Task Force 2021 and Beyond
Menu↓
  1. Home
  2. Report
  3. Social Equity and Civic Responsibility

Social Equity and Civic Responsibility

Social Equity and Civic Responsibility Refinement and Implementation Committee (RIC) 2

Committee Members

Lily Tsai (Chair), Adam Albright, Yu Jing Chen, Christine Ortiz, Kris Prather, Krishna Rajagopal, Larry Susskind, Emma Teng, Kate Trimble, and Beatriz Cantada (Staff)

Abstract

RIC 2 makes three recommendations in the area of social equity and civic responsibility. First, the committee proposes the creation of an ad hoc committee to stimulate and evaluate curricular and pedagogical experiments aimed at ensuring that all MIT students develop the analytical and moral reasoning skills for assessing the equity implications of individual and collective decisions, for understanding systemic and institutional hierarchies, and for learning how to work with communities and representatives as equal partners in work to promote social equity and civic responsibility. Second, RIC 2 suggests that a fundraising plan be developed to meet the rising student demand for opportunities to learn experientially about social equity and civic responsibility through nonprofit and public sector internships. Finally, the committee proposes the development of a Community and Nonprofit Liaison Program (CLP).

Background

The charge of this committee was to propose options for how MIT can provide our students, faculty, and staff with opportunities for education and research that fulfill the Institute’s ethical obligations to promote social equity and civic responsibility.

A major thrust of the recommendations from Phase I of the Task Force was that these commitments to social equity and civic responsibility should be integrated deeply across MIT, a call that is echoed both in the Institute’s strategic community/diversity budget priorities and in MIT’s Five-Year Strategic Action Plan for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Specifically, our committee considered the following streams emerging from Phase I.

  1. Curricular and pedagogical innovation
  2. Experiential learning and co-curricular efforts
  3. Community and nonprofit liaison program and social impact fund

Findings

Building on the reports from the Education, Student Journey, and Beyond MIT working groups in Phase 1, our committee identified a number of findings that apply broadly across departments and schools.

First, faculty, students, and staff at MIT have long held an ethical commitment to promoting social equity and civic responsibility. Since its founding, members of the MIT community have spearheaded research and education that contribute to ensuring equitable access to quality education, clean water and energy, urban innovation, good governance, and healthier communities.

We note that MIT’s commitment has become more critical for a better world than ever before, as we face a tumultuous period of global polarization, public disenchantment with civic institutions—including universities and the scientific enterprise—as well as fragility in our democratic institutions and values.1

Second, within MIT, our students have become increasingly active in demanding more resources and action for equity and civic responsibility. At the same time, there are indications that MIT’s education provides students with insufficient opportunities to develop the attitudes and analytical tools necessary for assessing and addressing the causes of inequities, either retrospectively or prospectively. This limits their ability to work towards solutions as active citizens and innovative problem-solvers. Survey data indicate that, after four years at MIT, students became substantially less likely to agree that being a leader in their community, participating in community affairs, and working for social or political change are important. We need to rethink MIT education so that we produce active citizens, effective leaders, and innovative problem solvers who work to build a better world in their personal and professional lives after graduation.

Third, MIT’s approach to learning by doing applies here too. There is often no better way to inspire and instruct our students (and faculty) in the implications of their work for social equity and a healthy democracy than to do that work—ethically, respectfully, and equitably—alongside civic and community partners.

Finally, we note that MIT’s community as a whole would benefit from a coordinated range of opportunities for learning the tools to contribute to equity, justice, and our shared civic life.

Students need such opportunities to be integrated into their academic pathways and career ambitions. If we want to ensure that students develop these tools, such opportunities will require more prestige, more visible faculty/departmental buy-in, and stipends that are competitive with industry internships.

Currently, there are numerous but scattered faculty-led initiatives promoting social equity and civic responsibility that generate cutting-edge research as well as experiential learning and professional development opportunities for our students. While the number of interested faculty, staff, and students is high, invitations from nonprofit, public sector, and community partners far outstrip MIT’s current ability to match these requests to those at MIT with the appropriate skills and interests.

