Update on the Events of November 9
On the evening of Thursday, November 9, President Sally Kornbluth wrote to the MIT community to explain a very complex and difficult set of campus events and their consequences.
To make sure we all have the same facts now, and to answer some common questions, we’ve prepared this update, in the form of an FAQ.
- What is MIT doing to enhance campus safety and security and address disruptions?
- Were Jewish students ever prevented from going to class?
- What are MIT’s plans to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia?
- What led up to Thursday morning’s protest and counter-protest?
- What happened on Thursday morning in Lobby 7?
- Why did the paper notice telling protestors and counter-protestors not look more official? Why did you choose this way to communicate?
- What did you mean when you wrote “subject to suspension” in this paper notice?
- What are the immediate consequences?
- What is an “interim disciplinary action”?
- Why are students who refused to leave the lobby being disciplined?
- Why aren’t students who refused to leave Lobby 7 facing harsher punishment?
- By imposing discipline on students for behavior during a protest, isn’t MIT chilling free expression?
- What is MIT doing to enhance campus safety and security and address disruptions?
As we’ve communicated previously, MIT has enhanced campus security measures and patrols and is in constant communication with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, to protect our community and keep our campus safe.
We encourage anyone who feels their physical safety is threatened to contact MIT Police at (617) 253-1212 or dial 100 from any MIT phone. And we encourage anyone who has experienced or witnessed harassment or discrimination to report it to Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response (IDHR) at https://idhr.mit.edu.
We are developing guidelines for addressing classroom disruptions that we’ll share with department heads shortly.
- Were Jewish students ever prevented from going to class?
We are aware that at moments during last Thursday's protest, some students were impeding access to the Infinite Corridor. Further, due to the loud protesting taking place, it is no surprise that some students felt afraid of passing through Lobby 7.
We are not aware of any ongoing issues facing our students in moving around our campus generally. However, we are aware that some of our Jewish students are fearful.
Accordingly, we have expanded police patrols and taken other steps to ensure our community remains safe. We will continue to work hard to restore for all members of our community a sense of safety and freedom that is essential to allowing all of us to thrive in our work and studies.
- What are MIT’s plans to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia?
Working with faculty leaders, Chancellor Melissa Nobles will lead a new Institute-wide council called “Standing Together Against Hate,” charged with developing and overseeing efforts to combat hate at MIT. Elements of this effort will be broad, ranging from local group discussions with trained interlocutors, to speaker series, to curated reading lists, to programming in the student residences, and more.
Although antisemitism will be the initial focus, the charge will be broader, and will include efforts to address prejudice and hate against Arabs and Muslims, as well. We cannot let these issues fester on our campus.
- What led up to Thursday morning’s protest and counter-protest?
Early last week, a student group that had conducted recent demonstrations on campus advertised plans to hold a 12-hour “blockade” in Lobby 7, calling for participants to sign up for shifts aimed at “blocking the mouth of the infinite [corridor].”
In response, on Wednesday, Vice Chancellor and Dean for Student Life Suzy Nelson wrote to all students regarding our policies to make sure demonstrations remain safe, and to ask students not to disrupt living, working and learning spaces. She also wrote directly to the protest organizers to remind them of the Institute’s guidelines for free expression at Institute events, including protests and demonstrations and asked them to meet immediately. The students declined. Dean Nelson asked them to reconsider, noting that violating Institute policy would risk discipline, and again they declined.
The protest came close on the heels of other disruptive actions initiated by some students, including unauthorized entry into offices, chanting at staff using a bullhorn, calling for disruptive walkouts in the middle of classes, and holding events in unauthorized campus locations without engaging with Institute officials.
- What happened on Thursday morning in Lobby 7?
Around 8:00 Thursday morning, a group of student protestors gathered in Lobby 7 despite not having permission to demonstrate in the space; about two hours later, they were met by counter-protestors, who also did not have permission to demonstrate in that space. Interactions between the two sides became loud and disruptive. Protestors angrily confronted one another in close proximity and some had to be separated by MIT police. Throughout, the MIT police and members of our staff did an outstanding job of deescalating the situation, offering support to move the demonstrations to other locations. The protestors declined.
