Climate Change Conversation

Skoltech
SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT
Ten years ago
Susan Hockfield
announced
“Mission
Accomplished!” as
she was getting
out of Dodge.
What happened?
Ten years ago Susan Hockfield
announced “Mission
Accomplished!” as she was getting
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
Rafael Reif
Former president
Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon
research center funded by Russian oil
oligarchs to solve technical challenges
associated with shale and
Arctic oil exploration and production,
and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly
and shut out any possibility of
renewable energy.*
Subjects
Basic background information
Maria Zuber
Former president
renewable energy.*
Israel Ruiz
Former president
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Executive Director, MIT News
Office
renewable energy.*

The Engine
The Engine is a
greenwashing
machine… and
a perfect
opportunity to
understand MIT
greenwashing
playbook.
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?

Israel Ruiz
Israel Ruiz was
one of the mist
powerful men in
MIT history. And
virtually no one
at MIT knew
who he was.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?

Schlumberger, MIT, and Russia
Israel Ruiz was
one of the mist
powerful men in
MIT history. And
virtually no one
at MIT knew
who he was.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?

Power at MIT
Israel Ruiz was
one of the mist
powerful men in
MIT history. And
virtually no one
at MIT knew
who he was.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?

MIT Greenwashing
Israel Ruiz was
one of the mist
powerful men in
MIT history. And
virtually no one
at MIT knew
who he was.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?

Susan Hockfield’s Resignation
Israel Ruiz was
one of the mist
powerful men in
MIT history. And
virtually no one
at MIT knew
who he was.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?
out of Dodge.
What happened?

Climate Change Conversation
Announcement
Breakdown
MIT and the Climate Challenge: The Need for More Than
Technical Solutions
In September 2014, MIT established the Committee on the
MIT Climate Change Conversation, with the mandate to “seek
broad input from the Institute community on how the U.S. and
the world can most effectively address global climate change.”
During the ensuing academic year, the committee sponsored a
number of educational events and a campus-wide debate on
fossil fuel divestment, and surveyed the MIT community on a
broad range of climate issues. In June 2015, it submitted an
extensive report containing recommendations based on input
from the MIT community. In October 2015, the Institute
responded to that report by issuing “A Plan for Action on
Climate Change” that outlines a number of concrete steps to
address climate change.
We praise the Institute’s explicit and forceful assertion in that
document of the seriousness of the risks and challenges of
climate change. MIT’s acknowledgement was followed two
months later by the explicit recognition of the urgency of
climate change issued unanimously by world leaders at the
United Nations climate change negotiations (UNFCCC COP21
meeting) in Paris in December 2015. As with the Paris
agreement, it is imperative that plans be followed by action.
Thus we advocate that MIT’s plan for action be rapidly followed
by an aggressive implementation plan that establishes clear
management responsibilities and organizational frameworks,
so that the steps identified in “A Plan for Action on Climate
Change” can be realized, and that goals be made continuously
more ambitious to align with the seriousness of the problem.
As with the Paris accord, it is paramount that our money and
energy be put where our mouth is. In this respect, we found
the Institute’s funding commitment of $5 million for the
Environmental Solutions Initiative (ESI) to be grossly
inadequate for the scale and multidisciplinary scope of the
climate challenge. While the Institute’s plan addresses the
technical dimension – in the form of eight new low-carbon
energy centers that will reaffirm MIT’s leadership in developing
technologies to advance carbon-free energy – the economic,
policy, and societal dimensions are largely unaddressed.
Focusing on engineering a solution belies an integral
component: without societal recognition of the risks and
challenges of climate change, many low-carbon technologies
may never be implemented – they will stand little chance as
long as fossil fuels remain the cheapest option and without
government-mandated incentives to change.
If the Institute were to allocate significant resources toward
bolstering such a multi-faceted approach, it could exercise
intellectual leadership toward engendering strong societal
support for a transition to new sources of energy. In tandem
with a focus on technology, advancing the policy steps, the
societal dimension, and the understanding of the science of
those problems at the same time, MIT can build on existing
entities such as the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of
Global Change. “Manus” alone cannot succeed without
“mens.” In this regard, endeavoring to administer an internal
carbon tax could harness the broad potential for education
and participation as the Institute tackles the changes necessary
to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Universities are at their best when they undertake unfettered
search for truth. Such a pursuit is weakened and tarnished
when it is associated with organizations and individuals that
support campaigns of deception for financial gain; these are
clearly distinguished from mere differences of opinion, which
are an essential element in the quest for knowledge. In
recommending the establishment of an Ethics Advisory
Council, we sought to emphasize that investment ethics –
particularly on assets that can negatively impact climate
change – should derive from an open process that
incorporates the sentiments and values of the larger MIT
community. Many of our peers, includingHarvard, Princeton,
Yale, Columbia, and Stanford, already have such entities to
ensure that critical decisions involving institutional investments
are made in ways that respect the university’s greater
commitment to scientific truth.We are not suggesting that
MIT’s current system ignores the ethics of investing, but rather
that decisions around some issues – climate change among
them – are too big and too important to leave to a select few to
make.We advocate for a reconsideration of the decision not to
establish an Ethics Advisory Council. We agree wholeheartedly
on the importance of constructively working with industry on
solutions to climate change, but also emphasize that there are
higher standards to which MIT must be held, particularly in the
face of such large-scale societal challenges as climate change.
With its “Plan for Action on Climate Change,” MIT recognized
the gravity of the challenge ahead. As the Paris accord is for
the world, a plan for action is for MIT an essential, early step.
Following up now with concrete action, and ramping up
commitments as opposed to letting them dwindle, will be a
momentous task, and one that we urge the Institute to
accomplish.
Signed,
Kerry Emanuel, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric
Science, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary
Sciences;
Bernadette Johnson, Chief Technology Officer, Lincoln
Laboratory;
Jacqueline Kuo, Undergraduate Student, Department of
Mechanical Engineering;
Christoph Reinhart, Associate Professor in Building
Technology, Department of Architecture;
Anne Slinn, Executive Director, Center for Global Change
Science;
Roman Stocker, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering;
Climate Change Conversation
By L. Rafael Reif. | October 21, 2015
Page 5
MZ
Rafael Reif
Former president
renewable energy.*
Subjects
Maria Zuber
Former president
renewable energy.*
Israel Ruiz
Former president
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Office
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Office
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Executive Director, MIT News Office
Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and
Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.*
Rafael Reif
Former president
renewable energy.*
Subjects
Maria Zuber
Former president
renewable energy.*
Israel Ruiz
Former president
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Office
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Office
renewable energy.*