Bolstering our ability to respond to these needs from a broad range of communities in ways that do not place us above others as the “experts” will be essential to teaching our students to be engaged scholars and scientists, and to rebuilding public trust and legitimacy in universities and the scientific enterprise. By moving away from a “push” approach whereby research and innovation happen at MIT and then we tell others what the solutions are—to a “pull” approach whereby communities actively recruit us to work with them on the problems that they identify, we can also ensure that the resulting solutions are better designed and have greater impact.

MIT would thus benefit from a coordinated approach to fielding and managing partnership requests from communities, nonprofits, and public sector organizations. There are existing mechanisms in several schools already (S-Lab in Sloan, CoLab in SA+P, MIT GOV/LAB in SHASS), as well as campus-wide offices (like MISTI, PKG, and D-Lab). But we believe that there are major efficiencies to be gained by coordinating functions, building a shared infrastructure, and developing a resourcing strategy (including consideration of underrecovery challenges) so that fewer of these opportunities for meaningful partnership and impact are lost.

As a global leader, MIT has a unique opportunity—and responsibility—to lead in innovation through inclusion and the promotion of equity. To construct imaginative and effective solutions to the world’s most difficult problems, we need to ensure that there are a rich range of voices in the conversation—and to do that, we need to teach our students and enable our faculty to understand when and why voices are missing, and how to engage them. Creating, strengthening, and investing in research and education that fulfills this mission will make the questions that we ask more precise and relevant, and make our answers we help to develop more equitable, creative, and sustainable.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Develop and pilot curricular and pedagogical innovations that support MIT’s strategic priorities for community and equity investments

Specifically, we recommend that the Vice Chancellor and Chair of the Faculty stand up an ad hoc committee with a charge similar to the following:

In order to pilot and develop curricular and pedagogical experiments that could form the basis for proposals to the Faculty for undergraduate education, the committee should:

  • Stimulate and evaluate curricular and pedagogical experiments with the objective of ensuring that all MIT students develop the analytical and moral reasoning skills for assessing the equity implications of individual and collective decisions; understanding the nature, history, and consequences of systemic and institutional hierarchies; and learning how to work with communities and representatives as equal partners in co-constructing all aspects of the work—from problem setting to solution development—to promote social equity and civic responsibility
    1. Work with all five schools and the college to identify and assess existing subjects and pedagogies that contribute to these learning objectives
    2. Solicit and review applications from faculty for competitively awarded Education Sabbaticals to develop innovative discipline-specific curricula and pedagogy that contribute to these learning objectives
    3. Support and assess these pilots over a two-year period
    4. Work with the Committee on the Undergraduate Program and the Committee on Curricula to consider whether or not to recommend a flexible system for ensuring that students take subjects that focus on or include a component that contributes to these learning objectives
    5. Work with the Office of Experiential Learning to diversify and scale the development of 3-unit subjects that serve as “curricular wrappers” around experiential learning opportunities UROPs) that enable students to explore topics related to equity in professional and research contexts
    6. Coordinate with the Institute Community Equity Officer to ensure alignment with MIT’s Five Year Strategic Action Plan for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
  • Meet with the Vice Chancellor and Chair of the Faculty once a semester to report on current status
  • After two years, the committee will deliver a final report to the Vice Chancellor and Chair of the Faculty on the effectiveness of the curricular and pedagogical experiments it has stimulated and on recommendations for moving forward
Recommendation 2. Alleviate the under-supply of experiential equity and civic responsibility internships

MIT student demand for nonprofit and public sector internships outstrips supply by a factor of four. In AY2021, there were four applications for every PKG social impact internship opportunity.

Even as we strain to meet the existing demand, the number of MIT students participating in public interest work remains quite small compared to research and industry internships. In 2019, only 8% of summer experiences for MIT students were at a nonprofit or public sector organization.

