Unified Student Response
to the RSSC Phase II Status Report

Authored By
William Dichtel, Interfraternity Council
Jennifer Frank, Dormitory Council
Matthew McGann, Undergraduate Association
Luis Ortiz, Graduate Student Council
Jocelyn Wiese, Association of Student Activities

Direct comments on this report to response@mit.edu

1. Introduction

In the spirit of community participation in the decision-making process, we, the Undergraduate Association (UA), Graduate Student Council (GSC), Dormitory Council (DormCon), Interfraternity Council (IFC), and Association of Student Activities (ASA), offer the following response to the Phase II Status Report of the Residence System Steering Committee (RSSC). Though this document takes the form of a response, it should be noted that this proposal also works as a coherent system. Through our extensive collaborative efforts, we feel that this design is both representative and in the best interests of the MIT student body.

We began our process by establishing a set of common values. We were encouraged to note that our values were, by and large, in accordance with those presented by the RSSC, as well as those presented in such documents as the Clay Report and the Task Force Report. Realizing that merely stating values does not tell a complete story, we generated statements derived from our values that relate more specifically to the residence system. These statements not only give context to our values, but they also demonstrate how our values interact. The final step in our three-tiered process was a point-by-point analysis of the RSSC proposal with comments and suggestions for improvement.

Each of our respective organizations could have responded individually and provided such feedback. However, we chose to come together to create a more informed and representative response. In so doing, we feel we are performing a service to the community by synthesizing the opinions of groups whose views may have otherwise remained in conflict.

The reinvention of the residence system provides an opportunity to greatly improve the MIT community. Our respective groups share concern for the residence system at MIT. We applaud the RSSC for taking on this challenge. The following report is our contribution to this process.

2. Values and Key Statements

2.1 Values

It is crucial that any process begin with a statement of common values. We developed ten values that we believe should be at the core of MIT's new residence system.

1. Diversity of housing options within the MIT residence system is important for all students.

2. The opportunity to make choices for oneself is an important part of the MIT educational experience.

3. The residence system must be first rate and must be funded as such. This requires sustained support.

4. The system must support cross-community interaction between all groups of the MIT community, including freshmen, upperclassmen, graduate students, staff, faculty, and alumni.

5. Informal interactions among residents create more permanent and meaningful bonds than programmed interactions.

6. FSILGs provide a valuable living option that should be preserved.

7. The MIT residence system should promote excellence. Periodic experiments are necessary to try new ideas and adapt to the changing needs of the MIT community.

8. The residence system should foster graduate student community while simultaneously meeting their diverse housing preferences.

9. The residential system should promote responsible community governance as a means of developing leadership skills, building self-esteem, and fostering self-reliance and civic responsibility.

10. The MIT residence system is one natural and appropriate home of the community dimension of the educational triad.

After establishing our common values, we compared them with the values identified by the RSSC. Many values overlapped. However, several of our values were not contained within the RSSC values. Our values 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 appear to be unaddressed. We were especially surprised that cross-community interactions were never addressed as a value, an ideal at the core of the Task Force report.

2.2 Statements

These statements serve to bridge the gap between general values and specific recommendations. They demonstrate how our values are inherently interconnected. Numbers in brackets following each statement refer to the value(s) from which they were derived.

The diversity of the residence system is in the character of its living options, and not in the homogenization of living groups. [1,2,6,8]

Choice should be informed through recognition of such qualities as personality, character, support structures, culture, and interaction. These characteristics are best assessed in person, but can be assisted though supplemental, second hand information. [2]

Formal programs for cross-community interactions are an important and necessary part of the residence system. However, informal interactions play a greater role in building community, particularly in mentoring and advising. [4,5,10]

FSILGs provide support structures for freshmen, service to the greater community in the residence system, leadership experience, and alumni interaction. [6]

Opportunities to move within the residence system are beneficial to the individual experience. [1,2,3]

Graduate students have acute needs for safe, attractive and affordable housing. These needs are diverse. Characteristics of desirable housing vary across the population, and these desires cannot be completely met with additional campus housing. [1,8]

The overall residence system needs to contain features that encourage membership and eventual residence in FSILGs. Such features will ideally enhance, rather than detract from, the experience and range of choices for dormitory residents. [1,6]

Experiments need to have a clear, committed assessment plan, completion date, and success criteria. [7]

Residence halls should maintain control over internal affairs, including rooming assignments. [9]