In May 2012 the MIT Corporation elected
Schlumberger director Leo Rafael Reif as
the 17th president of MIT. And in
December 2012 the MIT Corporation
rewrote its bylaws.
In the Jan/Feb 2020 MIT Faculty Newsletter, MIT
professors Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams
describe these changes to the bylaws.
At the December 2012 quarterly meeting of the
Corporation, a quiet revolution in MIT governance
took place. Unnoticed by nearly all faculty, this
changed the dynamic balance that had previously
existed between the Executive Committee and MIT’s
senior leadership. In a series of votes by the
Corporation, what had formerly been “Bylaws of The
Corporation” were renamed “Bylaws of MIT.”
Hundreds of changes were made to the Bylaws, with
the new Bylaws stating that “The members of the
Corporation constitute the government of MIT.” These
changes confirmed and extended the purview of the
Executive Committee: “The Executive Committee shall
have responsibility for overseeing the general
administration and superintendence of all matters
relating to the Institute.”
Royden and Williams FNL article, “MIT: Where Now?”
Is based on interviews conducted over a six-week
period with 11 senior MIT faculty offers an important
insight into how MIT’s most senior and informed
faculty understand the changes of the decade.
We carried out these interviews over a six-week
period beginning in early October. At the outset of
each conversation, we told our colleagues that we
wanted to discuss current events at MIT. We were
purposely vague. We were most interested in learning
what was on their minds, not in imposing what was on
ours. We heard a near-consensus that MIT has “lost its
way”; that the faculty have had little voice in setting
institutional priorities and direction; and that pursuit
of “the almighty dollar” has warped MIT’s values and
threatens to jeopardize its fundamental mission…
As the interviews progressed, it became clear to us
that the problems at MIT are much bigger than the
Epstein situation. We felt that we better understood
some of the deep concerns and discontent among
faculty. After some analysis, we have come to the
conclusion that many of the issues described above
have developed through recent change in the balance
of power among faculty, senior administration, and
the MIT Corporation – primarily the Corporation’s
powerful Executive Committee.
That is the subject of their article, “The balance of
power among faculty, senior administration, and the
MIT Corporation.” And that is the subject of this
report.
The authors and interviews accurately represent how
these changes at MIT have affected themselves, but
their understanding of the larger context is minimal.
Fossil fuels are never mentioned. Schlumberger is
never mentioned. The goal of the Corporations larger
changes is simplified as “pursuit of the Almighty
dollar,” and the truth is far more dangerous.
In Schlumberger-related reports and documents, Rafael Reif
refers to himself as Leo Rafael Reif. In any MIT-related context, he is
formally referred to as L. Rafael Reif and informally as Rafael Reif.
This report will use the same strategy.
“MIT: Where Now?” Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams, MIT
Faculty Newsletter (2020).
Introduction
By Ed Carlevale | May 5, 2022
HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME
DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION

DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION
The MIT Corporation
ROYDEN AND WILLIAMS | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE

DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION
Fossil Fuels
SCHLUMBERGER | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE

DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION
MIT Greenwashing

DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION
Susan Hockfield

DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION
Jeffrey Epstein

DIVESTMENT
MIT CORPORATION
The MIT Corporation

“At the December 2012 quarterly meeting
of the Corporation, a quiet revolution in
MIT governance took place.
Unnoticed by nearly all faculty, this
changed the dynamic balance that had
previously existed between the Executive
Committee and MIT’s senior leadership.”
MIT Corporation

Jeffrey Epstein Coverup
HG SUSAN HOCKFIELD SKOLKOVO GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME
DIVESTMENT
A homepage is a platform. It is a community center. It is
a recruiting center.
MIT Corporation

