Reference: T171.M42k.C72 1949 Archives Reference and Barker Library

Major outcome: Addressed issues such as the role of faculty in non-curricular matters. Within their educational objectives, the Lewis Committee called for the provision of housing on or near campus for students, staff and faculty, and proposed the development of a physical plan which would consolidate residential life on the West Campus and academic and administrative activities on the East Campus. Housing was perceived as a way to support and encourage the values and goals of MIT's new residential academic community such as student individuality, diversity, and personal growth.

Conclusions: Institute land should be made available to fraternities. MIT should provide no financial assistance. Supervision by the Institute should be limited to financial and architectural supervision, and actions which may be required to prevent the impairment of the good name and reputation of MIT.

Charge: Studied questions of the relative responsibilities and authority of faculty, administration and student body in environmental matters and the role of the Committee on Student Environment.

Recommendations: Reaffirmed the responsibility of the Faculty to participate in shaping policy on environmental programs, and the particular obligations of the Committee on Student Environment in these matters. The Committee concluded that their proper role included:
A continual review of the established environmental programs from the point of view of their effectiveness in relation to broad educational objectives.
Running discussions, including speculation and theorizing, and looking towards recommendations for innovations.
Acting as a board with which the Dean (as well as students, staff and others) might raise questions for discussion.
Performing these functions, the Committee would act as inspector, critic, sounding board and counsel, and would make recommendations and hoist danger signals, as they appear necessary.

Reference: T171.M4233.S78 1956 Archives Reference, Rotch Library and Library Storage Annex.

Charge: Committee charged by President Killian to make recommendations about how to, "develop a residential system which has as its primary function the furtherance of the education of our students."

Recommendations: Develop a graduate center east of the main educational buildings. (Utilize and add to existing East Campus housing.)
Initiate a major program to improve the West Campus houses. (Convert existing graduate to undergraduate housing; construct new dorm for 400 students as well as a student center.)
Continue the practice of having living groups legislate and administer their own rules.
Continue to study the question of adequate housing and facilities for women students.
Consolidate campus residential life on West campus, and academic activities on East campus.

Quotes: Responsibility of the Institute - The best performance today of the purposes for which the Institute was chartered by the Commonwealth in 1861 is facilitated by the provision of residence on campus for as many students as possible. The potentialities which such residence affords for mental stimulation, social development, and maturing responsibility among student, for closer relationship between students and Faculty, and for general participation in a widening range of intellectual, aesthetic, and recreational community affairs are increasingly being realized. Full achievement of all of them is a prime goal of the whole endeavor. This is the basic philosophical reason for a residential system.
Responsibility of the Faculty - As the residential system of the Institute is expanded and becomes further stabilized and consolidates as part of the non-curricular educational program, consideration should be given to increasing the number of Faculty Residents sufficiently to reduce the number of students per Resident.

Reference: T171.M42h.R46 1958 Archives Reference

Charge: In November 1956 Chancellor Stratton asked an ad hoc committee chaired by Professor Philip Morse to study the future of the Graduate School. Although recommendations on certain specific topics related to housing were desired, it was agreed that these could be provided only in the context of a wider inquiry of graduate education.

Conclusions and recommendations relevant to housing: Establish a graduate center that will promote a sense of community among graduate students and scholars by providing residences for unmarried students, dining facilities, seminar and recreational facilities.

Major outcome: This report resulted in the establishment of the Bush-Brown Committee (1960) which made recommendations for a Graduate Student Center with a residential capacity of 600 students.

Background and recommendations: This report addresses facility and housing needs in anticipation of a steady population growth reaching nearly 16,000 students, faculty and staff by 1975. One of the recommendations for managing future growth and guiding development in this plan is for MIT to "develop a complete community on its campus to include academic, research, and residential and recreational areas." The housing component of this plan advocates making housing, "a vital part of an education at the Institute..." The authors of this plan addressed complex housing issues such as accommodating a growing number of married graduate students and providing a meaningful residential program where undergraduate and graduate students could benefit from a more comprehensive educational experience.

Reference: T171.M424.S964 Archives Reference

Reference: T171.M4234 1961 Rotch Library

Reference: T171.M424.K56 1963 Archives Reference.

