I was one of two MIT students found guilty of “disorderly conduct” relating to “improper use” of Tim the Beaver, MIT’s official mascot – the result of wearing it outside an Oct. 17 administrative meeting in a T-shirt saying “MIT complicit in genocide” and holding a sign calling for a “Free Gaza.” It led to the spectacle of administrators trying to physically take back the mascot costume – one crying out “There’s a signed waiver that says Tim the Beaver cannot make political statements!”
Failing to retrieve more than Tim’s paws, they immediately filed a complaint with the MIT Student Conduct Office, and MIT’s Committee on Discipline filed charges. When a disgruntled student tweeted about feeling “unsafe” after seeing Tim express himself, the photos quickly went viral.
How did Tim the Beaver break his use guidelines? According to MIT, Tim violated the only highlighted line in his rental waiver: “Tim cannot be used to make political statements,” in this case with a T-shirt meant to spread the word about MIT research sponsored directly by the Israeli military. The comically punitive response to a giant smiling beaver naming the genocide in Palestine reflects MIT’s fear of – as one disciplinary administrator emailed us – “the appearance of MIT endorsing certain positions.” Much like other universities, MIT has levied harsh punishments on students and faculty for violating new rules against “political” expression. MIT recently banned a student publication indefinitely for association with “terrorism,” suspended its author and used police to question students suspected of distributing it. Did Tim also violate these new rules? Were his actions a political statement?
Yes, but that isn’t the right question. Science is always implicated in politics, and this reality must be embraced and negotiated, not ignored and silenced. As an institution supposedly dedicated to evidence and reason, MIT already takes a number of “political” stances. These include the reality of climate change, that Black Lives Matter and on the validity of transgender people. If Tim’s shirt had read “Climate Change is Real,” “Trans Women are Women” or, more bluntly, “The Earth Revolves Around the Sun,” would MIT have responded with immediate disciplinary proceedings? The only difference is that acknowledging climate change, trans rights or heliocentrism currently requires less bravery than naming Israel’s genocide.
So yes, naming genocide is “political,” but like these other uncontroversial institutional stances it’s empirical. Social scientists and institutions have reached consensus that Israel’s actions meet the factual criteria for genocide as stated in the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute. As Amnesty International just stated: “Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: This is genocide. It must stop now.” It joins other mainstream institutions such as The United Nations Human Rights Office, which has declared Israel’s actions in Gaza to be consistent with genocide.
Why is acknowledging this reality regarded as inappropriately political, but doing research sponsored by the Israeli military (the only foreign defense ministry that directly sponsors MIT research) portrayed as “neutral”? What we know is that MIT administrators are deeply afraid of political reprisal. President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have promised to strip accreditation, fine, sue and defund universities that (in his racist words) “express support for savages and Jihadists,” i.e., stand against apartheid. The hostile congressional committee that grilled MIT president Sally Kornbluth last year will surely reconvene under a Republican congress.
We can’t respond to these threats from a position of fear. As scholars, we have an obligation to follow our principles, even (especially!) in defiance of a hostile Trump administration. MIT has mustered this courage before: In 2020, it sued Trump’s ICE to defend its international students. Just as MIT did then, Kornbluth must embrace this critical moment. Like Tim, she could denounce injustice instead of cowering behind the mask of a false neutrality that will not save her from right-wing reprisals. Scientific institutions must stand for facts, not feelings, in the face of political repression: President Kornbluth, say genocide!
Tim naming genocide is not a misrepresentation of MIT’s principles; it’s an affirmation of our core values of truth-seeking and ethical science. Calling out genocide also represents the MIT community’s views: MIT undergraduates and graduates voted formally to cut ties with from the Israeli military with support from many faculty. As MIT’s mascot, Tim the Beaver should express the antigenocidal beliefs of its school. Instead, MIT administrators want Tim to be an empty brand symbol, devoid of content or principles. This is unacceptable; MIT must take a public stand that Israel is committing genocide and refuse to be complicit in it. As everybody knows: beavers build homes, not bombs.
Mila Halgren, Cambridge
Mila Halgren is an MIT Brain & Cognitive Sciences doctoral student and a member of the MIT Coalition for Palestine.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Valid political statements do not require hijacking the school mascot as an unwilling accomplice. Take off the mask and speak for yourself.
I won’t address the politics, but the author is mistaken. Science is not inherently political—it seeks truth, though it can be used for political purposes.
The author also makes a flawed comparison between MIT’s support for transgender students and students of color and the situation in Gaza. MIT is supporting its own community, while Gaza represents an external political crisis.
The political left would do well to choose more appropriate targets—MIT is not the problem.
Science in America in the modern era is political if your work specifically is for a government or a government contractor.
MIT has been involved in Government sponsored science for most of its existence, though for much of the previous century that was to support the American Government and not foreign governments and their contractors.
That is the History of the University, period. Our military and society would not be what it is today without the science done at MIT, Dartmouth, Cal-Tech etc.
@Cambridgejoe That is overly simplistic. While it is true that government support has significantly influenced scientific research, this does not mean that all government-funded work is politically driven or biased.
Rigorous peer review processes and transparency requirements help maintain the objectivity of research, regardless of funding sources.
It is essential to recognize the broader context of scientific inquiry, which includes independent research and collaboration beyond governmental influence.