[dmlerner]

Admin just doesn't care that much which speakers are allowed on campus. Like many progressive things students loudly champion, it's pretty immaterial and easy to just give in. It's not like it affects MIT's status or funding as a world-leading research institute.

By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about.

It's unclear to me that SH created more liability than frats and alcohol, but maybe, and it was certainly the perception.

[ShredKazoo]

>By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about.

Did they think about putting Senior House on probation or something like that?

[dmlerner]

I honestly forget. I don't think they were ever on probation per se, but it's not like SH was blindsided. There was plenty of awareness that admin was increasingly unhappy. What I won't claim to understand is what pushed them over the line to actually doing it. I think it was more slow, evolutionary decreasing of tolerance for everything than any particular incident.

I'm bitter about the whole thing, and also the upcoming [renovation of EC](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_...) (the next dorm over, physically and culturally). The building is realistically past due for some TLC, but it's hard not to feel like it's motivated from more than that.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

Their goal wasn't to be fair, it was to decrease liability.

[fallingknife]

Why is it that colleges have had wild parties in campus housing for decades, but only now it's a "legal liability" and has to be stopped?