Graduate student involvement in the residence system should be more than just as tenants or employees; peer relationships with other groups, particularly undergraduates, should be enhanced and encouraged. [4,8]

FSILGs should receive adequate and previously promised financial support for the four-year transition period beginning in the fall of 2001. [3,6]

As the Task Force Report defines, "'Community' refers to students, faculty, staff, and alumni who have come together for a common purpose of developing the qualities that define the educated individual." A greater campus-wide community is best constructed with interconnected smaller communities as its base. [all]

Natural homes of the "community" aspect of the Educational Triad include the residence system, activities, athletics, and dining. [10]

3. Response

3.1.1 The Freshman Year

We believe that unique qualities of the first-year experience extend to not only freshman, but also to graduate students, transfer students, and others. MIT should make efforts to address the special needs of all first-year students in the residence system.

3.1.1.1 Resident Advisors

We generally support the idea of resident advisors (RAs). We do worry about overreliance on this system to provide the necessary mentoring and advising to freshman. We also fear liability issues surrounding the RAs; they should be friends and not authority figures. They should not be held liable for disciplinary infractions of their freshmen, nor should they be required to testify against their advisees in such a situation.

3.1.1.2 Clustering of freshmen

We believe that clustering freshmen and RAs within their resident advising group may be beneficial. However, we believe that dorms should retain control over internal room assignments. Also, such clustering should not inhibit informal interactions with other members of the living group.

3.1.1.3 Freshman Hall

In the spirit of experimentation, we believe that adding a mostly freshman living option is a valid experiment. We do have significant concerns. This must be an experiment, with a clear assessment plan, success criteria, and an assessment date.

We agree that freshman programming should be increased. We are, however, concerned with focusing the programming in the freshman hall. All living options should be first-rate, and programming should be spread throughout the residence system in order to encourage interaction between living groups.

We believe that people who move from the Primarily Freshman Dorm (PFD) into FSILGs will adapt well because of strong new member education programs and the small, tight-knit nature of their communities. Currently, there is no program to help those who move into residence halls adapt to a new culture. We would like to see support for such a program.

Intellectual opportunities in the PFD, as with all of MIT's living options, should be available, for seminars, intellectual discussions, and the like. However, required first year classes should not be conducted here. While we aspire to an integration of residential and academic experiences, the first year is very academically intense. Freshmen need space to explore options outside the General Institute Requirements.

We believe that Ashdown House and MacGregor House are unique living options for their respective residents. MIT's residence system should provide a diversity of options at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Ashdown House, which was noted by the Task Force as being a model for building "a strong sense of community among graduate students," provides a supportive community for first-year and international graduate students. MacGregor House allows students, both freshmen and upperclassmen, to live in a residence hall where private space is readily available, while maintaining the highest ratio of community space to private space of all of MIT's residence halls. A reduction in the number of beds for graduate students is also completely inappropriate. For these reasons, we oppose the switching of Ashdown and MacGregor to accommodate the PFD.

There are several alternatives for the location of the PFD. One is Baker House. Its community spaces are ample, it has a dining hall, and it is close to central campus. It also has a floor plan amenable to clustering. A second option would be the new residence hall being constructed on Vassar Street. However, if this is the committee's choice, the RSSC must begin discussions immediately with the Founders Group such that it be designed appropriately. A third and more radical possibility would be to reconsider the location of the new residence hall. A long-considered development site is the area behind Kresge Auditorium, including its parking lot. Given the impending renovations to the Omniturf field, space may be negotiated to accommodate this. This option would be attractive because of its central location on campus. Additional savings may be garnered through eliminating the need to extend utilities to the end of the Vassar Street corridor at this time.

3.1.1.4 Selection of residence halls by freshmen

We believe that allowing freshman to select a temporary residence hall over the summer through literature and other information would decrease the stress of the first days at MIT. This process, however, should not allocate a permanent room or roommate. This task would be left to the individual residence halls.

Choosing a quasi-permanent room over the summer is problematic. A choice through literature, CD-ROMs, videos or other virtual means is not a wholly informed choice. These forms of communication would provide a less than total picture of the residence hall. As a result, selection would more likely be based on superficial rather than substantive factors. A more complete picture is only provided through personal interaction.

We believe that FSILG Rush should happen concurrently with a dormitory rush during Orientation [see section 3.3.1]. A dormitory lottery should be conducted with mandatory participation from all freshmen, though freshmen who choose to remain in their temporary dorm will be guaranteed space. Dormitories will then begin internal housing processes.