MIT: Where Now?
Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams
The August 2019 revelations that the MIT Media Lab had
accepted donations from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein
sparked an upheaval among MIT faculty. A closed Media Lab
meeting on September 4, intended to be calming, culminated in
sobbing and yelling. On September 6, an exposé of the Media
Lab in The New Yorker accused MIT leaders of engaging in
years of evasion and deceit to conceal the affiliation with
Epstein. On September 18, at an overflowing and emotionally-
charged Institute faculty meeting, MIT faculty lined up to
express their collective shame, outrage, and revulsion.
Like many in the MIT community, we attended this meeting and
participated in the dizzying whirl of communications involving
multiple participants, venues, and formats. The Epstein affair
uncovered so many problems that it was difficult to tease them
apart or understand the contributing factors. To better
understand what was happening, we decided to conduct some
informal research consisting of interviews with 11 MIT senior
faculty whose judgment we value either through personal
acquaintance or reputation. Seven of the 11 have served on
Academic Council, and all have held leadership positions at the
Institute. They represent four of MIT's five Schools.
We carried out these interviews over a six-week period
beginning in early October. At the outset of each conversation,
we told our colleagues that we wanted to discuss current
events at MIT. We were purposely vague. We were most
interested in learning what was on their minds, not in imposing
what was on ours. We heard a near-consensus that MIT has
“lost its way”; that the faculty have had little voice in setting
institutional priorities and direction; and that pursuit of “the
almighty dollar” has warped MIT’s values and threatens to
jeopardize its fundamental mission.
What has gone wrong?
In the first part of this article, we focus on the words and ideas
that we heard repeatedly during our interviews. (All 11
interviewees have reviewed this report. Nine felt that this article
accurately represented their views, but two felt that their
perspective was not represented.) In the last two sections, we
present our own analysis and recommendations; these are ours
alone.
A Breakdown of Trust
The faculty we spoke with lamented a breakdown in trust
between faculty and the senior administration. In fact, this topic
was raised near the beginning of every conversation and many
emphasized that the loss of trust began before and extends
beyond the Epstein affair. We were told “trust has broken
down”; “our sense of trust is badly shaken”; “it feels like things
are falling apart”; and “our problems are much deeper than
Epstein.”
When we asked more about loss of trust, our colleagues
commonly began by citing the decision, starting in the Media
Lab and eventually communicated upwards to a “senior team,”
to negotiate with Epstein over donations and other forms of
support. No one felt that this was an acceptable choice. The
decision was interpreted not just as a failure of policies and
procedures, but more fundamentally as a lack of judgment and
integrity.
Particularly troubling was a perceived lack of honesty among
MIT leadership to take full responsibility for these events. Our
interviewees were dismayed by what they saw as long-running
efforts to avoid accountability through evasion or obfuscation.
Some repeated a litany of names now connected with MIT –
most notably David Koch, Mohammed bin Salman, Henry
Kissinger, and Stephen Schwarzman – who cause faculty moral
embarrassment because their public reputations are so
antithetical to MIT’s professed ideals. Our faculty colleagues felt
that MIT needs to be more open and thoughtful in
acknowledging the complexities and ambiguities of engaging
with ethically-compromised individuals. They believe MIT
leadership should promote community-wide discussion of these
issues, especially when MIT’s educational initiatives repeatedly
stress the need to include “ethics.”
Trust is a two-way street, and our colleagues also expressed the
sense that top MIT leadership lacks trust in the faculty. They
described the President and some others in the senior
administration as “lacking respect for faculty in general” or “very
cynical about faculty,” whom they often seem to regard as
“selfish.” Some interviewees described MIT’s leaders as thinking
that faculty do not appreciate the difficulties of management, do
not grasp the big picture, nor the need to make tough
decisions.
We heard a widespread complaint among faculty of “initiative
fatigue,” caused by a struggle to deal with a steady stream of
demands associated with an endless flow of new initiatives.
“The rhythm is broken. What gives way is time to think, to sit
down with students.” The result is mutual resentment. Faculty
worry that their core activities of research and teaching are
being shortchanged, while upper administration worry about
faculty selfishness and short-sightedness. In this situation, loss
of trust becomes a vicious circle.
Most of our interviewees expressed a strong opinion that, after
the Epstein events, President Reif is not a leader who can
restore trust at MIT. One person said, “He doesn’t own it.”
Another said, “A lot comes back to him.” Although they had
mixed assessments of Rafael Reif as a person, they believed
that MIT would be better off with a new administration that
could make a fresh start.
(Continued below)
When Rafael Reif became President of MIT in 2012, it was with
the understanding that he would oversee a major capital
campaign. Announced in 2016, the “Campaign for a Better
World” is the fifth major capital campaign in MIT’s history, with a
target of $6 billion. So far it has raised $5.5 billion.
Unlike the previous fundraising campaign that began in 1997, in
which two-thirds of the funds came from MIT alumni and
friends, the current campaign has succeeded by casting its net
much more widely. MIT hired many fundraisers who do not
know MIT well, and encouraged them to raise money wherever
they could find it, including from donors who do not value or
understand MIT’s core mission.
Our interviewees acknowledged that the senior leadership
invited faculty participation at the outset of the campaign, when
its priorities and goals were first established, but said proper
oversight faded away as the campaign evolved. “Donors are
setting the agenda,” one said. It is not clear to most faculty
where the new money has been directed or how much of that
direction has been determined by the donors. Others said
“faculty have no idea how the campaign is being run,” and “the
campaign has gone off the rails.”
A major source of frustration was the perceived disconnect
between a highly successful campaign and a continuing
shortage of resources for core educational and departmental
needs. We kept hearing the question “Where’s the $6 billion?” If
the money being raised is not noticeable in departments, where
is it going?
Our interviewees felt that there is a tacit agenda of transforming
Kendall Square into a geographically condensed version of
Silicon Valley, with venture capital flowing into it from around the
world. The massive building campaign that MIT has undertaken
seems a physical manifestation of this ambition. The rise of
multiple skyscrapers, much of which will be rental property
owned by MIT and leased to industry, sends a message of scale
and ambition at once overwhelming and alienating.
There are many players in the development of Kendall Square,
and it is reasonable that the MIT Investment Management
Company be involved in that activity. However, there was
concern that the MIT senior administration has become too

MIT: Where Now?
Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams
alone.
Epstein.”
integrity.
decisions.
(Continued below)
DIVESTMENT
(continued)
alone.
Epstein.”
integrity.
decisions.
The Almighty Dollar
When Rafael Reif became President of MIT in 2012, it was with
the understanding that he would oversee a major capital
campaign. Announced in 2016, the “Campaign for a Better
World” is the fifth major capital campaign in MIT’s history, with a
target of $6 billion. So far it has raised $5.5 billion.
Unlike the previous fundraising campaign that began in 1997, in
which two-thirds of the funds came from MIT alumni and
friends, the current campaign has succeeded by casting its net
much more widely. MIT hired many fundraisers who do not
know MIT well, and encouraged them to raise money wherever
they could find it, including from donors who do not value or
understand MIT’s core mission.
Our interviewees acknowledged that the senior leadership
invited faculty participation at the outset of the campaign, when
its priorities and goals were first established, but said proper
oversight faded away as the campaign evolved. “Donors are
setting the agenda,” one said. It is not clear to most faculty
where the new money has been directed or how much of that
direction has been determined by the donors. Others said
“faculty have no idea how the campaign is being run,” and “the
campaign has gone off the rails.”

