News

‘FSILG village’ plan gets tepid response

Distance from campus, legal risk, low supervision cited as proposal’s impetus

Fraternities, sororities, and independent living groups affiliated with MIT are spread over a much larger region of Boston and Cambridge than the campus alone, but a proposal to move multiple FSILGs onto campus may shrink their range considerably.

The proposal describes an MIT-owned plot, potentially located in northeast or west campus, on which MIT would lease buildings to FSILGs to form an “FSILG village.” The idea was originally presented by an MIT alumnus to the Association of Independent Living Groups (AILG).

Steve DeFalco ’83, one of the alumni leaders of the initiative, identified the requirement for freshmen to live in dorms, the introduction of meal plans, and a “demographic shift toward women” as changes within MIT that put pressure on fraternities. He added that students today lack the “handiness skills” needed to maintain their own houses.

DeFalco also said that students increasingly prefer to be closer to campus, and that parents want to see more supervision. He cited the litany of risks “in areas of safety, alcohol, and sexual assault” that have always existed without full control of the properties as reasons for a shift in living arrangements.

Because DeFalco also believes that fraternities are a benefit to campus, providing connections and communities, encouraging prefrosh to matriculate, and creating new cultures, he presented the FSILG village as a compromise between control over and preservation of fraternity culture.

The AILG applied a similar analysis to all FSILGs, and found that the sorority system is healthy and growing. Though fraternities and ILGs are stable in size, the AILG felt that their funding stores, even with alumni donations, are insufficient to maintain the “19th century buildings” they live in.

Options put forward for the design of an FSILG village include a cluster of small, free-standing structures; a townhouse-style building that would have some shared spaces and infrastructure; a loft-style structure somewhat like Burton Conner or Random Hall, with each floor unique but connected; and a re-purposed building, likely with shared infrastructure and space.

Because of the implications for student life, the AILG and Division of Student Life (DSL) surveyed alumni and students from all six sororities, 29 fraternities, and five independent living groups about the proposal in the fall of 2014. One response, generally the president’s, was taken from each of these alumni or student organizations.

Of 80 total alumni and student representatives, only five alumni “expressed high interest in the project,” and only five students thought it was at all likely that their living group would be willing to move into an FSILG village.

Alumni cited “tradition, assumed MIT ownership of the building, and Institute oversight” as reasons to reject the proposal, advocating strongly for continued independent ownership. Students were even more compelled by the latter two reasons. Most oppose MIT’s plan to lease buildings to the FSILGs’ individual housing corporations.

Interest was lower than expected because proximity and supervision were less important than the AILG predicted. For instance, survey responses showed that students generally considered proximity to campus to be a benefit, but did not consider it important enough to be a deciding factor.

Nearly all alumni and students responded favorably to questions regarding organization, maintenance, and “various metrics on chapter health” such as house conditions and finances. Most said their living groups were “excellent or good” — they all “perceive[d] themselves as above average,” and were “somewhat or very satisfied with their FSILG’s present status.”

This view was held despite the DSL’s finding that 57% of FSILGs have “reserves that are inadequate to cover even an optimistic estimate of current maintenance needs,” and the AILG’s belief that buildings are out of date and improperly kept. The DSL acknowledges that the contrast between their findings and the student responses “may reflect some concern about how the survey data will be used.” Ultimately, FSILG members are highly averse to a potential change.

Members of the AILG believe that if the FSILG village plan appears to progress, and if off-campus restrictions like the Boston ban continue to pose difficulties, the idea may become more popular among students. The AILG has also cited research indicating that many alumni do not consider their living groups’ relationships with surrounding communities to be positive and have concerns about long-term sustainability.

The DSL calculates that all MIT alumni-owned housing can be valued at $83 million — if FSILGs whose buildings MIT does not own were to move into an FSILG village, “this equity presumably would be available to invest in the project.”

Far more alumni and student organizations were interested in further discussion and planning than in actually moving, which the DSL believes is because “many groups may be sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see if there is a serious proposal put forth.”

25 Comments
1
Omri over 2 years ago

The fraternities would have an easier time maintaining funding levels if the inane freshmen-on-campus policy was rescinded.

2
Dorm resident '17 over 2 years ago

The article makes it seem like the people pushing this plan have two separate motivating factors:

FSILG members have gotten worse at putting in the effort and organization necessary to maintain their houses, their financial reserves, their own meals, etc., and/or they have become more interested in having someone provide/manage these things for them, and/or the need for these things has become greater.