Following rush, new non-residential FSILG member classes may staple together in the dormitory lottery. Individual dormitories would be at their liberty to assign the stapled FSILG members as they see fit.

This expanded stapling would have many benefits. It would create strong FSILG-dormitory interaction. FSILGs would have a positive incentive to socialize and assist in programming in the residence halls. Over time, specific FSILGs and dormitories may develop strong relationships, creating a culture of cooperation. We also do not want to see the strong upperclass mentorship provided by the FSILGs disappear.

Expanded stapling, as opposed to having a house's members scattered across several dormitories, would especially promote FSILG interaction in residence halls. Dispersion would only encourage freshman to congregate together in their affiliated FSILG, and not on campus.

Finally, expanded stapling would also promote sophomore residence in FSILGs: moving out of a residence hall with a group of member friends makes the transition from dormitory to FSILG less intimidating.

3.1.1.5 "Sophomore Shuffle"

We believe that a lottery which would allow rising sophomores and upperclassmen to move to a different residence hall would help to change the current culture where moving is not the norm. The lottery will also allow students to select the culture that best suits their current desires, enhancing residence hall cultures. The existing housing confirmation process can be folded into this lottery system. All students will have the option to squat in their current dorm, at no penalty. It is important not to punish people who are happy with their original choice, nor to punish those who enter the lottery. No additional distinction should be made between returning and incoming residents in room selection.

3.1.2 An Entrepreneurial Spirit in the Residence Halls

We agree that students, faculty, and other community members who develop unique ideas should receive financial and administrative support. The Institute should also recognize and reward them for these important contributions.

3.1.3 Academic/Community Interface

We agree that the Institute should place an increased importance on integrating residential and academic life. The proposed "House Professors" program should be available to all of MIT's living options, not just the undergraduate residence halls. This program should have financial rewards -- perhaps research funds -- for participation. MIT should also take steps to increase faculty housing in close proximity to campus.

3.1.4. Community Spaces for each Class

Given the current lack of sufficient community area, we feel that setting aside precious space for each class would not be the optimal use of real estate. There is little justification for the prioritization of this project.

3.2 Theme Houses

MIT should provide housing options that will best support its diverse community. To this end, a limited number of theme houses would be beneficial to students. Approval for houses should necessarily require that it add to a diversity of options in the residence system, and not compete with existing student groups or living options. Theme houses must be able to defend the necessity of being a residential group as opposed to a non-residential student activity. Approval should also require that the theme reinforce MIT's educational mission. "Fly fishing house," by the above criteria, should not be approved.

It is crucial that the theme houses maintain character through some sort of selection process. Applications relating to the house's theme may be a good compromise between theme house needs and freshman equal opportunity.

3.3.1 FSILG Recruitment/Rush

After considering many options, placements, and permutations of FSILG rush, including those put forth by the RSSC, we feel that the best strategy would contain a pre-term rush combined with the aforementioned clustering system [see section 3.1.1.4]. We believe that a later rush would allow for only a slightly more informed choice. Furthermore, we feel that the advantages of an early rush coupled with expanded stapling far outweigh this benefit. In addition to benefits derived from stapled communities, the freshmen will receive the benefits of FSILG membership, including support and leadership opportunities, from the beginning of their time at MIT.

One way to allow freshmen to make a more informed choice with an early rush is to provide opportunities for incoming freshmen and FSILG members to meet and interact. This contact during the summer can dramatically reduce stress felt by incoming freshmen about the rushing process and about the transition to MIT. The current summer rush framework is one central reason why high satisfaction with early FSILG selection has been reported in many MIT statistical documents.

In examining the RSSC recommendations regarding FSILG rush, we developed several concerns. January's Independent Activities Period (IAP) is a time for educational endeavors. A rush in IAP, however, would detract from such endeavors not only for freshmen, but for the entire MIT community. Preparation for a January rush would severely limit the opportunities for employment or education of FSILG members during IAP. Another worry is that the relationship between residence halls and FSILGs would become extremely tense for the duration of the fall term, as FSILG members would inevitably use this time to informally rush. We have many of the same concerns, to a slightly lesser extent, about an October rush.

An early rush in a non-residential system eliminates many of the features that have been criticized in the current system. Particularly, our proposed system helps to unify the residential community at MIT, by actively cultivating relationships between FSILGs and residence halls. Our strategy overcomes the often voiced criticism that early rush unnecessarily divides the community. By housing new members in residence halls, early FSILG membership does not dominate the many communities in which the freshmen take part. Critics also cite the intense pace of rush as detrimental. However, changes to the current rush process can be implemented to lessen the intensity.

