Ad-Hoc Committee on Locals

Ad-Hoc Committee on Locals

The final version of the report (authored by a subset of the committee) is available here: Report

Co-Chairs: Eric Cigan ’83 (LCA) and Alice Leung ’93 (ET)

Members: Jacob Oppenheimer (FSILG Office), Brittany Scancarella (FSILG Office), Bob Ferrara ’67 (DSL), Elizabeth Cogliano Young (UAAP), John Kowtko ’83 (DU), Caitlyn Mason ’17 (Panhel representative), Erin Main ’16/Sasha Crandall Fleischman ’18 (LGC representative), Etienne Demarly (G) (Fenway), Steve Summit ’87 (pika), Andrew Sudbury ’00 (TEP), Bob Sandman ’48 (AEPi), Brandt Nelson ’17 (IFC representative), Roy Russell ’79 (PBE)

AILG Ad Hoc Committee on Local FSILG Chapters Committee charge

Proposed by Alice Leung, Eric Cigan and Bob Ferrara June 18, 2015


  • MIT’s diverse FSILG system includes three fraternities and four independent living groups that are “locals” – i.e., groups without national organizations.
    Some of these started as local groups, while others emerged as locals after severing ties with their former national organizations due to fundamental differences (such as coed vs. single-sex membership).
  • These local chapters have demonstrated over the years that they serve a vital role in offering distinct living options to MIT students and provide a living connection to their alumni members, but in recent years MIT has eschewed the creation of additional local chapters out of concerns with their sustainability in the current environment.
  • Discussion and evaluation of the goals, benefits, drawbacks, and alternatives to this current policy will help the MIT FSILG community.
  • Therefore, AILG has established an ad hoc committee to study the topic of MIT policy on new local chapters.


The committee will research, discuss, and outline options for consideration by MIT senior administration addressing the following questions:

  1. What are the benefits and drawbacks to being a chapter of a national organization? Of not having a national affiliation?
  2. What, if any, alternatives to national affiliation might provide similar benefits and potential benefits to MIT FSILGs?
  3. What are the benefits and drawbacks to MIT and the MIT FSILG community of requiring all new chapters be affiliated with a national organization?
  4. What, if any, are the circumstances under which allowing the formation of a new local chapter should be considered?
  5. What would be the potential benefits and drawbacks of allowing new chapters that aren’t affiliated with national organizations?