Cue big sigh.
I appreciate some of the feedback I’ve gotten in so far as it was written and sent, which suggests effort. But the isolated attempt at reading my Feb. 23 column on housing as an all-out attack on not only selectives but also the people in them is exactly the kind of defensive-offensive play that has shut down all productive conversation on the residential model for so long.
This is not a war, and West Campus sections are not territories to be won or lost. As a senior, I have no “stake” in such a blood bath, if these are the unfortunate terms with which we should choose to frame the issue. We—that is, I as well as those who care about Duke in the expansive sense—are talking about our vision for Duke now and 20 years from now—our vision for an inclusive, rather than exclusive, campus community.
To put it in bullet points: we are talking about the inescapable fact that there is a racial and socioeconomic breakdown between West and Central. Moreover, to directly address some main points brought up in response to my column, we are talking about the fact that as part of our current “system,” students are selected or rejected on the basis of undisclosed criteria by groups of peers who have the authority to determine who lives where—authority that derives from “tradition” rather than fairness, practicality or common sense. We are talking about the fact that “rejection” from a fraternity or selective—a sad fate that many SLG proponents perhaps escaped and thus fail to seriously consider—is a double whammy for the rejected, who are not only out of luck in terms of bagging a group of prospective friends (whose desirability is heightened by the institutional legitimacy granted to their name or letters), but also out of luck in terms of desirable housing.
I believe that, on the whole, people actually like and identify with their SLGs and that the decision to rush either fraternities or selectives is not generally fueled by a simple desire for housing. I think, however, that acting on the simple desire for decent housing is perfectly justifiable as an end in itself.
In other words, I don’t see the desire for housing as simple or selfish at all. After all, where you live has major ramifications for the kind of intellectual and social life you will have the opportunity to cultivate as a Duke student. Nor do I see the desire to live with a specific group of people as something to be put on a pedestal.
Wanting to live in a certain dorm, on a certain campus or within a certain community—these are not things to be derided, any more than is the desire for membership into a certain fraternity or selective. Nobody is denying that fraternities and selectives provide their members invaluable relationships and experiences. Nobody is calling for their wholesale dismantling. The reality that has emerged, however, is that current housing practices severely disadvantage those who cannot afford, were not chosen for or chose against joining fraternity or selective life. And this is unacceptable.
Duke’s housing model is exactly what my column headline suggests: unjustifiable, on a practical and theoretical plane. The fact that a discussion of the principles and unsavory demographic realities underlying our housing practices could so quickly turn into a discussion framed in terms of “attack” and “defense” is disturbing, but useful for highlighting the problem (read my supplementary Feb. 24 blog entry for a “thought experiment” modeled specifically on this issue).
Our housing system is embedded with structural dichotomies between those who are in, and those who are out. Fill in the blanks as you will. My point is that it is only too easy to think up all the possible contentious pairings. And it is a point that certain complaints in response to my column beautifully underscore.
I understand there are all sorts of subtleties, especially when you start pulling out the numbers, but these only reveal some of the more truly disturbing implications of closing our eyes to the problems with the current residential model.
For example, of the 30 percent of West Campus beds reserved for fraternities and SLGs, 77 percent are male, and the argument has been made that the imbalance is not merely attributable to but also justifiable because sororities have consistently turned down the offer for housing. Sorority preferences do not change the disadvantage to male independents, who are allotted fewer beds on West to maintain an even gender ratio. More importantly, though it may be true that sororities have refused housing, this preference is as much a function of historical practice as is the fraternities’ insistence on keeping housing. Not only could it be argued that fraternities, too, could continue to exist without being granted the privilege of guaranteed housing, but the sororities’ practical desire to live as independents should absolutely NOT “make acceptable” the fact that the predominance of male-owned social space on West ensures a distinctly gendered, undeniably lopsided power dynamic within Duke’s social scene.
As an end note: as a freshman, sophomore or junior, I could not have imagined the breadth and depth of our housing problems, and their implications for campus culture. My perspective is a culminating one. I speak not as an “authoritative senior,” but simply as a student who has lived on East, West and Central; as an unaffiliated sophomore who was “pushed off West” as a rising junior but who came to prefer Central to the point of opting to live there as a senior; as a friend to independents as well as fraternity brothers; as a soon-to-be-graduate who has seen how special it can feel to belong to a “selective” of any kind, living group or not, and how demoralizing it is to be made to feel stuck on the outside looking in.
Duke is not a battlefield. Duke is our home. And if I can, I want to make it yours in an even more complete sense than it has been for me.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
“Cue big sigh.
I appreciate some of the feedback I’ve gotten in so far as it was written and sent, which suggests effort. ”
I’m afraid this comes off as a wee bit condescending, especially to those of us who did put in effort to send feedback… The sense of exasperation with opposing viewpoints - which I don’t believe is *truly* the case - makes it difficult to read the rest with an open mind.