Charge: As part of a major reexamination of undergraduate education initiated by the Committee on Education Policy during 1961-62, the Committee on Student Environment was asked to study the undergraduate residence system. The Committee limited itself to the examination of undergraduate housing for single men at MIT. (The academic study that paralleled this work was the Committee on Curriculum Content Planning chaired by Professor Jerrold Zacharias.)

Recommendations: The study reconfirmed that MIT's "undergraduate residential system is a strong instrument with which we may pursue important educational goals," and supported the present flexibility provided to students through the Institute-owned, fraternity, and independent living groups. The study also reconfirmed the Institute's policy of requiring all single male freshman to live in an Institute- owned house, a recognized fraternity house, or at home.
The study articulated the following shortcomings and needs:
The quality and character of the residential system are not consistent with those of the academic programs.
Significant need to accommodate an additional 600 students and renovate existing dormitory space.
Encourage programs that will involve more faculty members in the residential system. Expand the Housemaster-Tutor program and establish non-resident "Faculty Fellows" of each house. The Housemaster-Tutor program should be funded as an academic expense--not as part of the students' residential charges.
Each house--new or old--should be developed as a complete residential unit with common lounges, dining rooms, libraries, and recreation space.

Reference: T171.M4234.H6 1969 Rotch Library

Background and recommendations: This report was written as the nucleus of a plan of action to meet MIT's housing needs. It focuses on recognized groups within the MIT community who need housing such as undergraduate men and women in Institute and independent housing, as well as graduate students, married students, faculty and staff.

Reference: T171.M4234 1969 Rotch Library

Background and recommendations: This survey identifies and describes housing needs and markets for faculty, staff and graduate students in order to better inform the housing planning process. The results of this work served as the foundation for the Institute's goal of housing 50% of the graduate student community in Institute sponsored housing.

Reference: T171.M4234.S6 Archives Reference

Reference: T171.M4234 1973 Archives Reference and Rotch Library

Charge: By the late 1960's the Committee on Student Environment recognized that the rapid changes in social mores during the 1960's and "the concurrent changes in the character, interests, and expectations of the undergraduate body have led to increasing doubts as to whether the 1963 recommendations are still appropriate, or are now out of date. Accordingly, in November 1969, the CSE agreed to begin preparing a new housing report. The Committee confined itself to a reexamination of the undergraduate house system.

Recommendations: The main social goals of a residential system are to give each student the maximum opportunity to find an individual life style that is best suited to his/her own temperament, needs and goals, and to encourage maximum interaction among diverse students.
The potential of the residential system to play a significant role in the educational life of MIT undergraduates is hampered by the character of both the formal and the hidden curriculum, and such features as the emphasis on competitiveness, grades, and the accumulation of credits. However, the report encourages educational activities (seminars, experimental programs, etc.) within the houses.
Strong support is given to any efforts that would increase the number and effectiveness of non-resident faculty associates for the living groups.
A new and more flexible housing policy was recommended that would encourage the notion that changing from one house to another with a different physical and social style is perfectly natural and appropriate.
The belief that it is desirable for freshman and upperclassmen to live together was reaffirmed. But freshman should no longer be required to live on campus, but should be strongly encouraged to do so.
Highest priority must be given to the construction of new student residences.
While the Institute should try to encourage the mixing of different races, ethnic groups and life styles, this integration should not be enforced or required.
Coeducational living should continue to develop, but the community should address the question of whether the same environmental features are equally appropriate for male and female students.

Major outcome: The recommendations made in this report resulted in the construction of New House in 1975. The aim was to produce housing units that functioned independently and within a larger residence.

Charge: In response to frequently voiced dissatisfaction with various aspects of the meal plans, costs and quality of the food, Chancellor Paul Gray asked the Committee to assess the current system, assess university's responsibilities and explore alternatives.

Recommendations: The report reaffirmed the need to preserve diversity in the residence/dining options, but acknowledged that not every House can provide all dining options.
Steps should be taken to improve the flexibility, convenience, and financial equity of the dining plan offerings.
Students who do their own cooking must reside in Houses with properly maintained and regularly updated kitchen facilities (Burton House, New House, Senior House, Bexley Hall, Random Hall).
Students in Houses associated with dining rooms would be required to subscribe to one of several contract meal-plans which would provide about half or more of students' weekly meals, and the dining room would become an important focal point for the residential program.

