GSC DEI Recommendations Scorecard

The GSC Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee has collected lists of recommendations presented across a majority of the departments at MIT. These recommendations are made by students to their department administration in response to #ShutDownStem discussions that took across MIT on June 10, 2020. This scorecard both compiles all the departmental recommendation lists in one place, and tracks progress of their implementation.


We specifically focus on formalized recommendations and demands written by students and departmental student groups that have been communicated to department administration. We do not consider informal suggestions or plans made during town hall discussions or recently formed DEI committees/task forces without a charter or goal yet. 


GSC DEI has coordinated with students and student group contacts in each department to keep progress scores updated. Each recommendation can receive a score of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0. See the section on the Scoring System for more details


We recognize the significant work being done across MIT towards building an equitable, diverse and inclusive community. We hope that the Departmental Recommendations Scorecard will further this work by serving as an accountability tool and encouraging the sharing of ideas across campus.

Common Recommendations


School of Architecture + Planning
School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
School of Engineering
Sloan School of Management
School of Science

The Scoring System

The scoring system for the DEI Recommendations Scorecard is modeled from the MIT ICEO Recommendations Scorecard, which was created by Ed Bertschinger with input from many others.  According to the Recommendation Scorecard model, “the scorecard aims to have enough detail to justify the scoring to a ‘reasonable person’ standard.” The scoring is subjective and is based on the experience of the contact person for each department working closely with groups affected by the recommendations.


Each recommendation can receive a score of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0.




No implementation of recommendation.


Some progress towards implementation of the recommendation. First steps have been taken, but progress has not reached an inflection point. It is possible for progress to stall and not reach full implementation. 

Alternatively, the recommendation is a multi-component task that has been implemented only in part.

Example from 2010 Hammond Report Scorecard:

Recommendation: The MIT Corporation should play a role in active oversight via the visiting committees.

Score: 0.25 – Implemented in one school but not the others.


Partial implementation of recommendation. Significant irreversible progress beyond initial discussions has been made.

Example from 2010 Hammond Report Scorecard:

Recommendation: All junior faculty should be introduced to the Faculty Personnel Record or other relevant device or form used to assemble the promotion package in the first year. 

Score: 0.5 – Electronic Faculty Personnel Record used by some schools and departments, but not all departments introduce starting faculty to the elements of promotion and tenure packages


Recommendation has been implemented, but not to the original specification.

Example from 2010 Hammond Report Scorecard:

Recommendation: Formal mentors should be assigned to all junior faculty hires as part of an Institute‐wide policy on mentoring.

Score: 0.75 – Formally accomplished and described in Policies & Procedures Section 4.1.2. However, two or more mentors are not assigned in all schools and external mentors are generally not assigned.


Full implementation of recommendation