FSILG members have gotten worse at managing risks / being bad people (i.e. alcohol, sexual assault), and/or Boston has gotten a lot less tolerant of it.

I have a hard time believing that it's both. Focusing on the single primary reason why this move might be necessary for some houses seems like it would be a better idea than lumping them all together and confusing/alienating/insulting people unnecessarily.

So which is it? And in either case, are FSILG members actually more irresponsible than they were in Steve DeFalco's day, or are the requirements just higher?

3
Harley over 2 years ago

What a horrible idea. I think most alumni would agree that we love our 19th century buildings, would strongly oppose any effort to leave them, and would stop any support to both MIT and the ILG were this proposal implemented. And the idea that the institute could appropriate proceeds from the sale of OUR property for this nefarious plan is, well, sheer theft. Give it up.

4
DW over 2 years ago

What I want to know is, why is MIT offering to devote resources and near-campus land to building residences for undergrad fratboys who don't want them while they're refusing to deal with the shortage of graduate housing near campus and rapidly rising rents in Cambridge?

5
Crust over 2 years ago

Why bring their debauchery closer to campus? The Harvard Bridge is a good arm's length to keep the FSILGs at. They don't even want this!

6
Anonymous over 2 years ago

The much-maligned "all freshmen on campus" decree is blamed by DeFalco for being one of the chief reasons why the fraternity system is under pressure to support itself. Commenter #1 referred to this policy as "inane". I was at MIT when it was instituted, and many people were against it since it would make it harder for the fraternities to recruit.

However, it's not the policy that's at fault. It's that many of the students that come to MIT don't find the idea of living in a frat attractive once they have a chance to get their bearings on campus and in classes. Maybe they make enough friends and there is enough fun stuff going on that they don't need to join a frat to have an active social life. When I went to MIT, we had to make a decision on where to live the first week and the implication was that your social life would be boring if you didn't choose a frat. Why do we need to find ways to support or move a sprawling frat system if it is fundamentally not where a new student would want to live if not quite literally rushed into the choice.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here.

The one thing I agree with commenter #3 about is that the old Brownstones look great and add character to the campus. The last thing MIT needs is for some famous architect to come in and build some montrosity on campus.

7
RAM over 2 years ago

In considering any changes to living arrangements or really anything, the administration needs to ask "Will this make students learn better?" This is a far better question than "How can we encourage trendy, antisocial lifestyles" or "How can we intrude into all aspects of students' lives?"

8
Freedom/Trump 2016 over 2 years ago

Q: " Steve DeFalco 83, one of the alumni leaders of the initiative, identified the requirement for freshmen to live in dorms "

People who are too young to live in their own home should not have the right to vote. If they are too immature to choose their housing, they are too immature to control the most powerful army on Earth and half your paycheck. Raise the voting age to 25, at least.

Q: " , the introduction of meal plans, "

Overpriced meal plans that cause financial ruin (the student loan bubble will pop soon) and prevent children from maturing into men. I've always opposed them, but the ever-expanding state wants them, so there they are.

Q: " and a demographic shift toward women as changes within MIT that put pressure on fraternities. "

As Aristotle and Schopenhauer noted, women essentially do not have the ability to reason. Barring extremely rare exceptions, women should certainly not be in universities, and their introduction explains much of the disaster that is the current PC university system. (Women have basically banned reasoning and religion in universities, making PC the only allowed form of rhetoric.)

Q: " He added that students today lack the handiness skills needed to maintain their own houses. "

Apparently the welfare state bureaucrats have gotten their wish: 20-22 year olds are now supposedly incapable of maintaining a home. In the past, you were often supposed to be living alone with a wife at that age, with little fancy technology to make life easy.

Q: " DeFalco also [...] cited the litany of risks in areas of safety, alcohol, and sexual assault that have always existed without full control of the properties as reasons for a shift in living arrangements. "

There is so little sexual assault on campus it is not worth mentioning. The principal reason for alcohol abuse is the lies people like DeFalco tell students. If you force-feed students lies, of course they'll think life is meaningless, become depressed/suicidal and abuse alcohol. It's just the natural way of things. If life is meaningless, might as well kill yourself and abuse alcohol. Duh!

7- RAM, happy to see your reasonable comment, but you are too tame. Perhaps it will soon be time to lay back as barbarians (Muslim terrorists perhaps?) chop the heads off the overgrown children inhabiting American universities. Hard to say they don't deserve it.