With respect to “defense” and “offense,” you have to admit that sometimes, the tone of your “thought experiments” carries the sharp edge of a rhetorical stiletto. The caricatures you use - the “swaggering” Joe and John, the naive Theresa - in the absence of any counter-examples could certainly lead one to consider the possibility that there are aspects of “an all-out attack on not only selectives but also the people in them.” Not to mention that the entire point of one was to “offer some ruminations on the validity of even non-residential institutional support for Greek life as we know it at Duke” followed by no real positives in the rumination. It is, of course, possible that you do not believe there is a single positive thing about selective living groups or Greek life - but surely you can see where one might believe such a post and those like it constitute an “offensive.”
My questions, regardless, are these - given the physical limitations of campus, especially in the current economy where large scale renovations to facilitate alternate arrangements are impossible, how would you arrange and assign housing, what funding model would you use, and who would be responsible for student placement?
Disclosure and bias - I lived in Trent freshman year and on Central for three years thereafter. I briefly rushed one selective. Main reasons for living on Central were the cost and the facility to cook. Free (at the time) parking was a bonus, too. I am currently the faculty advisor for, among other things, two fraternities - one residential and one not - and am also a faculty associate for a West Campus neighborhood.
I’m afraid my “answer” is much more along the lines of “concerted tweaking.” I was rather shocked by some of the recommendations of the CCI, especially about having groups no larger than 11 which seemed an odd way to facilitate community. It seemed that the CCI wanted there to be either a proliferation of tiny groups or One Big One - at least “residentially.” But I think Duke is more than capable of hosting a more continuous scale of residential experiences which, yes includes selective living groups.
I know the “selectivity” part is galling to some - perhaps to all to different degrees. And I know that the selection process can be very difficult for both those doing the selecting, those who make it in, and especially those who do not. I do not, however, see as superior the notions that sophomores and older be placed totally randomly nor do as I see as superior the notion that a phalanx of administrators could place people.
I still need to dig up some numbers. With all freshmen on East, and all sophomores on West, the primary place for a disparity to happen would be with the juniors and seniors - especially given that the main corridor is reserved for residentially unaffiliated students. I admit being surprised when all selective groups retained housing during the renovations - but then, those groups do have reasons for living together, are responsible for organized work, and live past the four or five-year tenure of its members at any given time, whereas we who were independents cannot make as strong a claim.
Looking back, I admit the beginning of my post did have a patronizing tone, and for that I apologize. The original post was a direct response to a particular letter to the editor, and whose tone I purposely matched at the beginning of my response and then diluted as the post progressed.
Unfortunately, the blog was edited to delete all reference to specific readers, and my direct reference to my post as a “response to {x}” was replaced with “some feedback from readers.” I’m sorry if readers were offended.
As for the comment about the “rhetorical stiletto,” I do not deny that my thought experiments involve caricatures, and necessarily so. I wish I had the talent to turn 750 words into a rhetorical…house slipper. Comfortable, and one-size-fits-all. That is, I wish I could provide a more nuanced thought experiment but unfortunately there is not room on the page for the detail that kind of approach would require in “bringing home the point.” Nor is an editorial page necessarily a place for lengthy exposition. I absolutely think there are positives to the SLG experience, but students with any exposure are hammered over the head with these every day. My 750 words voiced the concerns of the unrepresented, unlobbied for, institutionally unsupported student.
On your next point: selectivity is not galling, at least, not to me. Duke itself is a selective community, and prides itself on it. The question is one of selective criteria—and the transparency, mission and implementation of these criteria. And surely total random assignment or administration-headed assignment are not the only alternatives to giving SLGs preferential assignment of “privileged space” on West and inserting orphaned independents in-between as an afterthought.
Finally, about SLGs retaining housing during renovations because they have reasons for living together: I believe many independents want to be responsible to contributing to their communities as much as do members of selective groups. The current setup of the residential model makes it difficult, if not impossible, for independents to make a strong SLG-esque claim to responsibility for organized work. A simple breakdown of independent/SLG representation on our quad councils suggest as much.
It is part of the nature of living as an independent, not having a lobbying body speaking out on your behalf. Unfortunately, under the current Duke residential model, it is also the lot of the independent to be misunderstood as a hermit, a loner, a non-contributor who has an “issue” with selectivity, or as someone who seems to care about living space over community life. I wrote the original column because having lived on East, West, Central, partly (note: only partly -much of what I wrote was on behalf of selectives as well, whose experience I think could be just as drastically improved) because I see the Duke independent as someone who could plausibly live three years on campus without the advantage of community, cohesion, inclusion - not to mention a personal faculty advisor who sees and defends the good in what you strive to accomplish on behalf of your university.