Such changes could include limitations in the current rules regarding activities outside of a house. Also, restrictions could be placed on the timing and number of phone calls and personal visits by an FSILG to a freshman currently rushing another FSILG. These are currently the most hectic factors facing rushing freshmen.

3.3.2 FSILG/Freshman Programming

We agree with the RSSC that freshmen would benefit greatly from mentoring and advising from FSILG members. However, we feel our proposed system of an orientation rush [see 3.3.1] and clustering [see 3.1.1.4] is the best incentive for FSILGs to provide programming and guidance in the residence halls. FSILGs are much more likely to be excited and willing to create programming for residence halls in which their new members live, and all of the freshmen in a particular residence hall would benefit from such programs.

3.3.3 Transition Support

While we agree that two of the biggest problems that will face the MIT housing system over the next few years are FSILG support and graduate housing, we have concerns with the RSSC solution linking the two. This is not a comprehensive solution to graduate housing needs, nor is it necessarily the optimal path to cross-community relationships for all. This program should be strictly voluntary, and financial support in the transition period should not rely on such a program.

The lessor/lessee relationship between houses and graduate students could prove to be problematic. One very important issue that has not been addressed is liability for both groups. It is clear that FSILGs will remain liable for all activity in their houses, whether undertaken by members or tenants. Distrust stemming from policing tenants would be detrimental to the residential experience of both parties. Conversely, the liability facing graduate students shown to be knowledgable of potential dangerous or illegal activities in an FSILG might be such to strain relationships further.

While this graduate student housing program might be an integral part of long-term FSILG survival, transition funding already promised should come without strings attached. We feel that it is fair for MIT to completely subsidize empty beds during the four-year transition period beginning in the fall of 2001. Contrary to many arguments, such a plan would not be a disincentive to having a strong rush. FSILGs are very aware that the strength of their communities and the future of their organizations are dependent on a strong rush. Such financial support plans could be based on several criteria, such as house capacity or the number of empty beds.

We applaud the RSSC for recognizing that transitional support is not solely financial. An expansion of SafeRide, for example, is an excellent idea which will improve access to and from the campus and FSILGs by all members of the MIT community.

3.3.4 Cambridge-based FSILG system

We support the option for FSILGs to relocate to Cambridge on a voluntary basis with the institutional support of MIT. We feel that this would likely be a very long-term plan that will have little bearing on the transitional period or current neighborhood hostilities.

3.4 Graduate Housing

Graduate students, who represent more than half of the student body, have the most diverse housing preferences of any sector of the residential community. Because of the restrictive metropolitan housing market, the availability of safe and affordable housing is of prime importance for graduate students. We agree with the RSSC's recognition of housing as a competitive force in graduate recruiting. We recommend an increase in the amount of on-campus housing for graduate students, and also call for an increase in institutional support and assistance in finding safe and affordable housing off campus.

In many respects, the demands graduate students place on the residence system and expectations of things provided complement those of undergraduate students. Graduate students are not only a valuable resource, but are also denizens of the oft touted "candy store" of MIT. Rather than viewing the impact of graduate students in the residence system solely as graduate resident tutors, they ought to be viewed as contributors to and consumers of the residence system's educational experience. New spaces on campus for graduate students should be attractive to the residents but as much as possible designed to promote the educational goals of MIT's residence system.

3.5 Expectations

We are heartened by the call for integration of student life and learning. We feel that the change expectations outlined for faculty and staff in the RSSC proposal represent a step in the right direction. We urge that the expectations be formalized, and that the Institute take all necessary to see that these expectations are met.

We agree that expectations for all students are centered on the individual. Students must take an active role in their education, including its residential component. The Institute must allow students this freedom and recognize choice and its value as an educational experience in and of itself.

3.6 Roles

We share the vision for the professional roles set forth by the RSSC. However, we reject the statement that the faculty are the sole "body responsible for the complete educational experience of MIT's students." It is not that we are rejecting the faculty's enormous contributions in education, but rather suggesting that they should not carry the burden alone. We strongly believe that students should take an active role in their educational experience.

A clear assessment plan must accompany the adopted design. It is wholly inappropriate, however, for the Residence System Steering Committee to be responsible for this assessment. We encourage the RSSC to develop a strong assessment plan, and to set up a framework for a separate body to carry out the assessment.