The critical section in the article
is entitled, and it concerns
development of the Kendall
Square area as an Innovation
Hub. It is worth quoting in full.
The Almighty Dollar
When Rafael Reif became President of MIT in
2012, it was with the understanding that he would
oversee a major capital campaign. Announced in
2016, the “Campaign for a Better World” is the
fifth major capital campaign in MIT’s history, with
a target of $6 billion. So far it has raised $5.5
billion.
Unlike the previous fundraising campaign that
began in 1997, in which two-thirds of the funds
came from MIT alumni and friends, the current
campaign has succeeded by casting its net much
more widely. MIT hired many fundraisers who do
not know MIT well, and encouraged them to raise
money wherever they could find it, including from
donors who do not value or understand MIT’s
core mission.
Our interviewees acknowledged that the senior
leadership invited faculty participation at the
outset of the campaign, when its priorities and
goals were first established, but said proper
oversight faded away as the campaign evolved.
“Donors are setting the agenda,” one said. It is
not clear to most faculty where the new money
has been directed or how much of that direction
has been determined by the donors. Others said
“faculty have no idea how the campaign is being
run,” and “the campaign has gone off the rails.”
A major source of frustration was the perceived
disconnect between a highly successful
campaign and a continuing shortage of resources
for core educational and departmental needs. We
kept hearing the question “Where’s the $6
billion?” If the money being raised is not
noticeable in departments, where is it going?
Our interviewees felt that there is a tacit agenda
of transforming Kendall Square into a
geographically condensed version of Silicon
Valley, with venture capital flowing into it from
around the world. The massive building
campaign that MIT has undertaken seems a
physical manifestation of this ambition. The rise of
multiple skyscrapers, much of which will be rental
property owned by MIT and leased to industry,
sends a message of scale and ambition at once
overwhelming and alienating.
There are many players in the development of
Kendall Square, and it is reasonable that the MIT
Investment Management Company be involved
in that activity. However, there was concern that
the MIT senior administration has become too
heavily invested in MIT’s business and real estate
activities in Kendall Square and that this mission
dominates the senior administration’s thinking
and decision-making. Faculty worry that the
Institute’s core mission of academic excellence
and education is being left behind. Several of our
interviewees were worried about how highly
leveraged MIT may have become as a result of its
recent expansion.
Our interviewees were concerned about the
degree to which MIT, though legally a non-profit,
is being conceptualized as a business. Many gave
examples from the language of the leadership,
described as “corporate-speak” or “boardroom
culture.” Many pointed to the corporate-style
measures of success cited by senior leadership:
growth of endowment, growth of international
commitments, and constant competition of MIT
with peer institutions (above all Stanford) using
metrics like endowment dollars per faculty
member and admissions yield. Our faculty
colleagues repeatedly wondered if these metrics
and goals are appropriate or realistic for MIT.
The faculty members we interviewed repeatedly
told us that money-making is becoming MIT’s
main institutional goal. “It’s the money.” “Money
drives everything.” While the stated campaign
goal may be “a better world,” in practice its goal
is to raise $6 billion – or more, because the
campaign creates a vicious circle with the need to
raise ever more money. Stephen Schwarzman’s
gift is a prime example. His donation of $350
million is starter money for the College of
Computing, which, faculty are told, needs $1.1
billion to be up and running. His generous gift
now commits MIT to raising another $750 million.
It’s oil, not money
Because the faculty authors and interviewees
never consider oil, they simplify what is going
here as an issue of money. And it is certainly that.
But it is primarily fossil fuels. It isn’t that MIT has
been conceptualized as a business.” MIT has
been transformed into a fossil fuel business. If it’s
good for Schlumberger, then it’s good for MIT.
Two Silicon Valleys
The Executive Committee
Page 5

GETTING OUT OF DODGE
Greg Morgan
And do forth.
New York Times
The 61-page report, based on dozens of
interviews and a review of more than
610,000 emails and documents, cleared
others of wrongdoing, including the
university’s president, L. Rafael Reif.
Boston Globe
“…The report cleared Massachusetts
Institute of Technology president L.
Rafael Reif, who investigators said had
no involvement in approving the gifts.”
Washington Post
”The report found that MIT President L.
Rafael Reif did not know the school was
accepting gifts from an accused pedophile
and convicted sex offender.”
Nature
“MIT president Rafael Reif did not
know that the university was
accepting money from Epstein
while it was taking place, the report
concluded, but three senior
administrators knew about the
donations and drew up an
“informal framework” in 2013 to
accept money from Epstein, fully
aware of his criminal record.
Times of Israel
MIT President L. Rafael Reif, who was largely
cleared in the report, called the findings “a sharp
reminder of human fallibility and its
consequences.”
CNN
Reif, the MIT president, "was not aware that
(MIT) was accepting donations from a
convicted sex offender and accused
pedophile, and had no role in approving
MIT's acceptance of the donations," the
report said.
Senior Vice President and Corporation
Secretary Suzanne Glassburn
“A culture in which
whistleblowing is accepted,
effective, and safe: Goodwin
Procter’s report makes clear that
various Media Lab and central
administration employees were
unsuccessful in their efforts to
warn academic and administrative
leaders against taking Epstein’s
donations.
DIVESTMENT
The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal
The Power of Israel Ruiz.
Israel Ruiz was one of the most powerful people in MIT history and
absolutely no one knew who he was. That’s how MIT lawyers who able to
fabricate the absurdity that no one did anything wrong regarding Jeffrey
Epstein because no guidelines were in place to guide how one handles
donations from a pedophile.
JE
MIT Corporation

Susan Hockfield
The Institute is now moving forward…
She makes it absolutely clear that this is happening
independently of her. She is the president.
…a new set of ambitious goals
Why doesn’t she just say what they are?
…powerful momentum [makes this a
good moment to leave]
Momentum is a reason for people to stay, not
leave.
MIT has begun the crucial work of
planning for a significant new fundraising
campaign.
This is the critical giveaway. MIT is opening its
doors to funding from the fossil fuel industry. The
very first thing that Rafael Reif did after Susan
Hockfield announced that she was stepping down,
was to appoint Maria Zuber to gut MIT’s
environmental research plan and create a plan
acceptable to fossil fuel funding. He was fairly
certain he would be elected president but not
certain, so he took an incredible risk to send Maria
Zuber from the present into the future, as it were,
so that her work would be a fait accompli for the
next administration, whoever it was.