Reference: T171.M4234.D6 1979 Archives Reference and Rotch Library

Major outcome: MIT established a revolving housing fund to finance future graduate student housing. The revolving fund was financed through the gradual increase of MIT's rents to approximately 90% of their market value and the equalization of these rents across campus housing.

Reference: T171.M2424.Q35 1984 Archives Reference

Background and recommendations: This report was prepared in response to MIT's "clear need for significant expansion of the supply of new housing available to serve graduate students, faculty and staff," and details possible housing options to meet MIT's future housing needs on Institute owned or controlled property. This report identifies 13 potential sites for new housing including 11 off-campus and 2 on-campus parcels.

Major outcome: This report inventoried the developmental capacity of MIT owned or controlled sites and matched them with MIT's housing goals. The analysis indicated that the Institute could meet its housing obligation for students, faculty and staff specifically to accommodate 50% of the graduate student body in Institute sponsored housing. Since that time the zoning has changed, and the developmental capability of the property has been reduced approximately 50% and further analysis is required to understand the impact of this rezoning in MIT's development capability.

Reference: T171.M42k.H68 1987 Archives Reference

Charge: Acknowledging the view that there is little or no sense of community across the Institute, the Committee was asked to consider how the residential system, and particularly the Housemaster - Tutor Program could address these issues.

Recommendations: A Faculty Fellows Program and a Faculty/Student Pair Program were proposed as ways to involve more faculty in the residential system, as well as allocating more space within the dorms for faculty/student interaction. The report also addressed the roles and responsibilities of the Housemasters, Associate Housemasters and Graduate Residents.

Reference: T171.M424.Z37 1988 Archives Reference

Charge: The Freshman Housing Committee was asked "to study the impact that R/O has on the quality of life and character of the MIT community, with special reference to the freshman class."

Recommendations: For the freshman year, it is recommended that all students be housed on campus in dormitories.
Freshman would be assigned to dormitories and would be distributed through the dormitories so that they would live with upper-class students.
Rush for ILG's would be deferred from R/O period to the spring term, with students who join ILG's moving into them at the beginning of their sophomore year.
Freshman who plan to remain on campus for the sophomore year would rank- order their choices for dormitory space, and a lottery would resolve competing choices. The system should be designed to encourage students to change dormitories (allowing them to move with one or several friends/roommates).
R/O would become Orientation.

Major outcome: The Committee's recommendations were not implemented out of concern both for the economic viability of the ILGs and for the tradition of the students' right to select his/her housing.

Reference: T171.M4234.U53 1989 Archives reference

Charge/rationale: In response to the Report of the Freshman Housing Committee, an ad hoc student group was formed, chaired by Stacy A. Segal, '90, to discuss the goals of the housing systems and propose some specific, practical and well developed solutions.

Recommendations: All MIT undergraduates should be guaranteed four years of housing.
The ability to choose one's living group at the start of freshman year must be preserved; this includes the option to live in the ILG System.
To solve the perceived problem of de facto segregation at MIT, the level of cultural understanding and awareness will have to increase on campus through educational, co-curricular, and extra-curricular activities, and special events to broaden the community.
MIT needs to respond to the increased number of women at MIT by increasing the number of housing options for women.
The R/O Committee needs to provide more extensive programs during R/O to increase the educational and social benefits of choosing a living group.
The method and perception of moving from one living group to another must be made easier.
Specific programs must be devised so that living groups will foster the academic and personal success of freshman.
The student Committee believes that the present housing system has many needs, and a multi-purpose dormitory would satisfy many of these problems.

Reference: Thesis, Urban Studies, 1991 Archives Reference and Rotch Library

Charge: While the charge to the Committee focused specifically on the question of whether and how to renovate Senior House, the Committee broadened its scope recognizing that they could not look at Senior House in isolation.

Recommendations: Renovate Senior House and maintain as undergraduate dormitory.
Use graduate housing (Ashdown) to respond to temporary undergraduate overcrowding.
Create additional graduate housing.