Updates

Read about our progress on the petition and our work with the MIT administration (as of July, 29 2020).

Our Petition

On Dec 1, 2015, the Black Student Union (BSU) and Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA) leadership presented a set of recommendations to address racial bias at MIT. The 2015 BSU/BGSA recommendations describe steps that can be taken both on an institutional and departmental level to cultivate a more inclusive environment. On June 2, 2020, The Tech published a student-led evaluation of the progress of the 2015 BSU/BGSA recommendations. This evaluation found that while some of the recommendations have seen partial progress, 5 years later, several of the recommendations remain at 0% completion. The evaluation points to the lack of an institute-wide strategic plan as the primary bottleneck for the completion of these recommendations.

In this season of global unrest in response to the wrongful deaths of Black men, women and non-binary people, we must look critically at the ways that MIT's historical and contemporary policies and structures, or lack thereof, harm Black members of the MIT community through anti-Black racism. The MIT BGSA, BSU, along with student leaders of color across the institute, write this letter calling on MIT leadership to be proactive in making MIT a place where Black people and POC can exist safely and thrive. To achieve this goal, this petition emphasizes the creation of accountability mechanisms and the redistribution of power to Black students. The objectives of this petition are two-fold to:

Objective 1: Establish demands for the development of a 3-year and 10-year strategic plan to address racial bias at MIT by accomplishing the remaining tasks of the 2015 BSU/BGSA recommendations AND new addendums to the recommendations
Objective 2: Make MIT safe for all students by investigating and implementing new models for public safety that reduce the scale of policing and increase safety and well-being

Objective 1:

Establish demands for the development of a 3-year and 10-year strategic plan to address racial bias at MIT by accomplishing the remaining tasks of the 2015 BSU/BGSA recommendations AND new addendums to the recommendations

By September 2020, the Institute Community and Equity Officer, John Dozier, and Associate Provost, Tim Jamison, should establish an institute-wide committee tasked with the design of a 3-year and 10-year strategic plan to fulfill the 2015 BSU/BGSA recommendations and official addendums [1]. This committee must include at least one representative from the BGSA and BSU Executive Boards, or a nominated community member from the organizations. This committee should be approved by the current Academic Council Working Group student members Candace Ross, Kelvin Green II, and Josué J. López. The 3-year plan should focus on completing the 2015 recommendations whereas the 10-year plan should focus on addressing racial bias generally. The strategic plans should explicitly delegate responsibilities to people across the institute.

By the start of Spring Semester 2021, the committee should present and publish final versions of the 3-year and 10-year strategic plans to fulfill the 2015 BSU/BGSA recommendations. The plan should integrate diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) recommendations made by other student groups. The plan should also have a written financial commitment for the 10-years, backed by MIT leadership, and to be approved by BGSA, BSU, and Academic Council Working Group on Community and Inclusion student leaders. This financial commitment should at minimum account for the cost of hiring DEI staff and allotting DEI programming for every department (BGSA recommendation #1).

During the 10-year implementation phase of the plan, the ICEO and the Associate Provost should host meetings during the Fall, IAP, and Spring to present updates to BSU/BGSA representatives. The Academic Council, led by the President, should host a yearly meeting where the school deans, the ICEO, and the Associate Provost present progress. The results of this yearly meeting should be released publicly to the MIT community. In addition, the Academic Council should host a yearly meeting where progress is presented to the MIT Corporation. The BSU/BGSA representatives should be included in both of these meetings. Lastly, the ICEO should make clear whose responsibility it is to ensure completion of the BSU/BGSA recommendations and addendums.

Objective 2:

Make MIT safe for all students by investigating and implementing new models for public safety that reduce the scale of policing and increase safety and well-being

According to the 2019 MIT Annual Security and Fire Safety Report, “[t]he primary mission of the MIT Police is to provide for the safety and security of all members of the MIT community — the students, faculty, staff, and guests of our great Institute.” Unfortunately, members of the Black community at MIT do not feel that MIT Police adequately provides for their safety.

Our fundamental demand is transparency and liability for police activity on campus. The very nature of endowing police with the authority to use violence requires trust and oversight. However, at present, there are few touchpoints between the MITPD and the Black community. In addition, the MITPD website offers little insight into who is serving us or processes for holding police accountable for misconduct. Thus, we demand that by December 2020, The MIT Police department, at the direction of the MIT VP for Finance should 1) create a public reporting mechanism for discriminatory incidents, independent from the MIT Police, that makes data publicly available to all members of the community, whether these incidents originate in Institute policy and affairs or in police practice [2], 2) produce a regularly published log of all police use of force and misconduct, 3) implement a zero-tolerance policy for police who engage in discrimination or other misconduct [3], 4) release information on the MITPD website about the vetting and hiring process for MIT Police officers, and 5) explicitly prohibit the use of non-MIT police within MIT-owned or operated spaces.