Boston Globe
JE
FNL
Skolkovo
MZ
Divestment
ERC
SH
MIT Corporation

Divestment
“…we find that the best way for MIT to accelerate
action on the climate challenge—in science, in
technology, in policy and in the education of our
students—is active engagement with organizations
of many kinds.”
— L. Rafael Reif
“The Question of Divestment” (2015)

This is the top heading
And this is the text for
this sidebar comment on
this page.
April 17, 2012
To the members of the MIT community,
I am pleased to accept the final report of the Environmental Research
Council (ERC), Implementing the MIT Global Environment Initiative.
The report incorporates input received from a forum held December
15, 2011 that presented results of the draft report and the inputs from
a subsequent comment period. I thank the ERC and in particular its
Chair, Professor Dara Entekhabi, for producing a compelling vision of
MIT's role in advancing sustainability and in addressing pressing
environmental issues.
I commend the ERC for identifying strategic research themes that
transcend disciplinary boundaries and which integrate scientific
understanding, engineering solutions, and social research to
synthesize new approaches to the world's environmental challenges.
The report also describes a portfolio of current and new educational
offerings, including a new undergraduate minor in Environment and
Sustainability.
The video of the recent forum on Environmental Research can be
viewed at http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/erc and the final ERC
report can be accessed here. I have asked Professor John H. Lienhard
V and Professor Maria T. Zuber to co-lead a Global Environment
Initiative (GEI) planning group to prepare a proposal for execution for
consideration by the next administration. They will focus on plans for
resource development and coordination of potential future activities
across the Institute.
The pressures on vital environmental systems and questions about
their sustainability have profound implications for human welfare. The
goals outlined in the ERC report define important opportunities for
research and education on one of the most pressing challenges
facing humanity today.
Sincerely,
L. Rafael Reif, Provost
Maseeh Professor of Emerging Technology

