www.insidehighered.com/news/students/residential-life/2024/05/20/mit-student-protesters-barred-campus-housing
Interim Suspensions Leave MIT Student Protestors Stranded
Questionable SourceBut they live in family housing not fraternity or dormitories.
Dan does. The rest did not.
That being said, dormitory just means student housing provided by the university.
I’m guessing a court would rule family housing is a dormitory.
I doubt it because they are taxed differently on real-estate portfolio's for colleges.
Iyengar said he was dissatisfied with the support he was provided—or rather, not provided—by MIT during his move. No one offered to help him find a place to live or move his belongings.
Jesus fucking Christ, I know many people use continuing education as a way to stave off facing the realities of life but my god. In the real world your landlord doesn't line up a moving service for you or go house hunting with you when you get evicted. Many of these protesters are just completely disconnected from reality.
And risking housing for your disabled child once nearly everyone else had dispersed? Bad parenting.
It's deff not bad parenting. What a callous, servile thing to say
This quote is right after the one you cherry picked:
Kimberly Allen, an MIT spokesperson, told Inside Higher Ed in an email the university “has assigned a dean to every single student facing interim suspension to work with them on support and resources” but Iyengar said no one reached out to assist him in his search for a place to stay.
So the school said they would but didn't.
This is a bit of an unfair take. In the real world you're also entitled to an eviction process where you can challenge the eviction, and you're entitled to at least a minimum period of time before your landlord is entitled to physically remove you and your belongings. But college landlords are exempt from those requirements because students legally aren't recognized as tenants. Rather, they're licensees, like hotel residents. And MIT didn't treat them like tenants, it gave them a week and chucked them out. The article mentions the fact that they only got a week and that MIT didn't follow the tenant evictions process, I am just explaining why.
Setting aside the politics of evicting someone for illegal protesting, it's always been crazy to me that colleges don't have to play by the rules just like any other landlord does.
I think it is incredibly obvious why college students, who are by their very nature transient, don't get normal eviction protections.
If you flunk out of college or violate college rules you don't get to run out an eviction clock. That's silly to argue
Why not? If I quit my job and stop paying rent I can run out an eveiction clock.
Grad student housing is set up differently, but dorms are very tight quarters. If you evict someone from a dorm and give them 30 days notice, they can be a very real drag on the community that develops and the educational outcomes of other students. Dorms should be the minimum possible to humanely deal with the issue because your personal rights are competing with other students' rights.
When they are a family approved dwelling, they definitely should be considered as a more normal tenant contract. Though I bet if you set that rule, the universities would transition away from offering family housing and just force all students who need it to go through private options.
So do away with due process since it inconveniences people?
The due process is only 7 days so no, not doing away with due process
Constitution doesn’t bind private entities. Students signed a contract with these provisions, and in this legal context.
Due process is seven days.
You make your own choices and then have to accept the consequences of your actions.
You don't get to just force your choices and consequences on all of those around you just because you believe in something.
This. I’m sympathetic to protesters in general and have myself participated in protests through the years. Part of the understanding is that there may be consequences if you break the law (or rules)— even petty and unjust laws— and being a “protester” doesn’t shield you from the consequences. And yes, you can fight it and argue it, but that comes in the form of court appearances after the fact.
The last part of your comment is dumb and unnecessary. "Forcing choices and consequences on those around you" is exactly what the protestors are protesting.
College is not mandatory. The idea is that students willingly sign up for a nontraditional living arrangement to achieve a particular outcome. I think it's reasonable to tell students that they can't have their cake and eat it too.
Go a step further, this man could have chosen to live off campus in a "real" apartment and enjoyed the tenant protections they provide. He traded convenience/cost for autonomy, and is now upset that he doesn't have the autonomy he imagined he had.
I would feel more sympathy for a student who was required to live on campus, which some students are. But even then, people were given an opportunity to disperse and maintain good standing before things went as far as suspension and expulsion.
But the students are either paying for this school or got hired with grants, assistantships, TA, etc.
They are paying customers/employees they have every right to complain about an experience they are going into debt over.