Around midday, Provost Barnhart, Chancellor Nobles and President Kornbluth were all present at the event and witnessed the rising intensity of the crowd. Feeling that the situation was on the brink of physical altercations, we concluded it was urgent to clear the lobby.
Because the chanting and shouting in the lobby were overwhelming, we decided that the most reliable way to communicate with the scores of students present was in writing. So we asked Student Life staff who had been present all morning and are well known to students to distribute copies of a letter from the provost, the chancellor and the president, informing all students present that they must leave by a set time or be subject to disciplinary consequences. In addition, Chancellor Nobles used a microphone to ask the students to disperse, but protestors with bullhorns shouted her down.
The counter-protestors left. So did some of the protestors. However, a number of protestors remained and continued to occupy the lobby, notwithstanding the warning that doing so could result in disciplinary action.
- Why did the paper notice telling protestors and counter-protestors not look more official? Why did you choose this way to communicate?
It did not look more official because we produced it in extraordinary haste; we felt its official nature would be clear as the president, provost and chancellor were all visibly present, and the notice was distributed by Student Life staff. We chose to present the notice in writing because we could see no better way to communicate with the scores of students in the very noisy lobby. Student Life staff were present throughout this time and were available to answer questions about the letter. Rather than physical force to clear the area, we chose writing as our best path.
- What did you mean when you wrote “subject to suspension” in this paper notice?
We’ve heard a range of questions about the phrase “subject to suspension,” which we used in the written notice to students. We wanted the students present to understand that suspension was the maximum sanction they might face.
However, in the few tense minutes in which we drafted the notice, we did not elaborate on what we meant by “subject to suspension” or otherwise on the specific disciplinary consequences for protestors who remained in Lobby 7. We understand the language caused confusion and concern, and we regret that. To clarify, we talked to the student organizers throughout the afternoon and evening and answered their questions about what was meant.
- What are the immediate consequences?
As we described last week, students who remained after the deadline have been restricted from participating in non-academic campus activities while the Committee on Discipline (COD), a standing committee of the faculty, begins the formal disciplinary process.
Because student discipline is determined by the faculty, all reports have been referred to the COD for review and resolution, and they are following up. Complaints that community members have lodged against individual students, on both sides of the conflict, are also being referred to the COD.
- What is an “interim disciplinary action”?
Interim administrative action is a standard Institute response for rapidly managing student groups whose behavior is out of bounds, pending formal review by the COD. The administration has taken such actions in the past in a range of matters, and used interim actions effectively to enforce crucial public health rules during the pandemic. Interim actions are defined to fit the circumstances and are usually more limited than formal sanctions imposed by the COD. It is important to note that these actions are intended to respond to concerns of the safety of the community and do not prejudice the ultimate decision by the COD. The actions we took on Thursday were in direct response to the decision of the protestors neither to disperse nor to move to an approved demonstration location that would prevent disruption of campus operations.
In this unusual period, MIT is taking special steps, consistent with Institute policy and in line with past practice, to manage a sharp increase in reported violations of policy and to supplement resources to be able to address concerns in a reasonable timeframe. We are ensuring that we move through a high volume of complaints expeditiously but with the same care and attention that we always devote to this work.
- Why are students who refused to leave the lobby being disciplined?
The student organizers were informed repeatedly before and during the protest in Lobby 7 that their actions violated safety and operations-related MIT policies. They were also warned of potential discipline following prior disruptive activities. The COD will review and ultimately determine sanctions for any violations.
For the campus community to be safe for everyone, we need to enforce the rules – especially in the face of deliberate decisions to break them.
- Why aren’t students who refused to leave Lobby 7 facing harsher punishment?
Although students must face consequences for their repeated violations of Institute policy, MIT is an educational institution, and we want the punishment to be proportional to the behavior that was out of bounds. Interim measures are intended to ensure safety. Ultimately, the COD will review the cases and determine whether Institute policies have been violated and, if so, set appropriate discipline.
- By imposing discipline on students for behavior during a protest, isn’t MIT chilling free expression?
As specified in the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom, “the time, place, and manner of protected expression, including organized protests, may be restrained so as not to disrupt the essential activities of the Institute.” MIT guidelines include locations that allow for protests and demonstrations to go forward without disrupting operations.