POSTJUNE 27, 2020
Evaluating Dr. Maria Zuber’s Response to MIT Divest’s
Information Request
MIT Divest is grateful for Dr. Zuber’s response to
the information request(link is external) especially
given the upheaval on campus this spring when
COVID-19 forced students, faculty, staff, researchers,
and administrators off campus. Dr. Zuber and her
team have been busy in developing the guidelines
and scenarios to bring research back on campus, and
MIT Divest is appreciative of the work being done
towards this goal.
MIT Divest has spent the last few weeks going over Dr.
Zuber’s response to the inquiry, and wanted to share
thoughts regarding the answers that Dr. Zuber
provided. Although we are pleased that some
partnerships with fossil fuel companies have driven
sustainability-oriented research, we are extremely
disappointed to see that MIT’s partnerships have not
created important change regarding climate policy
and disinformation. It is clear that MIT has not done
well in holding fossil fuel companies accountable for
their anti-climate lobbying, greenwashing, climate
disinformation campaigns, and other climate policy
mechanisms. At the end of the day, MIT Divest
believes that divestment holds these companies
accountable and ensures that MIT, as a leader in
science and technology, does not stand complicit with
the behaviors of fossil fuel companies. MIT Divest’s
response is as follows:
Part 1
MIT Divest asked for more information regarding the
definition and goals of engagement as outlined in the
2015 Climate Action Plan.
As an institute of higher education, we must critically
and thoroughly review the major tenets of the 2015
Climate Action Plan in order to pursue effective
methods for contributing to climate solutions. It is
absolutely necessary to look towards future solutions,
but it is also important to understand the successes
and missteps of our previous attempts.
Regarding MIT’s engagement in policy and
government, we recognize that MIT is not equipped to
engage in political lobbying at a large scale. As Dr.
Zuber indicates, our strengths as a university favor
research and scientific pursuits above political
advocacy. However, this does not excuse us from
using these competencies selectively. The MIT
Washington Office effectively lobbies for research and
university funding, as these issues are more directly
related to MIT’s activity. However, climate change is an
issue that is pressing, existential, and time-sensitive.
This is agreed on by an overwhelming majority of the
scientific community, including many of MIT’s greatest
climate scientists. Our political activity must reflect the
urgency of climate change, and reject the
politicization of the issue. We must advocate based on
the science, as the clock continues to tick. The last
thing we would want is for MIT’s voice to be reduced
to partisan noise, as Dr. Zuber stated. MIT Divest
argues that this practice of remaining largely
detached from political discussion affords MIT the
ability to amplify our voice on the issues that are of
extreme importance. Our relative infrequency of
political commentary suggests that the issues that we
do politically engage with require swift and decisive
action. Climate change should be one of these issues.
In looking at MIT’s engagement with both government
and industry partners, we have observed benefits in
the form of grants, partnerships, and contracts among
other things. We agree with Dr. Zuber that these are
positive, forward-oriented methods of helping solve
the climate problem, and have resulted in good
research developments. However, we must also
recognize the efforts that exist to push against
progress and eventual implementation of this
progress. MIT has stated its stance on lobbying and
disinformation campaigns used to exploit political
levers against climate policy. As an institute, we say
that we stand against these actions, but it is not clear
that our actions reflect this stance. Our engagement
strategy must devote appropriate effort to eliminating
these campaigns, and holding fossil fuel companies
accountable for their actions. Otherwise, we ignore
unfortunate political realities that exist in part due to
lobbying and disinformation from the fossil fuel
industry. Research solutions to climate change cannot
be implemented at large scale if not supported
adequately by government policy. We must directly
address the politics at play in order to make the most
of these efforts.
In the bigger picture, we understand the engagement
strategy to be a way for MIT to leverage its position in
the world to maximize the capacity of knowledge it
can put out. MIT Divest agrees, and thinks MIT has
great potential to lead in the development and
dissemination of these solutions for the world to
follow. MIT Divest also believes that one of the most
effective forms of leadership is by example. The goal
of a 32% reduction in campus greenhouse gas
emissions by 2030 set in the 2015 Climate Action Plan
falls short of the decisive leadership we expect of MIT.
While it is important to research solutions that can be
implemented worldwide, it is also important to show
the world that we are taking the matter seriously as
well. It is important to show that we are doing our part
to directly reduce our contribution to climate change.
This means aggressively reducing our carbon
footprint, denouncing acts that run counter to fact-
based science, and using our position to take public
action against the entities involved in these
campaigns.
While it is a considerable physical challenge to reduce
our carbon emissions while escalating research efforts,
we must continue to pride ourselves on solving tough
problems creatively for the right reasons. We must be
more aggressive in our understanding and action to
minimize MIT’s direct impact on perpetuating the
climate issue. Our engagement strategy, as Dr. Zuber
indiciates, focuses on partnering with groups to find
and implement climate solutions. It is valuable to
continue in these efforts with the government and
other entities. It is imperative that we also lead the
world by working on what we can do on campus to
help, and by stating and acting on the belief that it is
unacceptable to distort scientific fact on climate
change. No, we cannot solve climate problems on our
own, but we also cannot continue to stunt global
progress by allowing organizations set on dragging
their feet on climate to remain unchecked.
Part 2
In this section of the document request, MIT Divest
asked for information on MIT’s efforts to engage with
the fossil fuel industry and the results of those efforts.
While MIT does not track these meetings, Dr. Zuber
asserts that MIT has told fossil fuel companies that it
disapproves of anti-climate lobbying and
disinformation practices and will not allow companies
to use their relationships with us for greenwashing.
Although MIT Divest recognizes the importance of
personal meetings and their impact, the lack of
transparency around these meetings makes it
impossible to claim that MIT systematically holds
these companies accountable. This is especially
troubling given how engagement was highlighted as
an alternative to divestment in the 2015-20 climate
action plan. Claiming to have held these meetings
and letting our disapproval be known to fossil fuel
companies is not enough without the proper
oversight to hold both MIT and fossil fuel companies
accountable. Without any metrics on either efforts for
engagement or the outcomes of engagement, we are
told to trust that fossil fuel companies act in good faith
in meetings with MIT, but decades of disinformation
and lobbying show this cannot be assumed. It is
important that our community has the information to
hold MIT to a high standard and this cannot happen if
there is no standard. MIT has shown itself to be
complacent in companies using us to protect
themselves and deceive the public. All in all, without
metrics or standards to hold both MIT and fossil fuel
companies to, there is no proof that these meetings
effect any concrete change.
The same issue arises when we look into
greenwashing as well. It is not adequate to say that
MIT will not allow companies to greenwash their
reputation through their relationships with us. It is also
not true. Just this past year, MIT announced
the renaming of a prominent lecture hall(link is
external) in its Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and
Planetary Sciences (EAPS) building to Shell
Auditorium. MIT only backed down after the EAPS
department and many students expressed their
outrage over the name change and hosted a teach-in
on greenwashing(link is external) and climate denial in
response. Because of community organizing, the
name is now undetermined and will be decided by a
naming contest. The fact that it took so much
resistance to change Shell Auditorium’s name shows
that the MIT administration does not think seriously
about who it chooses to represent and the potential
consequences of those associations. MIT simply
refusing to “allow” greenwashing could seem like an
empty gesture that allows the Institute to avoid
responsibility for its relationships with these
companies. In fact, Exxon explicitly used MIT’s
name(link is external) to cover itself in October 2015,
just days after the release of the 2015 Climate Action
Plan. Following reports that Exxon spread doubt about
climate change, Exxon’s VP of government and public
affairs said, “The facts are that we identified the
potential risks of climate change and have taken the
issue very seriously. We embarked on decades of
research in collaboration with many parties, including
the Department of Energy, leading academic
institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Stanford University and others to advance
climate science.” In a report on Exxon’s greenwashing,
Dr. Zuber admits that by MIT’s plan of engaging with
fossil fuel companies, we are putting our “reputation
on the line.” MIT has, to the best of MIT Divest’s
knowledge, never publicly condemned Exxon Mobil’s
greenwashing or disinformation. MIT Divest contends
that if one party does not make their stance public, the
other party gets to determine the nature of that
relationship. Divestment would instead bring MIT’s
reputation in line with our values.
Dr. Zuber informs us that the best way that MIT can
engage with these companies and make change in
the world is through funding and research. MIT Divest
believes that while research is certainly important, MIT
needs to shift to a broader view on climate action. We
cannot wait for technology to save us in the future if
we do not create the necessary social and political
conditions for it right now. Without policy and social
shifts, research cannot be successfully implemented.
For as long as anti-climate lobbying and
disinformation campaigns run by many fossil fuel
companies continue, these shifts will not come. The
University of Dayton Ohio divested in 2014 and found
that their annual sponsored research money still
increased(link is external) afterwards, suggesting that
divestment did not negatively impact research
funding. Surveys that MIT Divest sent out to the UMass
and University of California systems imply that there
has been no loss of funds for research from fossil fuel
companies after divestment. Additionally, Brown(link
is external), Oxford(link is external), Georgetown(link is
external) and many other research universities have
divested from the fossil fuel industry recently, citing
financial risk and nonalignment with university values.
As concrete results of their informal meetings, Dr.
Zuber points to the company Eni focusing more on
decarbonization and some fossil fuel companies
leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC), which pushes for anti-climate legislation.
While true, these results are not enough. Any change
can be considered “aggressive” compared to most
fossil fuel companies’ past policies. Even Eni, the
supermajor oil company that invested in MIT-based
fusion and decarbonization, invested around 80% of
its capital expenditures in exploration and
production(link is external) in 2019. Decarbonization,
circular economy, and renewables represented only
5% of that overall budget. Eni’s commitment to
decarbonization is especially questionable
considering they were fined 5 million euros for
lying(link is external) that their diesel was
environmentally friendly in an egregious act of
greenwashing. This was in January 2020, despite Eni
being considered one of the most forward thinkers in
the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, Dr. Zuber
suggests that companies leaving ALEC and Eni
investing more in decarbonization could potentially
be attributed to MIT, but she never explains how MIT
influenced these companies. This precisely
demonstrates the unacceptable lack of accountability
and transparency under our current model of
engagement.
Besides meeting with fossil fuel companies, MIT
Divest also asked about shareholder engagement and
resolutions as a channel to bring about positive
change and accountability. Dr. Zuber informed us that
MIT has not done anything with regards to
shareholder resolutions, meaning that as an investor,
MIT has not engaged with its investments
whatsoever. A growing list of validators like the UC
System, and the weak financial performance of the
fossil sector indicate divestment may even be a
preferable financial decision (see the upcoming MIT
Divest’s Financial Case for Divestment). Fossil
companies are running into long-term growth
constraints, low oil prices, and may be faced with
tough regulatory conditions for many years to come.
If we are not conducting shareholder engagement,
and fossil fuel investments fail to perform well,
divestment seems to be the preferable option. It is
unacceptable to MIT Divest that in the last climate
action plan, MIT decided on the path of engagement
but has failed to curb disinformation and anti-climate
lobbying. It is not enough to express vague
disapproval in public and behind closed doors.
Part 3:
As indicated by the original document request, MIT
Divest was looking for more specifics regarding the
amount MIT was invested in fossil fuel companies.
Dr. Zuber acknowledging that most of these
investments lie in commingled funds does not add
anything to overall knowledge regarding the amount
of money investment in these companies. MIT Divest
understands that for privacy or confidentiality reasons,
this number may not be explicit, but providing a
general benchmark would allow clearer assessment
about how divestment would affect the endowment.
Our initial financial research has suggested that
divestment does not in fact affect our endowment
significantly, but this is based on assumptions rather
than known facts about the endowment. We would
welcome more specificity associated with those
numbers.
The numbers described by Dr. Zuber regarding the
amount of money going into research and education
at MIT were incredibly useful in demonstrating that
from a research standpoint, engagement has been
working in providing numerous opportunities for
students, faculty, and other research staff to engage in
sustainability related projects, classes, and events. MIT
Divest does not seek to inhibit research funding
received from fossil fuel companies assuming that this
research goes towards sustainability efforts and is not
being used to greenwash these companies. In many
ways, the infrastructure provided by these companies
allows for strong technological partnerships with
institutions like MIT. However, the question as to
whether or not any research was being conducted
towards fossil fuel extraction was not fully answered.
MIT Divest has reason to believe that some of the
research being done at MIT is going directly towards
innovating fossil fuel extraction. Although we are not
actively campaigning for removing this type of
research, the organization does frown upon any
research going towards the very practices the
institution recognizes as an existential threat.
Summary
MIT Divest believes that divestment at MIT will have
serious effects on the power of fossil fuel companies
due to the growing divestment movement and MIT’s
influence in the science and technology world.
Divestment at MIT must be complemented with other
forms of climate action, including stopping fossil fuel
extraction research, creating a more sustainable
campus, and increasing MIT’s role in creating policy
and stopping anti-climate lobbying and
disinformation. Certainly, Dr. Zuber’s response
showed how research has been positively impacted
by engagement, but as long as fossil fuel companies
continue to greenwash themselves, sponsor
disinformation campaigns, and use their political
strength to prevent significant change, MIT’s research
and educational opportunities are futile. MIT’s failure
to hold fossil fuel companies accountable by choosing
engagement over divestment five years ago means
that the school needs to reevaluate its partnerships
and its complicity in the fossil fuel industry’s behavior.
It is time to divest.
MIT Divest Responds to Maria Zuber
By MIT Divest | October 21, 2015

