Dorm Cultures? (Question for Texas137)

<p>To clarify the current situation, you're right: there now <em>is</em> a possible connection between your initial lottery placement (where you are "temped" for orientation) and your final dorm, where there didn't used to be any correllation. During the second lottery (the Readjustment Lottery), you once again list all 18 dorms. They will try to shift people around to dorms they find more desireable, as space is available, but you will not be placed any lower in your list than your temp dorm. In other words, if you rank your temp dorm #1, you'll be staying there. If you put it #4, you might get left there, or be placed into any of the 3 you listed above it. After the Readjustment Lottery, current residents of each dorm shuffle the newbies around into rooms, and mostly they are not allowed to stay in their temp room (with some justification that they want newbies to actually check out other dorms and floors, not just get lazy and decide to stay where they are -- moving them to another room guarantees they can't "stay put").</p>

<p>My son will be in East Campus by the end of the month; see you in October? (Curiosity: When you chose your screen name last fall, were you thinking of Random Hall specifically?)</p>

<p>
[quote]
And now I get to comment that "Random" has got to be one of the most, er, random names for a dorm I have ever heard. The first time I saw it in print I thought it was a joke.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, it IS a joke. Or, at least there's a funny story about the name. When MIT decided to buy an old apartment building near Central Square and turn it into a dorm in the late 60s, the students thought it would be amusing to call it "Random House." The original house president and an MIT dean even invited Bennett Cerf, then president of Random House publishing company, to come to the official dedication.</p>

<p>The company was, apparently, NOT amused and the company's lawyers wrote some stuffy "cease and desist" letter threatening a lawsuit over trademark infringement.</p>

<p>So....officially, the name had to be changed to "Random Hall," though I understand that residents used the designation Random House unofficially for some time afterwards. </p>

<p>When you think about the amounts of money that donors pay to get their names on college buildings, not to mention the amount of money that company's pay for the free publicity that comes from things like "product placements" in movies and TV programs, it's pretty funny that Random House publishers insisted that the dorm's name had to be changed! (I believe there was some discussion of trying "Maxwell House" next!)</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/random-hall/www/History/founding_and_naming.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/random-hall/www/History/founding_and_naming.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>On a MUCH sadder note, there have been two young women who have committed suicide in dramatic highly publicized cases at Random in the past 5 years. There are two wrongful death suits pending.</p>

<p>In April 2000, Elizabeth Shin, a bio major, burned herself to death in Random. As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, her parents are suing because MIT mental health professionals did not keep them informed as to how Elizabeth's mental state had worsened right before her death and administrators at colleges all over the country are watching that case very closely.</p>

<p>Just one year later, in April 2001, Julie Carpenter, another young woman in Random, a chemical engineering major, committed suicide by taking cyanide. Her parents are also suing MIT for wrongful death, saying that MIT authorities failed to protect their daughter adequately from a stalker who had been a fellow Random resident--allegedly he had used a master key (which he had possesion of because he worked the front desk at Random) to break into her room, taken videos of her with her boyfriend which he later showed to others, captured keystrokes from her computer keyboard in order to discern her IM conversations, camped out on a couch outside her room, etc. Although he admitted he had behaved inappropriately had been originally required to move out of Random, an MIT disciplinary panel later ruled that he could reapply to live in Random again the following fall.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The panel made its decision on Friday, April 20, 2001, the suit says. The following Wednesday, Carpenter “picked up a copy of the panel’s decision left in an unattended room and signed for it,” the suit says. “No one from MIT spoke with Julie concerning the contents of the decision or monitored her reaction to it.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A few days after she read the panel's decision, she used her laptop to order cyanide, which she took a few days later. The copy of the ruling was found in her room after her suicide.</p>

<p><a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N27/27carpenter.27n.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N27/27carpenter.27n.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Especially given the small size and close-knit community of Random, these two suicides must have taken a terrible toll on everyone around them.</p>

