After nearly 10 months of research and discussion, the Campus Culture Initiative Steering Committee released its report to the Duke community Tuesday afternoon, presenting a number of recommendations about major aspects of campus life.
Ranging from disbanding selective living sections on West Campus to altering admissions policies, the committee's recommendations focus on undergraduate life and the theme of "engag[ing] difference constructively."
Although administrators acknowledged the likelihood of opposition to some aspects of the report, they said the next phase of discussion will require each recommendation to be carefully considered.
Click for related content:
"I hope it stimulates thoughtfulness, creativity and engagement on campus, rather than polarization," said Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs and CCI committee vice chair.
Last weekend, Moneta and Robert Thompson-chair of the CCI committee, dean of Trinity College of Arts and Sciences and provost of undergraduate education-presented the report to the Board of Trustees.
Although trustees were not unified in their responses to the recommendations, they supported the University's decision to push forward in examining campus culture, President Richard Brodhead said.
"There are more than 30 trustees, so of course people are not of a single mind, nor should they be," Brodhead said. "[But] the trustees applauded the University for having the courage to face up to challenging questions."
The next phase of campus discussion
In addition to the CCI report, Brodhead presented a letter to the Duke community highlighting his own response to the report and a plan for engaging the committee's recommendations in the coming months.
Brodhead, along with other administrators, emphasized that the recommendations were not a "done deal."
"It's the very nature of these subjects that they require thought and participation by the community in question," Brodhead said.
He added that the next phase of the process will require an evaluation of each of the CCI recommendations.
"The culmination of the report is the initiation of the conversation," Moneta said. "I hope our students won't either immediately adopt or immediately dismiss anything at hand."
Provost Peter Lange-who will spearhead the coming evaluation-said he did not expect to create new committees in the next phase of the process.
Brodhead added that the varied scope of the recommendations will impact the format of their evaluation.
"If you break out all the recommendations and try to think what further process is necessary to bring it to a resolution, it's clear that they're going to involve very different timetables," he said.
George McLendon, dean of the faculty of Arts and Sciences, said the next phase of the process must allow for a more in-depth response from a wider variety of community members.
"As you move to the next step of the process, you can go deeper with some of the constituencies that I think weren't as fully represented," McLendon said.
Academics and faculty-student interaction
The committee began its report by focusing on academics, specifically the undergraduate curriculum and faculty-student interaction.
The report proposed a modification of the Cross Cultural Inquiry requirement so that one of two course requirements would focus on racial, ethnic, class, religious or sexual/gender differences in the United States.
Committee members also emphasized civic engagement, in line with the goals of the recently created DukeEngage, Brodhead said.
In terms of faculty involvement, the committee proposed further interaction between students and faculty and greater faculty participation in the admissions process.
McLendon said the University has already been pursuing many of these goals-particularly with regard to encouraging faculty mentoring.
Social and residential life
Some of the greatest emphasis in the report was placed on suggestions for shaping undergraduate residential and social life.
Duke Student Government President Elliott Wolf, a junior, said the request for additional social space on West Campus was among the report's most positive recommendations.
"Right now, no group that doesn't have a housing section can host an event on West because there's just not a place to do it," he said. "That [recommendation] will significantly contribute to many goals of the CCI without actively detracting from campus living or the current social scene."
Wolf added, however, that other proposals-like the disbandment of selective housing on West and increased enforcement of alcohol policies-will likely be met with less enthusiasm by students.
Brodhead said he encouraged the community to think beyond their preconceived notions of residential policy on West Campus.
"The students at this place are creative, civic-minded people," he said. "Let's ask them to bring their creativity to this question."
Moneta added that the housing recommendation was not a referendum on greek life. "Duke has been looking long and hard at its residential model for a long time," he said. "The data in the report reveals that the current housing model creates a West Campus distribution that is different than the student body at large."
In terms of alcohol policy, the committee recommended that the University work to lessen the emphasis of alcohol in undergraduate social life and to clarify and enforce current alcohol policies.
Thompson said the committee meant to place particular focus on enforcing policies related to drunken or dangerous behavior.
The report also called for an extensive reevaluation of the dining model on campus in order to promote community building.
Athletics, admissions and recruitment
The CCI report affirmed Duke's commitment to excellence in both athletics and academics, but stated that further steps could be taken for student-athletes to become better integrated into undergraduate academic life.
"Fundamentally, we believe Duke does it right... but there are tensions," Moneta said, referring to the added burdens placed on athletes.
One recommendation was to raise the "low end" of admissions both for athletes and the entire undergraduate student body.
Although administrators said there were various ways the recommendation could be interpreted, they agreed that it would require a general reevaluation of what the University targets in its prospective students.
"It wouldn't be as simple as simply increasing SAT scores or something like that-I think the process is quite a bit more nuanced than that," Dean of Admissions Christoph Guttentag said. "It'll take some work to think about what exactly we want to do and how would we want to do it."
Iza Wojciechowska contributed to this article.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.