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001, page 47
Special Report
Why Did Former CIA Director John
Deutch Endanger America’s Most Vital
Secrets?
By Andrew I. Killgore
“...CIA Director George Tenet told Congress he could not be
sure the information on Deutch’s computer had been secure...
CBS News reported [Deutch] e-mailed a Russian scientist on
his AOL account.”
—Reuter’s report in the 2/4/00 Gulf News
“We have asked him to appear [before the Senate Intelligence
Committee], we hope he will....This is strange behavior, very
suspicious. It’s unprecedented to my knowledge.”
—Sen. Richard Shelby, chairman, Senate Intelligence
Committee, quoted in an AP story in the International Herald
Tribune, Feb. 2/5-6/00
John Deutch, born in Belgium in 1938, was brought to the
United States as a young boy. He studied chemistry, earned a
doctorate in his specialty at M.I.T., became a professor there
and eventually won the chair of the department of chemistry.
Obviously a brilliant professor, Deutch did not come to public
notice, as measured in mainline media attention, until 1994,
when then-Secretary of Defense William Perry elevated Deutch
from assistant secretary—to which he had been appointed in
1993—to deputy secretary of defense. In May 1995 Dr. Deutch
moved from his number-two job at the Department of Defense
to the top position of director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, America’s spy agency. He held the directorship until
he resigned in December 1996.
Deutch’s brilliance of mind did not enhance his reputation as
CIA director. John Millis, a former CIA operations officer and
chief staffer at the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, was quoted in the Feb. 18, 2000 issue of The
Washington Post as saying Deutch was “the worst CIA director
ever.” Millis thought the miscast Deutch also had earned the
second-worst and third-worst rankings.
But it is the unloved John Deutch’s unfathomable side that
excites the most compelling interest. Both at the Department
of Defense and at the Central Intelligence Agency, he grossly
violated rules for the protection of America’s secrets, including
“special access programs” so secret that officials privy to them
are authorized to lie to keep them from becoming public. Most
such programs are kept secret from the CIA and only disclosed
to the Pentagon’s top three or four officials. Deutch was briefed
on many of these programs both when he was at the Defense
Department and at the CIA, according to the Washington
Times of Feb. 17, 2000.
Deutch’s open computer—loaded with the most carefully
protected secrets—was a target for any computer hacker. That
explains CIA Director George Tenet’s statement to Congress,
quoted above, that he could not be sure that information on
Deutch’s computer was secure.
U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Shelby,
also quoted above, was deeply suspicious of Deutch’s motives
in leaving U.S. secrets open for grabbing. Shelby wanted
Deutch before his committee, but whether Deutch ever
appeared is doubtful. If he did, the session was in camera and
the proceedings have not been published.
Deutch may have been so blindly arrogant that he treated the
laws on security protection as applying to others, but not to
himself. This is the view of a retired CIA officer who is a friend
of the writer.
Or, his gross defiance of the rules may have stemmed from
some tangle of perversities that even Deutch did not
understand.
Finally, he may have been a quiet but passionate Zionist
seeking to help Israel, where he has relatives. His sophisticated
excuse, if he had ever had to answer questions under oath, was
that he was simply careless.
Deutch may well have been tried for his transgressions, and
some cracking of the Deutch enigma might have been
possible. But former President Bill Clinton took away that
possibility when he pardoned Deutch on the last day of his
presidency.
Why?
Andrew I. Killgore is the publisher of the Washington Report
on Middle East Affairs.
Why did John Deutch
Page 5

Rafael Reif
Former president
renewable energy.*
Subjects
Maria Zuber
Former president
renewable energy.*
Israel Ruiz
Former president
renewable energy.*
Steve Brandt
Office
renewable energy.*

Mission Accomplished or Getting out of
Dodge?
Vladimir Putin and Skolkovo Foundation
Chairman Viktor Vekselberg.
Former MIT President Susan
Hockfield (2005-2012)
“The Institute is now moving forward on a new set of ambitious goals, and
powerful momentum we have built makes this an opportune moment for a
Susan Hockfield, resigning as president 3 months after MIT signs a $300 million
agreement with Russia to create a hydrocarbon research center in Moscow.

