Nah, NAT doesn't provide the security; firewalling does.

Besides, what kind of controlled unclassified information could possibly be residing on dormitory networks?

Sorry, but NAT provides practical security for all but the most pedantic use cases.

I'm terrified of IPv6 for this exact reason - it assumes every device will have direct access to the Internet. As we've seen with security cameras and other IoT devices, they just aren't designed to protect themselves and are easily hackable, so making them accessible to the wider Internet is crazy. Firewall options for IPv6 for most home routers are limited at best at the moment... I for one am quite happy to have all my local devices happily running behind an IPv4 NAT (in addition to a firewall), knowing they can't be targeted directly without some sort of concerted effort.

IPv6 supports NAT...

True, but I think its fair to say the crazy wide proliferation of IPv4 NAT in consumer routers wouldn't have been nearly as large if IPv4 address exhaustion hadn't been a very real thing forcing hands. IPv6, at least for the foreseeable future, doesn't have this motivating factor for using NAT.

I completely agree in principle with the old adage "NAT is not a firewall", but in reality it often effectively works as one for many consumers, many of whom probably don't have the technical knowledge to understand the protection it has indirectly afforded them for the past however many years.

PDF is titled "Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations"