FAQ: Campus Events in Challenging Times

At President Kornbluth’s direction, early on May 10, the encampment on Kresge lawn was cleared. The individuals present in the encampment at the time were given four separate warnings, in person, that they should depart or face arrest. The 10 who remained did not resist arrest. They were peacefully escorted from the encampment by MIT police officers and taken to Cambridge police headquarters for booking. All were released later that morning.

The encampment had become increasingly unsustainable with each passing day.

First, it has required hundreds of hours of cumulative staff, faculty, and MIT Police effort to ensure the encampment remained secure around the clock. This level of support was simply not sustainable.

In addition, the encampment had become a flashpoint for members of our community and members of the public at large, as well as a magnet for people outside our community.

Over the days leading up to May 10, we saw a series of incidents involving outside groups and provocations by individuals and groups both for and against the encampment. This situation was clearly not stable, and we had reason to fear escalation. We did not believe we could responsibly allow the encampment to persist under these circumstances.

You can read more about MIT’s reasoning in letters to the community on April 27, May 6, and May 10.

Because the issues at the heart of the encampment involve at least two strongly held and opposing points of view about the conflict in the Middle East, the encampment became an increasingly contested symbolic space.

Here’s a summary of key events.

• The encampment began on Sunday, April 21, in violation of clear Institute guidelines well known to the student organizers. It slowly grew. Though it was mostly peaceful, its presence generated distress and gradually increasing tension in our community. 
• On Wednesday, May 1, a rally organized by an outside organization in support of the encampment took place at 77 Mass Ave, blocking that road for a period of time. Students at the encampment moved tents to the grass adjacent to Mass Ave and remained there for several hours into the evening. Those tents were removed by MIT grounds crews the following morning.
• On Friday, May 3, an extensive coordinated effort with the City of Cambridge was required to manage a significant rally and counter demonstration involving hundreds of people from outside our community. Among other measures, we set up high temporary fencing around the encampment to help maintain separation between the groups.
• On Monday, May 6, judging that we could not sustain the extraordinary level of effort required to keep the encampment and the campus community safe, we directed the students in the encampment to leave the site voluntarily or face clear disciplinary consequences. Some left as instructed. Some remained within the encampment. Others chose to leave but stood only steps from the exit and protested. Some chose to invite to the encampment area large numbers of individuals from outside MIT, including dozens of high school students, who arrived in response to social media posts. Protesters also briefly blocked the entrance to the Infinite Corridor, while others blocked Massachusetts Avenue for several hours between Vassar Street and Memorial Drive.
  
  Late that afternoon, aided by people from outside MIT, some of the encampment students forcibly knocked down the safety fencing surrounding the encampment area and demolished most of it, on their way to reestablishing the camp. This was a tipping point. The warning of disciplinary measures was clearly not sufficient to end the encampment nor to deter students from engaging in risky conduct on their way to reestablishing it.
   
• Wednesday, May 8, was marked by a series of escalating provocations by students. In the morning, pro-Palestinian supporters physically blocked the entrance and exit to the Stata Center garage. Later, and separately, pro-Israel students re-hung Israeli flags on the fence of the encampment that had previously been removed by encampment students. Following that, students in the encampment defaced several Israeli flags with red painted handprints, in the presence of Israeli students and faculty. Several pro-Israel supporters then entered the camp to confront and shout at the protestors. Throughout, the opposing groups grew in numbers. With so many opposing individuals in close quarters, tensions ran very high.
  
  That afternoon MIT issued notices of interim suspensions to a number of students who refused to leave the encampment or re-established it, or who had engaged in other escalating activities. This led to another evening rally by those supporting the encampment.
   
• On Thursday, May 9, pro-Palestinian students again blocked the entrance of the Stata garage, preventing community members from entering and exiting. Vassar Street was blocked entirely for an extended period, preventing access for parents trying to reach the childcare center located in the Stata Center and disrupting operations for the MIT EMS ambulance, which is stationed in the Stata garage.
  
  The students refused orders from the police to leave, or even step aside to allow cars to pass. In order to allow vehicles exiting the garage to pass and protesters to remain safe, MIT Police had to physically lift protestors out of the way. A number of blockading protestors physically resisted being moved or ran back into the driveway once initially moved. This conduct, which blocked Vassar Street, prevented people from leaving the garage, and created a safety hazard, resulted in nine arrests.
  
  Police remained for an extended period to keep a small corridor into and out of the garage clear. Protesting continued, with occasional attempts by individual protestors to re-establish a blockade. Many of the remaining protestors went back to the encampment at approximately 4:30 p.m.
   
• Regarding the involvement of Cambridge and State Police on streets around campus: Cambridge Police have jurisdiction over city streets, including Vassar Street. When a city street is blocked or otherwise made unsafe for passage, Cambridge police are automatically involved. Similarly, Memorial Drive is a state-owned thoroughfare and is patrolled and kept safe by State Police.
   

We tried many paths to find a way forward through dialogue with the students and the faculty members counseling them. In various combinations, senior administrative leaders and faculty officers met with the protesters many times over almost two weeks, totaling more than 25 hours of discussion and caucuses. This sustained team effort also involved at least a dozen faculty members and alumni who collectively devoted hours to working with the students, and, in the final stages, an experienced mediator who met with the students and spoke with the administration.

Reaching a solution hinged on meeting the students’ core demand that MIT immediately cut funding ties with the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMoD). Specifically at issue are two open grants to individual MIT researchers; the grants were made by the IMoD, but the funding actually originated with the U.S. Department of Defense, through a U.S. cooperative program with IMoD. Both research projects involve research with collaborators at universities in Israel. Both projects were originated by MIT researchers who sought funding and entered into agreements in accordance with U.S. law and MIT policy.

The negotiators representing students in the encampment objected fundamentally to the participation of IMoD and demanded that MIT end the sponsoring relationship. There are a number of compelling reasons not to unilaterally terminate active research agreements made by individual PIs in compliance with law and policy. (See more below.)

It should be noted that the administration was clear that students and postdocs who were not comfortable working on the funded projects could receive alternative funding from the Institute.

The fundamental difference between the two is that Skoltech was an Institute-level programmatic commitment, which the administration established and could choose to end, while the current situation involves projects that individual faculty members chose to engage in.

Mandating the termination of an individual faculty project in mid-stream as a result of pressure from students or others who object to the nature of the work or of a funding partner would be an encroachment on the academic freedom of the PI, assuming the PI wanted to continue the work. Such an action would also have an adverse impact on a project’s collaborators and could result in reluctance of PIs to proceed with other research agreements.

MIT’s offer that students meet with the senior officers, faculty, and committee that develop international engagement policies was rejected unless MIT guaranteed an outcome that ended all current and future funding ties to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. This insistence on a prescribed outcome eventually led to an impasse.

The correct figure for funding received between FY2015 and FY2023 for individual research projects through the Israeli Ministry of Defense is just under $4 million. (Note: The funds come from the U.S. Deptartment of Defense and were subject to U.S. contracting rules). The $11.8 million figure being circulated is not correct. This incorrect figure reflects an error in accounting for multi-year projects: It mistakenly multiplies the total authorized award amount for the entire contract by the number of years in the contract.

Only two of the awards are active. The remaining funding for these two awards is approximately $265,000, and only one will be active in early 2025.

As with all MIT research, both projects involve work that is open and publishable, and freely available to investigators everywhere and not only in a particular country or countries.

These have been extraordinary circumstances, building up over many days. The encampment had come to infringe on the rights and privileges of others on campus and had effectively commandeered a key communal space.

In addition, administration had ample reason to believe – based on experiences on other campuses, and on the increasingly unstable interactions of groups within and outside MIT around the encampment – that steps were needed to end this situation or risk an altercation that could lead to injury. 

The actions taken were gradually stepped up over time, in response to growing risk that could not be adequately mitigated by the administration or even by the students themselves, short of ending the encampment. We did not take this step suddenly. We offered warnings. We communicated clearly what was coming. When we issued written warnings, we had staff on site who responded to student questions about the implications.

In each case, students had a clear choice to pivot to other forms of expression and protest, or to continue on a path that would lead to disciplinary consequences. 
 

Our actions were not based on viewpoints of the students involved with the encampment. We acted in response to their conduct, their clear violation of MIT policies and our overriding concern for safety. There are countless highly effective ways for any of us to express ourselves that neither disrupt the functioning of the Institute nor create a magnet for external protestors. As the ad hoc Committee on Academic Freedom and Campus Expression recently observed, “[W]hile freedom of expression protects the ability of community members to express their views about the current situation in the Middle East, it does not protect the continued use of a shared Institute resource in violation of long-established rules.”

Yes. Ten students were arrested on Friday, May 10, when despite many warnings by DSL staff and the police that morning, they chose not to leave the encampment voluntarily. Indeed, students were seen leaving the Student Center and returning to the camp, despite warnings of arrest. Those who chose to remain did not resist arrest and were peacefully escorted out by MIT Police officers and taken off campus for booking. Additionally, nine students (eight from MIT, one from another university) were arrested during the May 9 protest outside the Stata Center on Vassar Street.

In addition, five MIT students joined protestors at Emerson College on April 25 and were arrested there.

Per the rules of the Committee on Discipline (COD), “At times, it is necessary for the Institute to take immediate action in order to protect the health, safety, wellbeing, or educational or working experience of students, employees, or the broader MIT community; to maintain academic integrity; to uphold Institute values; to end ongoing or prevent further misconduct.”

The rules further state: “To that end, the Institute reserves the right to take any interim or permanent administrative action that it deems necessary and appropriate under the particular circumstances. Possible measures include, without limitation, interim suspension of a student from the Institute, interim suspension of a student organization, temporary or permanent removal of a student from MIT housing or relocation to another room or residence hall, restrictions on student organization or residence hall activities, no-contact orders, restricting a student's access to certain campus locations, or changes to academic or work schedules.”

These rules allow the administration to take “interim” disciplinary actions, including interim suspensions, which are in force until the COD conducts a full review. Interim suspensions are not separate from the faculty-led COD process; they are part of it. Although the community may not be aware of it, “interim” measures are a standard, longstanding tool available for the administration to use in situations where student conduct requires immediate action.  

In the current situation, students have been issued such interim suspensions, pending review and final decision by the COD. 

Depending on the individual case, some of these are interim academic suspensions – meaning students may not attend class, take final exams, conduct research or be awarded a grade or credit, pending final COD adjudication. They may stay in their residence and use the dining halls. Others are full interim suspensions, meaning that in addition to loss of academic privileges, students cannot remain in MIT housing. In both cases, students will continue to have access to MIT Health.

MIT is permitting students to remain in housing and access campus dining for seven days from the date of their interim suspension. Further, each student has been assigned an S3 or OGE dean, who reached out to students soon after the interim suspension notices were sent, letting them know that support and assistance was available, including housing assistance.
 

Every student who is subject to interim suspension will receive a letter to meet with a member of the Office of Student Support and Community Standards. Working with the COD chair, the cases will then be reviewed.

In keeping with MIT’s well-established commitment to a fair process, each case will be reviewed under the standard COD rules. This means each of these students will have the opportunity to be supported by an advisor; to understand and respond to the specific complaint against them; and, once the COD renders a decision, to file an appeal if a sanction is imposed and is one that can be appealed under the COD rules.

The students are suspended from MIT on an interim basis, at least through the periods stated in their suspension letters. During an interim academic suspension, a student will receive an “O” for this semester’s courses, but if the suspension is lifted, faculty will be able to work with the student to resolve their grades. Their cases will be reviewed by the COD, which will use its standard rules for all student discipline cases. It can resolve less serious cases through administrative action or bring cases to a full hearing before a panel of faculty, students, and staff. The COD process determines both whether a student violated MIT policy and, if so, the appropriate sanction. The COD has the power to impose sanctions ranging from written warnings and probation to suspension or expulsion.

In each case, suspended students will receive a letter from the COD explaining its final decision. And, in certain cases, students will have a right to an appeal to the Chancellor.

Students with full interim suspensions can access housing and campus dining for seven days after receiving their suspension notice. They may use MIT Health’s services throughout their suspension period. Suspended students who need assistance with housing should work with the GradSupport or S3 dean assigned to support them and who will ensure they have a place to stay. These offices are working closely with each student and, in hardship cases, are providing appropriate support.

MIT has this authority under its written agreements with students: Students sign a housing license in which they agree that MIT may remove them from housing in connection with, among other things, the review or investigation of a policy violation or to ensure the safety and well-being of the MIT community. The COD rules specifically provide that MIT can take this action, and it has been taken in the past.

Potential loss of housing under an interim suspension was specifically spelled out in the letter students received on Monday, May 6, directing them to leave the encampment or face disciplinary consequences.

The interim suspensions will have no immediate impact on international students’ ability to maintain their status through the Spring 2024 term. International students who have received interim suspension letters have been directed to the International Students Office for assistance with their individual situations. The ISO is also reaching directly to international students to offer assistance.

No. The CBA does not apply to student discipline that is issued for violations of student conduct policies. As the CBA states, “The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding academic performance, academic discipline, or student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment.”