9
Freedom/Trump 2016 over 2 years ago

Also, what did I say a few months ago, when the article about co-ed fraternities was published? I said this is all a scheme to eliminate fraternities, and I was right. I'm like always right.

Generally, the leftist establishment aims to eliminate all-male spaces:

- First, sluts and whores succeeded giving women the right to vote, which helped accelerate the collapse of conservatism (weakening the military, borders, economic opportunity, and so on). Even Mormon Utah had to do women's suffrage.

- Next, the US put women in the workplace, helping to destroy the family and killing fertility rates. This caused the ongoing extinction of intelligent white people, ushering in Idiocracy, complete with Trump = President Camacho. Since intelligent women are expected to work instead of raising a family, only white trash people like Palin's daughters succeed darwinistically (and I say white trash despite the fact that I like Palin).

- Then, they put women in universities, making it so debate, dialectic and reason are impermissible in university, and accelerating PC neurosis culture. Now, universities have always been bad-- they advocated the holocaust in the Nazi regime, in the Soviet Union they advocated Communism (which had an even higher body count), etc-- but now universities are more intellectually stunted than at any time in history, with their bizarre beliefs in human equality. Nothing of value is being produced today in the university system, at least on the humanities side, except for maybe some of the work on cognitiive biases.

- Now, they're aiming to destroy fraternities, which are in some cases the only scrap of remaining culture in the university system (now, most frats might suck since men are basically turning into women; I'm not sure). Over ninety-nine percent of significant intellectual work (inventions, philosophy, etc.) has been done by men, and the only way that men can sharpen themselves up is by being with other men.

Women are ok but all-male spaces are necessary. Patriarchy is the basis of civilization, security and wealth, and I'm just scratching the surface of the bizarre attempts to detsroy it.

10
Freedom/Trump 2016 over 2 years ago

Ridiculous: 8 and 9 were completely on topic comments with zero controversial statements, and they get removed.

Further, The Tech has removed an on topic comment someone else made about homosexuality which only contained a quotation of the Holy Bible!

When you are not allowed to quote the Bible, one of the primary foundations of Western civilization, in the comments section of the main campus newspaper, you ought to know something is wrong.

Comments 8 and 9 were all common knowledge to all of our grandfathers. Many of our grandfathers fought wars to protect the US, and now one cannot even say their common sense beliefs.

Stupid is an understatement when it comes to the ways of the people at The Tech.

11
Freedom/Trump 2016 over 2 years ago

From a New York Times opinion piece in 1998:

"All around him [Klemperer] saw professors and intellectuals who abandoned reason for self-interest, who sided or temporized with the [latest destructive lie]. He saw so many, in fact, that if he were to determine the fate of the [country's people] he might let ordinary people and even some leaders [involved in the lie] go. ''But I would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest; they would be left hanging from the lampposts for as long as was compatible with hygiene."

I think, in today's time, journalists and media men would need to be put up higher than the professors.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/29/opinion/editorial-observer-the-noble-ideal-of-rationalism-in-nazi-dresden.html

For the purpose of documentation, here are the censored comments that The Tech does not want to put on its site.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=718WNsUz

12
David Orozco over 2 years ago

Instead of investing resources in building this village, MIT should instead work with the city of Boston and Cambridge to help protect and strengthen the fraternity system.

MIT has one of the strongest fraternity systems in the US and is incredibly unique among top tier universities. They are micro cultures where students from other universities in Boston and Cambridge travel to see. I would argue that many ties between local schools and MIT are maintained via the fraternity system.

I also question DeFalco's overall grasp on how fraternity houses are maintained. Speaking for my own fraternity, the undergrads do a great job of maintaining the house. It is a place where they learn how they "handiness skills" because students definitely do not learn these things in a dorm room where others are responsible for cleaning student messes. As an undergrad in a fraternity, for reference I graduated in 2014, I learned about really living with people and how to work with them to maintain a house. This skill is not something you just learn, it's something you practice. Isn't MIT in support of learning?

I also want to voice how undergrads, at least in the past few years, feel like they are under attack from MIT. Fraternities especially feel like they are chastised far worse. Fraternities in general are safer than dormitories because we have programs to teach about safe behavior, something that doesn't exist for dorms. MIT is quick to hide anything negative that occurs in a dormitory, but lashes out when the same thing occurs at a fraternity (though far less frequent). This kind of behavior is simple unacceptable.

