends, we could vastly improve the lead-ership skills of our professors.

Charles E. Leiserson is a Professor ofComputer Science and Engineering in theDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science ([email protected]).


M.I.T. NumbersCampus Research Expenditures FY 2007-2016

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Res

earc

h Ex

pend

iture

s in

Mill

ions

Fiscal Year

MIT Internal

State, Local, and Foreign Governments Foundations and other Nonprofits Industry

All Other Federal

National Science Foundation NASA

National Institutes of Health‡ Department of Energy

Department of Defense

Constant Dollars


18%

Department of Energy

13%

National Institutes of

Health* 23%

NASA 6%

National Science Foundation

13%

All Other Federal

3%

Industry 14%

Foundations and other Nonprofits

5%

State, Local, and Foreign

Governments 3%

MIT Internal 2%


18% Department of

Energy 12%

National Institutes of

Health* 16%

NASA 7%

National Science

Foundation 11%

All Other Federal

2%

Industry 18%

Foundations and other Nonprofits

11%

State, Local, and Foreign

Governments 4%

MIT Internal 1%

2007 2016

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

Note: National Institutes of Health data includes expenditures from other Department of Health and Human Services agencies which account forless than 1% of expenditures per year.

mit faculty newsletter, vol. xxix no. 4, march/april 2017web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/294/fnl294.pdf ·...

Documents