While the above actions will help to build trust and accountability, concerns about police aggression, both on and around campus, are widely shared throughout the community. According to an anonymous BGSA-led survey of Black students on campus in the last week [4], members of the community have shared experiences including:

“Department staff told students during orientation to immediately call the police on anyone walking in the building who ‘didn’t look like they were students’”
“As a GRA, I've had to call for medical transports for students and the cops show up (armed) every time and make unfounded accusations and verbally abuse students in the name of ‘collecting facts’”
“MITPD would always establish a secure perimeter around MIT property during Cambridge Carnival, which made me feel like I couldn't be Carribean and affiliated with the Institute at the same time.”
“My friend knocked on his neighbor's door in a graduate dorm. She called the police on him. The police refused to believe he was a student and made him exit the building and questioned him.”

Research studies performed at other schools confirm this trend. We must protect our community against racial profiling and police brutality which has occurred at neighboring institutions in recent years.

These incidents should prompt MIT to seriously engage with the dialogue championed by community-organizers and experts around the world to defund and abolish the police system (see MPD150, The End of Policing, and this extensive list of resources). These resources situate the lived experiences of MIT students into the historical context of how police departments were originally designed for oppression. Thus, we urge the institution to respond to the calls for the defunding or abolition of the police by conducting a robust research investigation into the implications of abolitionist reforms of MITPD and alternatives to policing on our campus. This research should be conducted by independent consultants that specialize in advancing social justice solutions and racial equity (e.g. example firm 1, example firm 2), include abolition experts, and include quantitative and qualitative data about student experiences and feelings in regards to policing. The consulting firm used must be approved by the committee formed in Objective 1. This investigation must consider the following:

Disarmament: A model in which police are typically unarmed is the norm in the U.K. and many other countries, and is growing in popularity for campus police departments in the United States. Such a model can still include adequate arms training and qualification, but must be built on requiring MIT Police officers to first establish situational awareness, identify legitimate threats if and when they arise, and safely manage an armed response only when it is necessary. The research should consider establishing a transparent plan for armed vs unarmed responses. For example, certain responses (such as calls for medical transports or calls regarding stolen property) absolutely do not require an armed response and in fact, an armed response can increase fear and hostility in otherwise manageable situations. The investigation should consider a model of policing in which people with different competencies are the first responders for certain situations that typically utilize police. We can consider retaining just a fraction of armed police for patrols at certain hours or locations. Moving towards this model would stand to improve community relations with the MITPD, allowing a more even power dynamic between the community and the police as public servants, and would create a pathway for tense situations or false racially-targeted allegations to be defused without a weapon.
Defunding and Reallocating Funds: The investigation should make the current budget for MITPD and contracted security personnel fully transparent and examine how these funds (such as the funds made available through disarmament or reducing the police force) could be reallocated to other measures that increase physical safety and emotional well-being at MIT or educational purposes aligned with the institute’s missions. For example, the investigation should consider how reallocating funds to groups such as MIT Mental Health and Counseling or the Division of Student Life could increase the impact of their services. In addition, DEI initiatives are known to contribute to positive well-being and mental health. The investigation should consider reallocating funds to DEI initiatives, such as the creation of culturally-focused spaces/housing which is embraced by many institutions (e.g. Stanford) and already has precedent at MIT, anti-racist scholarship, and the programming and policy changes proposed in the BSU/BGSA 2015 recommendations and DEI recommendations from other organizations.

The investigation should be fully transparent and the results should be publicly released by December 2020. The institution must commit to enact the recommendations made by the independent consulting firm on the issues of disarmament and reallocation of funds.

Now more than ever, we urge the institute’s leaders to listen to Black voices. If these objectives are adopted, it will demonstrate that MIT takes the concerns of Black community members seriously, respects our needs, and values our input in making MIT a safer and more inclusive environment.

Signed,
The MIT Black Graduate Student Association Executive Board
The MIT Black Student Union Executive Board

Footnotes

[1] Addendums to the recommendations may be necessary to reflect issues not currently represented in the 2015 set of recommendations. These addendums may address topics such as virtual mental health, faculty diversification, investment in anti-racist scholarship, and recognition of staff that serve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts as “essential” to the university functions. Official addendums should be considered as equally significant as the 2015 recommendations in the creation of a 10-year strategic plan.

[2] The necessity of this particular point is illustrated by the fact that two of MIT’s Black student organizations, Chocolate City and the Black Women’s Alliance, are frequently required to contract MIT Police and use metal detectors at events, while other student groups face no such requirement. There is, at present, no mechanism for reporting such an incident or triggering a review of the policy and practice that enforces them.

[3] Blog: “What is Police Misconduct”

[4] Stories from Community Members