MIT's methods and views towards the fraternity system needs to change drastically. If it continues to attack them, it could irreversibly destroy another part of MIT culture. MIT already destroyed the culture of Bexley, there are rumors that it will do the same to East Campus, and an attack on the fraternity system (yes, it is seen as an attack) will drain MIT of it's free and creative environment that is so very necessary to science and engineering.

13
Current ILG member over 2 years ago

The AILG and DSL "believe" many things but if this plan goes forward it will be yet another slap in the face of student independence and culture at MIT. Many of these arguments are laughable and would be better solved by fundraising and student training programs.

The real reason people are interested in further discussion is because they are afraid that they will be left out of the decision if they say they don't want to talk about it.

Also, if you have problems with your surrounding community the logical solution is to talk to them, not to move closer to campus.

This plan sounds like MIT is trying to babysit FSILGs instead of allowing them to prepare themselves for life in the real world.

14
Freedom over 2 years ago

Honestly, fraternities probably deserve to go down. When Bill Frezza, who has done a lot for fraternities, said drunk women are a problem for frats, the frats threw him under the bus. Go to hell, fraternities. You deserve to get your butts plundered by the hyenas who run MIT. Keep that tuition rising, MIT! Kill that middle class! Kill the fraternities! Kill! Kill! Kill! The red-haired rape culture activists, the weak-wristed depression culture therapists, the suit-wearing meal plan organizers, the pea-brained dorm room managers, the childless diversity specialists demand more blood, more children, more brains! Coddle us so we can become lambs ready for slaughter! The communist utopia is almost here. The Tech! Youve been doing a great job! Give us some more articles on those co-ed fraternities and that rape culture! Bash those fraternities as hard as you can, and make sure to kick anyone out of the newspaper who defends those ... privileged ... frats. I'm almost becoming a Communist now. YEAAAAAAH!!! Feel that progressive victory! We are on the right side of history! It's 2015! Hope and change is in the air.

15
Anonymous over 2 years ago

I have a question for Freedom:

Is it more communist/socialist for:

1) freshmen to be encouraged to join fraternities where upperclassmen tell them what to do as pledges. In some ways, they are like their parents.

OR

2) for the university to decide that freshmen shouldn't join fraternities for a year.

16
Freedom over 2 years ago

Sounds like an honest question, very happy to answer

You need a state, you need order, you need morality. Somebody needs to rule. In the ideal society, the most courageous, wise, wealthy, popular, competent people will rule-- this just makes sense: if you have an honest alpha male, the women will be happy, and the men won't be abused too much, since they help give the alpha male legitimacy.

Under communism, the most skillful manipulators and liars will rule, since the philosophy is based on the total lie of equality and the absolute goodness of people, so the people most skillful at taking advantage of these lies will win. As Joe McCarthy truthfully stated, many American politicians were Communists, which makes sense.

In contrast, under capitalism / social darwinism, the smartest investors and businessmen will acquire the most wealth. So this is rule by the most competent, a concept which I'm inclined to like, since it pushes people to become the better version of themselves, and also reduces economic scarcity.

Socialism differs from capitalism, and resembles communism. Everyone gets wealth, in theory, which makes people weaker and more stupid since they don't have to work intelligently. It kills the economy. Also, in practice, the better connected people will be able to take advantage of the gigantic socialist state, which is why many billionaire oligarchs don't really mind socialism.

The modern form of communism is political correctness, which is the ruling philosophy of America. The physically weak beta males in DC, academia and media love it. Again, we see lies such as "men and women are the same and should be paid the same," "women should never feel uncomfortable during sex, but should have complete freedom to make sexual choices," "if one race is doing better than another race, it's oppression," and so on. The US, particularly colleges, has a full blown communist infection, and I hate it.

The polar opposite of communism is the family unit. In the family, the parents work for the best future for their children, and everyone understands each other and tells the truth to each other. Parents care for both the smart and stupid kid, but understand the smart kid will do better.

It's pretty easy to see universities are socialist. Frats are capitalist because you have the freedom to choose the one you want (and I like the comparison you make to parents, that makes frats look really good). They turn students into men.

17
Freedom over 2 years ago

If you follow all that, one of my many points in comment 14 is that many frats actually submit to political correctness and feminism, as shown by their response to Frezza. This is caused in part by of all this interfraternity council garbage. So frats are submitting to the communist order and might as well go to hell with all the other students. If you shout "kill me please!" you might as well get killed. I just don't have respect for them.