College or higher education is 100% mandatory unless you have well off parents or some 1 out a million luck. Jobs are demanding the most from you with no pay and while trade schools are out there they are still a form of "higher education" and also not everyone is made out for trade. Trust me, as someone who has worked in every type of venue with every type of person and position in trade I can tell you that NOT EVERYONE can or should do this type of work.
Right but going to MIT isn’t mandatory. They can pick another school.
Whether they read it or not they signed a document that contained all the rules before they moved in. Universities like MIT have been around forever and dealt with shit like this before. I guarantee you the students all signed documents clearly outlining the rules along with an arbitration clause regarding the circumstances which allow the university to expell the student from the university itself as well as the student housing. The lawsuits will go nowhere.
They’re not tenants. Lodgers have a different classification when it comes to on campus housing.
I thought I summarized that pretty well when I said "students legally aren't recognized as tenants," so I'm not sure what you're going for here, can you clarify what you'd like to add with your comments?
When mom and day pay for everything and send you to a school that costs more in one semester then both my wife and I make in a year what do you expect?
In the real world your landlord can't evict you at a moment's notice because they disagree with your political speech. Liberals defending this shit are disgusting, but expected. The handmaidens of fascism.
It's the disruption of everyone else's use that is cause – not the person's political takes. In an apartment complex, a tenant constantly disrupting everyone else's use is also clear grounds for eviction.
Saying what they were doing was just political speech is disingenuous and you know it. Or at least should.
It most certainly is political speech
Civil disobedience is not protected speech.
Well yeah, one of the many reasons why landlords are a scourge on this world
Hopefully society should aim to a higher moral standard than that of landlords
Dude has a special needs child and nearly lost their housing just so he could sleep on the the university quad for a few days.
And a wife??? “Welcome home from your work trip dear, I’ve got us kicked out of housing!”
How could Israel do this to me?
I would seriously consider divorcing my husband for doing something so selfish and stupid.
At least MIT is divested and Gaza is free
Very risky behavior for someone who's family is already financially vulnerable and yet completely dependent on an institution.
Another neo-lib loser take
That seems like something you would want to think through before violating university policies?
Seriously. They were even warned. This dude Zeno has a disabled child and risked her lodging?? What a crappy thing for a parent to do.
Where was she while he was encamped?
Didn’t read the article?
I read it and that’s exactly what happened…
The student the article was about was never kicked off campus and most of the rest of the students were allowed back on campus. The university violated its own policies and possible state tenant law by kicking them out of their housing.
I guess you didn’t read the whole article.
So they got a break and they’re still crying about being victimized. Got it.
Based on the two students quoted in the article, it was the articles author who sought them out.
The article does mention one of the university policies the university violated was to punish them as a group instead of individually. It doesn’t preclude further consequences to the students.
Why haven't you condemned Israel's ethnic cleansing?
Cause they agree with it
I did in fact read the article.
He was counting on things going a certain way, and then they didn't.
The risk you take when you don't control the situation.
"But, he said, universities typically have their own metric for what constitutes a threat to safety and welfare and, as long as they follow their own policies, are within their rights to dole out these punishments."
He is complaining the university violated its own policies. He was never even kicked off campus and most of the other students were also let back.
The article also talks about how the university not only violated its own policies, it may have violated state tenant laws.
The article makes many claims, but you are citing only some of the claims. There are other claims that the university followed its policies, and isn't subject to the laws cited.
So you’re claiming the university didn’t reverse course and let the students back onto campus?
Universities aren’t subject to the same tenant laws.
Tell that to the person who wrote the article
They are subject to their own policies. Which they violated so the university let (mostly) everyone back onto campus. (Who wanted to come, probably anyone they had evidence of actually breaking any university policy wasn’t allow back. )
I read it. Maybe students should be at least smart enough to know that tuition gives them the right to attend classes, not disrupt university functions and vandalize property. Tuition is not ownership, it's a business transaction for class attendance. Do these people not understand how college works?
The article is about primarily about their living situation and doesn’t talk about their current school situation. I would assume they’re still suspended from classes until the university’s investigation is completed.
You didn’t read the article either?
The guy was never kicked off campus. Most of the other people were allowed back onto campus. The university violated its own policies with their harsh enforcement and possibly violated state tenant laws.
Unless you commit genocide as a US ally. Then actions have no consequences.