The vast majority of MIT students cannot justify or afford to choose a nonprofit or public sector internship over a better-paid industry internship. Lower-income students in particular may be more likely to view nonprofit or public service internships as risky or may simply be unable to afford a public interest internship as many are unpaid or underpaid. Such opportunities for experiential learning in social equity and civic responsibility, however, should not be luxuries that only wealthier students can afford.

We therefore recommend that the Provost and Office of Resource Development work with the Office of Experiential Learning to develop a budget and fundraising plan to meet and keep pace with rising student demand for opportunities to learn experientially about social equity and civic responsibility through nonprofit and public sector internships, whether local, halfway across the country, or halfway around the world.

Recommendation 3. Develop and pilot a Community and Nonprofit Liaison Program (CLP) to complement MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program (ILP)

We recommend that the Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Research leading the Office of Strategic Alliances and Technology Transfer (OSATT) and the Chair of the Faculty stand up a working group with a charge similar to the following:

  • Review existing models at MIT and at peer institutions for fielding and managing requests from communities, nonprofits, and the public sector for partnerships; developing and sustaining longer-term relationships with such partners; matching interested faculty, students, and staff with the appropriate skills and interests; and funding such collaborations in research and experiential education. Potential funding models to consider include the creation of a social impact fund supported by alumni, philanthropic foundations, and other donors; an underrecovery fund designated for such collaborations; and a membership program for the corporate social responsibility officers of our industrial partners.
  • Design, implement, and oversee a three-year pilot Community and Nonprofit Liaison Program to be housed within the Office of Strategic Alliances and Technology Transfer (OSATT)
  • Meet with the Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Research, and Chair of the Faculty once a semester to report on current status
  • Deliver a final report to the Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Research, and Chair of the Faculty on the effectiveness of the pilot Community and Nonprofit Liaison Program and on recommendations for moving forward

We suggest that the membership of this working group consist of faculty, research staff, and senior administrators in programs and labs that already partner with community and nonprofit organizations. Such programs and labs include D-Lab, S-Lab, CoLab, MIT GOV/LAB, MIT Solve, MISTI, and PKG.

Financial Resources

We recommend significant financial support for full implementation of Recommendations 1 and 2. Minor resources are suggested for Recommendation 3.

To support innovation in education about ethics and equity (Recommendation 1), we recommend allocating funds to support 4–6 semesters of Education Sabbaticals, roughly one faculty member from each school and college. These could be awarded by our proposed ad hoc committee through a competitive application process. Such Education Sabbaticals would be used by faculty to assess and build on existing subjects with related curricula and pedagogy, investigate innovative approaches at peer institutions, explore ways of integrating new curricula and pedagogy into department majors and subjects, and collaborate with others in the Institute that already have relevant expertise.

In addition, it could make sense for MIT to fund graduate students in base-budget PhD programs who may be interested in developing and teaching “curricular wrapper” courses. This funding would thus do “double duty” by improving undergraduate education, while at the same time providing professional development and teaching experience for graduate students and contributing to the Institute’s strategic priority of moving towards 12-month support for base-budget programs. We estimate that graduate student instructors would be needed to teach 60 summer sections of 10 undergraduates each, which would entail $120K per year in summer support for graduate students in base-budget programs.

To meet current demonstrated student demand for public interest opportunities (Recommendation 2), we recommend funding to address the current shortfall by AY2024. This would require budgetary support and/or a resource development plan to grow the funding for these opportunities by an additional $1.5M each year for the next 3 years (internships @ $5K each x 300 additional internships annually). In other words, taking this year as baseline, increasing OEL’s budget by $1.5M over baseline for Year 1, $3M over baseline for Year 2, and $4.5M over baseline for Year 3.

Recommendation 3 requires relatively minor financial resources. We suggest 0.25 to 0.75 full-time-equivalent for an OSATT Catalyst, or staff equivalent, who can coordinate OSATT and the working group’s implementation of a pilot of Community and Nonprofit Liaison Program over a three-year period.