Now Frezza might actually have some communist leanings himself; he actually seems to believe in racial equality, so I probably don't even have that much respect for him either. However overall Frezza appears to be a very smart chap who was successful in business, and that might just be a little bit of stupidity.

One of the key ideas is that, if you are a man, you have control of your head. You don't need to believe the commie lies (you just need to publicly present like you do). Get off the hard stuff. Stop using it.

18
RAM over 2 years ago

I guess it's sort of fitting for a PC university to have PC living groups. The farm team or incubator for runaway government expansion.

19
Freedom over 2 years ago

Yup, RAM gets it. (He's probably several years older than me and thus wiser and less infected by the modern strand of PC. What a good guy! Give this man suffrage!)

The farm team is a good metaphor. Here are three example strategies of the establishment: (1) convert people into leftists by massaging them into PC ideology in college, (2) import low IQ (natural leftist) voters from poor countries via mass immigration, (3) discourage family formation (incentivize women to pursue careers, incentivize divorce via radical family courts, disincentivize gender roles, etc.) to increase the number of single women and messed up kids (who become leftists). End results? (1) Student loan bubble and bad academic standards because college now appeals to lowest common denominator (people who shouldn't be in college). (2) White people soon a minority (in a country that has historically pursued pro-white immigration policies), accelerating white ethnic displacement (see South Africa). (3) Lots of broken families, especially in the working class.

Let the fraternities die, let the average white person disappear. They brought this upon themselves. They consistently trusted, voted and paid for people who lie to them and want to hurt them (and, by the way, these people are currently filling up universities, newspapers, TV shows-- they are the most respected people in the country according to the masses). The masses keep believing the lies because it's comfortable. They let the government decay into a system that is doomed to fail. What kind of person decides to lower the voting age to 18? What kind of person thinks 18 year olds are mature enough to decide what to do with nukes? People are foolish and don't know what's best for them.

Look, I know fraternities decrease the chance of rape. I know fraternities increase networking opportunities and increase the value of MIT education. I know fraternities make college life more fun for men and women and increase academic performance. I know fraternities help you grow up and learn how to live in your own place. Blah blah blah.

But you know what? It does not matter. Fraternities are not politically correct ideas. You are too easy to take advantage of. You are "exclusionary," "discriminatory," "sexist" and "not feminist." We can lie about you and say that you promote rape and that it's unsafe to live in a frat. And we're in a school that is PC beyond belief because of reasons I'm not allowed to say. Bye bye frats.

20
Anonymous over 2 years ago

I don't know why Freedom equates manliness with capitalism. Fidel Castro was a pretty manly guy--it doesn't make him any less a communist.

By extension, frats, even if legitimately "masculine" by your definition, will never be about the exchange of free thought--or even, in a more capitalistic vein, will never be about the Darwinism of ideas (i.e., the best idea wins out).

21
Freedom over 2 years ago

I don't have a clue about Fidel Castro or his levels of 'manliness.' I don't have a clue about right-wing Pinochet either, though I've heard he looked pretty effeminate. But I don't care. Those are just figureheads (clowns for the people), and I'm giving you heuristics. Heuristics are simple (easy to transmit), often wrong, but usually right, and when they are right, they are very very right. That's the best way to live. You follow heuristics, not dead and fast rules.

Find a muscular guy, and he'll usually be honest and right-wing. Find a weak beta male, and he'll usually be left-wing. Leftism is an alternative male strategy for getting ahead: instead of working hard and being the best you can be, you find a concoction of deceptive ideas that hurts vulnerable people and helps you get ahead. Then you frame these ideas in ways that look good (equality! social justice! sexual freedom! end rape culture! end the patriarchy!) but are actually lies. Then you protect that frame with political correctness (discrimination! racism! sexism!) and use bullets if anyone violates the frame.

For example, about half the US population opposes gay marriage. If you take the right-wing position and speak out against gay marriage (not because you want to hurt gay people, but because you believe gay marriage hurts the common good by hurting family formation, weakening gender roles, reducing fertility, etc.) you will be called "homophobic" and leftists will attempt to hurt you in any way possible. Example of this: Once I said gay marriage was bad on my Twitter account, and then I was promptly perma-banned from a gaming forum I was very active in due to homophobia, even though my Twitter account had nothing to do with gaming. This is normal behavior from leftists (check out what happened to the ex-CEO of Mozilla). (The leftists that do this are always ugly people externally-- attractive people don't have to use deception to get ahead.)