Yes. Different things are different.
Well this is the risk you garner when protesting regardless of the cause. You have to be prepared for the consequences whether they're just or not.
I always hate the consequences of my actions too.
Yes, don't speak out against the party if you don't want to end in the Gulag!
It's easy to force middle/upper class morality onto the worker. He should've taken his family's welfare into account. He said that an ultimately irrelevant demanded action was more important than his family's welfare. You don't get the benefit of protest when you endanger your disabled daughter's welfare.
If speaking out against the party results in you going to the gulag, then you should consider that a serious potential outcome when determining your risk tolerance.
Yes most of these university students are at risk of being deployed overseas.
These kids are going to get a heavy dose of reality
Someone didn't read any of the link...
Actions, meet consequences.
Good to see you cant read an article either
I read it… I’m confused as to what you got out of the article.
- Told to leave or they’ll be evicted.
- Was moved from encampment
- removed barriers and damaged university property and trespassed
- told he’s being evicted
You forgot surprise Pikachu face
Don't shit where you eat.
The FAFO theory is being proved correct.
Wasn't evicted, school broke its own rules, shut up and learn to read
Zeno had nowhere to go on such short notice. It didn’t help that rent for two-bedroom apartments in Cambridge, Mass., where MIT is located, cost an average of $4,065 per month, according to apartments. com.
Is it just me, or does that seem like a crazy high rate?
Smart people actually being stupid? I knew it was possible!
Looks like they just created the next generation of hippies. Have fun 🤩
“These interim suspensions are causing noninterim damage. You can't have an interim punishment that causes long-term damage if you haven’t had due process,”
Universities putting down their foot to quell free speech by students is having real impacts on the lives of those who wish to see genocide end. Fuck these universities and their stances on student protests. You can't call yourself a bastion of higher education if you won't allow educated opinions to be expressed in protest of literal murder and genocide.
A 1 to 1 ratio of civilians to combatants in a high density urban war is not genocide. In fact, it's a number that any other army in the world would be praised for. It shows a lot of restraint.
The average urban warfare ratio is 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 civilians to combatants. 1 to 1 is basically unheard of.
Interesting how college students and people like yourself only protest what tiktok calls genocide rather than all the other genocides that have happened and are happening. Why does this matter? Because you are being manipulated to support Hamas and hurt Biden so Trump can come in and make it worse for Palestinians. Think a little.
These students will be remembered as heroes just like Sophie Scholl.
It's disgusting how many people see 100,000 innocent dead and cheer for it to continue.
Who is Sophie Schiall?
No one will remember them as heroes. Just as examples of educated kids falling for propaganda on social media.
Absolutely nobody will remember these students. The news cycle will change and they will be forgotten.
Funny made up number there. Why not use the official numbers instead?
They’re just as made up, so why shouldn’t progressives use a bigger fake number? Doesn’t it make their lies seem more impressive?
"100,000 innocent dead"
i cant wait till they ban tik-tok on you kids
You can’t even remember the number, in fact even that 30k was bs
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I can't remember any demand that was met with the Occupy Wall Street movement. I remember one lady handing out her resume (CV) to bankers and investors.
There's a lack of focus in campus protests this century. That's why there wasn't a really big fuss over the Iraq invasion or long-term occupation of Afghanistan. There isn't a big protest regarding climate inaction. Somehow they muster their efforts to protest a conflict the US doesn't have any more direct involvement in than the crises in Haiti or Myanmar or the Crimean annexation.
People seem to forget as the Gen Z and Gen X age out and we are in nursing homes they are running the country, they are not going to forget how they were treated. They are going to make sure everything we ruined won't be the way it is now. People forget this.
Millennials are going to forget though, is the implication I get from our omission?
(i) the group of protestors is a tiny, tiny fraction of their generation.
(ii) as people get older, they get more sense. Notice how the protestors are almost universally young? There's a reason why older people aren't there.
"Cambridge-based attorneys Lee D. Goldstein and Jeffery M. Feuer wrote a letter to MIT’s administration on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild saying the university could not evict students without a court order, arguing that the students have the same tenant protections as any other renter in Massachusetts."
They don't actually, by law they only have to be given 7 days' notice.