<p>Ironically, token, as the article above mentions, Julie attended a birthday party on the Random roof deck the night before her suicide at which only lemonade and chocolate chip cookies were served. The article gives no indication that alcohol was involved in her death--just a very troubled student dealing with a combination of a very demanding curriculum and an obsessed and immature young man who did not respect her right to any sort of privacy---and an institution which was not sensitive enough to realize that she might want some reassurance that she would be protected from further intrusions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N27/27carpenterside.27n.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N27/27carpenterside.27n.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>According to the timeline in the above article, he did not dispute the charges against him at the February 19 judicial committee meeting. He was required to move out of the dorm, but it seem that it took quite a bit of time for him to actually move out...he finally moved out on March 7. On April 20, the administrative review panel decided he should have weekly counseling sessions and read 3 books about victim trauma and write an essay before he would be allowed to apply to move back in in the fall.</p>

<p>On the face of it, this somewhat boggles the mind. A young man admits that he abused the master key entrusted to him as part of his job monitoring the front desk to REPEATEDLY invade a young woman's privacy in this way. Back when marite and texas137 went to college, I would think such a person would have been kicked out of college for GOOD, not just asked to move out of his dorm for a few months (while apparently staying enrolled as a student.) </p>

<p>Julie's boyfriend and friends had become deeply concerned as she became suicidal over this issue by late February. A firiend's mother who happened to be an M.D. learned how troubled Julie was and--with Julie's permission--Dr. Josephson communicated her concerns to MIT officials in considerable detail in late February. Dr. Josephson's letter ended poignantly: "I chose to write to you to be certain that this problem would not be kept from your attention. We’ve lost too many MIT kids to suicide. Please help."</p>

<p>Yet nobody at MIT was sensitive enough to monitor her reaction to the discovery that the administrative panel had agreed to allow her stalker to reapply to move back in to Random.</p>

<p>It sounds as though the information from Dr. Josephson (the friend's mother) got lost in the shuffle/administrative maze and didn't wind up in the hands of the people who really needed to know---the counselors working with Julie and the people on the administrative panel dealing with the issue. </p>

<p>There are a lot of troubling issues here...we're only seeing one side of the story in these articles, unfortunately, but on the face of the facts in the Carpenters' lawsuit, it's hard to understand why the MIT administrators and mental health people were not more sensitive in this situation---especially in the wake of a tragic suicide a year before in the same, small, close-knit dorm where one would imagine that everyone knows one another.</p>

<p>Wisteria:</p>

<p>Thanks for posting this. Things were indeed different when I was in college. And this just shows that mature or not, students are not always able to handle things on their own because college administrators do not always make the right decisions. This is a case where I wish that her parents had been more involved.</p>

<p>"Most of Random's governing structures have 'Comm' in their names because none of us can spell comiteee."</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/random-hall/www/Rush/people.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/random-hall/www/Rush/people.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Most of this stuff about Random Hall is HILARIOUS. And I'm glad to know that the name Random Hall really means "random," and isn't after the family name of some rich donor. That kind of cheeky humor is one of the appealing things about MIT. </p>

<p>But I hope everyone reads Wisteria's post (post #22) in this thread and follows this thread, because there is something seriously awry about the MIT administration if students are ending up dead even after classmates and thoughtful adults communicate concerns about their safety. That's not a joke.</p>

<p>To answer mootmom's question:</p>

<p>No, I did not pick random dad with Random Hall in mind. I picked randomdad meaning 'just another' dad. </p>

<p>When the college selection process started (and I picked this name), I really did not know what college my son would attend (and I don't think he did, either.)</p>

<p>I am not a lawyer, but I think that stalking is a recognized crime, so couldn't Julia have used the criminal justice system to get a restraining order against the stalker, that MIT would have to honor? Shouldn't the school's legal department actually helped her with this? How involved were the parents? </p>

<p>What I can't understand is why crimes like (date) rape and stalking seem often to be dealt with by committees at universities instead of by the local police. I know this varies by college and jurisdiction, but often it seems that "boys will be boys" is still the patronizing attitude taken. (I know that women can also be accused of similar crimes, but usually it is men who commit these crimes, and that is a side issue).</p>

<p>I would think at the very least the stalker would have been moved immediately out of the dorm, or Julia would have been moved and protected. Where was the disconnect in this situation?</p>

<p>As to the other case, I cannot understand whom MIT felt it was protecting to not inform Elizabth Shin's parents of her deepened depression and suicidal tendencies, esp since her friends were aware of it?</p>