However, if you support gay marriage, nothing bad will happen to you ever (notice all the rainbow profile pics and corporate logos). The life strategy of right-wingers isn't about gay marriage this or that. It's about raising themselves up and helping others in the process. So they tend to assume the best in people and not do petty political fights. The silent majority is always the right. However, they lose politics because of this.

Call it two different styles of masculinity. Right-wing = add value. Left-wing: trick people.

22
Freedom over 2 years ago

This aligns very closely, of course, with the professions. If you are going to be a top consultant, economist, journalist, artist, professor or politician, you start thinking like a leftist ("how do I get money without actually producing anything of value?"), and soon you become one. On the other hand, if you look at miners, farmers, businessmen, CEOs, etc, anyone that produces value for people basically, they will all generally be conservatives. The statistics bear this out. Journalists are scum of the earth, and they're ninety percent plus on the left (look it up).

Also promiscuous people will be more comfortable with trickery and deception. So they tend to be on the left. That's why it's very important for the left that divorces be easy and marriage be de-incentivized as much as possible. And the naive right actually thinks the left is doing this on good faith, so they let them do it.

So you asked about fraternities. First, men and women are very different. There is basically zero common ground between men and women. (I recommend "On Women" by the German philosopher Schopenhauer.) Men compete to be the best, women choose the best. That's basically how it works.

When you mix men and women, men start competing to be the most popular to women. They focus on style, muscles, pick up skills, smooth talking, popularity, and so on.

When men are alone, they compete between themselves. Who is the smartest? The most successful? And so on. They sharpen themselves in nobler human pursuits, instead of focusing on the baser, more animalistic challenge of sexual selection.

The best way to weaken men is to take away all-male spaces; good studies have repeatedly shown that male academic performance drops drastically when they get involved with women. (The result of women entering college is common knowledge among many smart people, though understandably rarely talked about in public.) This is the perfect opening for a leftist revolution.

Some of the key ingredients of fraternities are:

(a) All-male space: Help men do better in life (rather than having the temptation to obsess over girls). This reduces rape, naturally. But feminists are leftists, so they claim this increases rape.

(b) Independence, personal growth

(c) Free choice, competition. (Students are allowed to choose the best fraternity and quit if they don't like it.)

Now I'm just scratching the surface but hopefully you understand that I'm a genius and totally right by now...

23
Anonymous over 2 years ago

"(a) All-male space: Help men do better in life (rather than having the temptation to obsess over girls). This reduces rape, naturally. But feminists are leftists, so they claim this increases rape.

(b) Independence, personal growth

(c) Free choice, competition. (Students are allowed to choose the best fraternity and quit if they don't like it.) "

How is this different than choosing from all-male dorms?

24
RAM over 2 years ago

Freedom wrote above, "On the other hand, if you look at miners, farmers, businessmen, CEOs, etc, anyone that produces value for people basically, they will all generally be conservatives."

No so fast. In the recent Indiana fight over the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), Governor Pence was blindsided by the many Hoosier business leaders, especially in big business, who enthusiastically and aggressively joined the PC crowd. These had been processed by the very best universities into social liberals. Much of business nationally has been co-opted. This is where crony capitalism takes off.

25
Freedom over 2 years ago

24- Yes correct as usual RAM. Although businessmen are heavily conservative since they actually produce value, big business is in bed with PC political class, and thus often loudly adopts ruling PC ideology. RFRA fiasco was case in point, and it's too bad the good honest conservatives of Indiana (peaceful farmers and the like) couldn't stand up to sanctimonious two-faced apparatchiks like the Apple CEO. We see Communism seeks to outlaw Christianity / traditional religion, whether it's in China, Russia or US. This despite Christianity being one of the least fraudulent ideologies out there: Mormons are happier, healthier and more successful in their personal lives than atheists. Christianity built the West, and now communists seek to destroy it. The elite university brainwashing is another angle to it as well. Notice how talking about Christianity as a Christian is in practice illegal in elite universities (especially as it relates to gender roles) due to restrictive speech codes and official anti-Christian ideology.

23- I'm not sure if you're being naive or evil. If progressives own something that isn't progressive they'll make it progressive. In other words, all-male dorms aren't a stable equilibrium. Progressives will come in and make it co-ed pretty fast to reduce privilege. Also, less independence, personal growth, ownership since you're not in charge of the house. Also, more regulation and less freedom since university staff is in charge of you and will try to regulate it to minimize the benefit of the all-male space etc.