Executive Summary
to the Report of the
MIT Environmental
Research Council
April 2012
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Implementing the
MIT Global
Environment Initiative
!
!
1"
!!Report!of!the!MIT!Global!Environment!Initiative!Planning!Group!
"
John"H."Lienhard"V"
Samuel"C."Collins"Professor"of"Mechanical"Engineering"
"
Maria"T."Zuber"
E.A."Griswold"Professor"of"Geophysics"
"
November"12,"2012"
"
"
Charge!from!Provost!Reif!
The!Global!Environment!Initiative!Planning!Group!is!charged!to!connect!MIT's!departmental!and!
faculty!efforts!and!needs!to!the!constituencies!that!could!provide!resources!to!this!initiative,!
including!donors,!research!sponsors,!ILP!companies,!and!others!as!needed!and!appropriate.!!
!
These!connections!should!be!developed!through!discussion!with!MIT!department!heads!and!faculty,!
and!through!discussion!with!MIT!resource!development!personnel,!ILP!leadership!and!alumni.!!As!
part!of!the!process,!the!Planning!Group!should!pursue!a!synergistic!relationship!with!MITEI.!
!
The!Planning!Group!should!also!lay!out!a!clear!name,!mission!description,!and!plan!of!execution!for!
the!activity!that!could!be!presented!to!the!new!leadership!of!MIT.!!This!would!ideally!be!concise!and!
actionable.!
"
Brief!Review!of!Previous!Efforts"
Interest!in!study!of!the!environment!has!a!long!history!at!MIT,!with!the!first!formal!focus!at!the!
InstituteClevel!coming!together!in!2001!under!the!auspices!of!the!Laboratory!for!Energy!and!the!
Environment!(LFEE),!led!by!Professor!David!Marks.!!The!LFEE!provided!a!forum!for!individuals!to!
share!interests!in!research!and!education!and!was!the!first!group!to!promote!the!study!of!
sustainability!at!the!Institute.!!The!LFEE!provided!the!foundation!for!the!diversity!of!multiC
disciplinary!study!of!the!environment!at!both!large!and!local!scales.!!!
!
Grassroots!faculty!interest!in!expanding!the!scope!of!activities!related!to!the!environment!led!to!the!
appointment,!by!Provost!Reif!in!2007,!of!the!Committee!to!Assess!Environmental!Activities!at!MIT,!
chaired!by!Professor!Maria!Zuber.!!This!committee!issued!its!report1,!aka!The!Zuber!Report,!in!
September!2007.!The!report!identified!significant!interest!in!research!and!education!on!the!
environment!by!faculty,!research!staff!and!students!and!recommended!an!InstituteCwide!effort!to!
raise!the!profile!both!within!and!outside!the!Institute!of!the!extensive!ongoing!work!already!
underway.!!!
!
In!2008,!an!Environmental!Research!Council!(ERC),!chaired!by!Professor!Dara!Entekhabi,!was!
appointed!by!Provost!Reif!to!develop!an!implementation!plan!for!the!Zuber!Report.!!To!broaden!the!
input!into!the!process,!the!ERC!was!reconstituted!in!2010,!again!under!the!leadership!of!Professor!
Entekhabi;!and!an!Energy!Environment!Board,!coCchaired!by!Professors!Ernest!Moniz!and!Andrew!
Whittle,!was!convened!in!order!to!coordinate!environmental!activities!with!the!MIT!Energy!Initiative!
(MITEI).!!The!ERC!Report2,!which!was!released!in!April!2012,!presented!an!outstanding!and!detailed!
research!agenda!that!highlighted!global–scale!environmental!problems!of!societal!importance.!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!http://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/reportCcommitteeCassessCenvironmentalC
activitiesCmit!
2!http://web.mit.edu/ercCreport/!

February 16, 2012
To the Members of the MIT Community:
I write to share with you my decision to step down
from the presidency of MIT. Over the past seven years,
working together we have accomplished far more
than I set out to do. The Institute is now moving
forward on a new set of ambitious goals, and I have
concluded that the powerful momentum we have built
makes this an opportune moment for a leadership
transition.
I came to MIT in December 2004 with a profound
sense of the privilege and the responsibility of the
president’s role. But nothing could have prepared me
for this remarkable community of creative minds.
Together, we have made tremendous progress in
dozens of ways, strengthening MIT’s foundations and
setting our sights for the future. We are designing the
policy, technology and education required to address
the global need for sustainable energy. We have
accelerated MIT’s ability to synthesize the strengths of
science and engineering to fight disease and to invent
new powers of computation. We have expanded the
Institute’s global connections. We are charting a
course to a new future for American manufacturing.
We have also built a framework for the future of our
campus and neighborhood, fortified the Institute’s
financial structures, strengthened MIT’s culture of
inclusion and increased the number of
undergraduates we can educate. With the recent
introduction of MITx, we are changing the
conversation around affordability, access and
excellence in higher education. Through last year’s
celebration of MIT’s Sesquicentennial, our community
emerged reenergized and refocused on our mission
of service to the nation and the world. And we
achieved all this and more while steering the Institute
through the worst global financial crisis since the
Great Depression.
The momentum of all that we have accomplished has
tempted me to stay on to see our many efforts bear
their full fruit. But to support our ambitious goals for
the future, MIT has begun the crucial work of planning
for a significant new fundraising campaign. A
campaign on this scale will require the full focus and
sustained attention of the Institute’s president over
many years. I have concluded that it would be best for
the Institute to begin this next chapter with new
leadership.
Presidential searches generally take time; I will serve
until my successor is selected by the MIT Corporation
and is ready to assume the role. I look forward to
continuing to be a member of the MIT faculty.
The coming months will offer many opportunities to
reflect on our work together, but for now, let me
simply thank the faculty, students, staff, alumni and
friends of MIT who have given of themselves to
advance the mission of MIT. While I expect new
intellectual adventures ahead, nothing will compare to
the exhilaration of the world-changing
accomplishments that we produced together.
Most sincerely,
Susan Hockfield
Looking to the Future
Susan Hockfield | February 16, 2012
Page 5

Climate Change Conversation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Climate Change Conversation

Similar to Climate Change Conversation (20)

More from Ed

More from Ed (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Climate Change Conversation