Subject: Response to Democratize MIT
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:25:09 -0400
From: L. Rafael Reif
To: Rodrigo Ochigame [Names of other student organizers redacted for privacy]

Dear students,

When we met earlier this month, you presented me with a letter demanding that MIT establish a democratically elected body with binding power to make final decisions about all matters related to Institute fundraising. I agreed to consider your demand and respond.

I want to start by restating what I said at the end of our meeting: I find many of your arguments logical and your suggestions well-intentioned. While I disagree with the Democratize MIT proposal, I understand its motivation. I agree that the circumstances around MIT’s interactions with Jeffrey Epstein are troubling. You and others have suggested they reflect a disconnect between the Institute’s values and its fundraising activities. I understand that, although I see it differently. Declining federal investment in academic research institutions like MIT has forced us to seek support from other sources. While this is the reality, we must respond thoughtfully, carefully and responsibly. The ad hoc committees the Provost and Chair of the Faculty recently announced are an important step in that direction and will provide guidance for the future.

At the heart of your demand is a desire for transparency and participation. You write, “Anyone should have access to information about all donors, funding sources, gifts, and research contracts at MIT,” and suggest that an elected body hold open meetings where anyone can observe and debate the merits of a gift or donor. While I appreciate the desire for increased transparency and participation, we also must think of what is practical and necessary to sustain our community.

At this month’s faculty meeting, a senior member of the faculty spoke about a historic, anonymous gift “Mr. Smith” made to fund the construction of MIT’s Cambridge campus more than 100 years ago. Mr. Smith, later revealed to be George Eastman, sought neither attention nor credit, wanting only to do something meaningful to help our young institution grow. This faculty member also spoke about support for scholarships. While some scholarships bear donors’ names, many do not. Donors often wish to enable student learning without the suggestion of an implied debt. Just like George Eastman, donors fund scholarships to promote growth – supporting a young person’s education with a gift free of strings or expectations.

I am sure we will find ways to strengthen our gift acceptance policies, but if MIT required open debate about a donor’s worthiness or the merits of every gift, even our alumni and friends would go elsewhere, simply out of concern for their own privacy. We would lose our ability to generate support for things like scholarships, fellowships, housing, research facilities, equipment and staff with such a policy. If this had been MIT’s practice at the time of the Eastman gift, MIT might still be a small technical school in an old building in Boston’s Back Bay, or it might not exist at all.

Separately, your demand for a democratically elected body implies that you feel the administration appoints committee members as a way to exclude voices. In reality, the opposite is true. In considering appointees, we endeavor to ensure broad representation – in viewpoint, discipline, gender, race, ethnicity and much more. We also seek colleagues and students with relevant expertise, experience or interests. There is simply no guarantee that a democratically elected committee would balance these important factors.

Ultimately, it comes down to trust. In your written demands, as well as in our meeting and in your protest, you have made clear that you have lost trust in me and my administration. That pains me deeply. The outcomes of the ad hoc committees will undoubtedly help align our fundraising activities with our values. And I am committed to addressing the serious cultural issues that have surfaced.

This is a difficult time for MIT, but I see it as one filled with opportunity. Despite our differences, I hope we can come together to find solutions to the hard problems in front of us. Nothing is more important to me than getting this right.

Respectfully,

Rafael Reif