Jane Chong
Chronicle Columnist
Mr. Gustafson states that he does not see as superior the idea of assigning residential space to sophomores and older on a random basis, but he does not explain why that would not be superior. The current housing system involves flat out discrimination against those who cannot afford to join, choose not to join, or are not accepted into a fraternity or other selective living group. This discrimination favors the white male fraternity boys and disfavors women, independents, and minority students. If Duke were to allow students to pick their rooms through a lottery based strictly on seniority, there would be no discrimination against anyone, and the fraternities would be placed in the same position in which the sororities now find themselve. Why is that not better than the current system? Mr. Gustafson says it is not better, but he provides no analysis. Also, no one has addressed the issue of why it is essential that all fraternities and other SLGs be assigned to prime space on West Campus. Why not assign all of them to Central and give the independents first shot at West? If being part of a fraternity or SLG is such a great thing and if the members do not choose to join in order to gain preferential access to the prime space on West, then this change of location should not disadvantage the groups in any way.
I would respond, but “This discrimination favors the white male fraternity boys and disfavors women, independents, and minority students,” emphasis mine but also, I suspect, yours, makes me feel that you are not all that interesting in addressing the issues. If I am wrong, then perhaps we can agree to start fresh?
My kingdom for a preview button! Apologies in advance if any of this gets needlessly convoluted by HTML tags…Here goes -
“Orphaned independent” is such an interesting way of putting it. Orphaned how? If a person does no join a fraternity or a living group or a block, what else should happen? I lived on Central for three years, with one roommate sophomore year and another junior and senior years. We all chose not to be in selective housing. We were not “orphaned.” My last two years especially, I felt fortunate that I lived near very good friends, and I certainly would advocate making that easier to do wherever someone lives. But I had no need for a commons room; I had no previous generations to entertain for alumni weekend; I could have the Duke experience I chose for myself as an independent anywhere.
That defines an extreme, I realize – those of us who did not want to join a residential group and didn’t. The other extreme being someone who wants to be a part of a residential group and is. And then there’s the middle – someone who wants to be in a SLG and is not due to finances or the group’s not having picked him or her or whatever other reason. Certainly with the infrastructure put in place by RLHS over the years, I would expect the GR’s and RC’s to make sure those students do not feel orphaned by the residential component of Duke life. For the rest – for the means to obtain that inclusiveness that many of us seek as undergraduates – I just get the sense that adding mechanisms to achieve that for people who currently feel left out would be in order. Stronger majors unions, for example. One difficulty for me in coming up with more examples is that I see the vast array of experiences that my students have and all the cross-cutting organizations to which they belong, and so absent doing a better job promoting the existence of those, I am not sure what else to do.
Transparency – alas, something lacking in just about every selective group, including the formation of Duke’s matriculating classes. I believe you are asking for what characteristics one must possess in order to be invited to join a group and then a validation or rejection of those criteria or at least a validation or rejection of the notion that those criteria form the basis of preferential treatment. I believe, in part, that is what the Annual Review process is for. It does not, of course, address how members get invited so much as what the group does once formed. In that way, it does touch on your second points – mission and implementation.
I certainly agree with you here. One of the advantages of groups in general is the greater likelihood of attracting people to your cause, whether it is running for DSG, planning quad events, taking part in humanitarian activities, throwing parties, etc. Rather than dismantling selective houses – how about generating a mechanism whereby like-minded people on particular issues or activities can “find” each other and work together? Sort of a Craig’s List of interests for Duke students? That would fall under the auspices of student affairs rather than RLHS, specifically, but would certainly interface whenever common space was needed.
Of course, there’s the “danger” that the “organized” students will take it over. Managing that balancing act would be the task of student life professionals.
A question to which I cannot find an answer: are quad councils numerically representative of quad membership? If not, that is certainly a change I would endorse heartily.
I hope that I have not given the impression that I see an independent as “a loner, a non-contributor who has an “issue” with selectivity, or as someone who seems to care about living space over community life.” Especially having been an independent myself. I had a very enjoyable undergraduate experience, some because of my involvement with religious life and some because of my involvement in engineering activities but mostly because of the fellow travelers.
However, I still maintain that the groups that have a residential programming component to them necessarily need appropriate space. Round Table has, as a focus, faculty student interaction; having access to a commons room and being housed such that ideas to further their mission can be passed along in the collision spaces of the hallways makes sense.
I gather, though, based on your final paragraph, that your thoughts are less about non-fraternity selective houses and more about fraternities? And should I take personally the notion of, “a personal faculty advisor who sees and defends the good in what you strive to accomplish on behalf of your university”?