Blame it on BOG Residential plan stems from longstanding problems

If members of the Bunch of Guys living group had canceled their annual "Dawn of the Dead" initiation rite in August 1992, seniors might not be on the wait list this year.

It may seem like an illogical leap, but Trinity senior John Tolsma, immediate-past president of Duke Student Government, traces at least part of the residential turmoil this year to BOG's fall 1992 dissolution by the Undergraduate Judicial Board.

Residential discussions prompted in part by BOG's dissolution led the Board of Trustees to pass sweeping changes in residential life policies this December, he said.

This spring, implementation of this residential change has uprooted almost every student on campus, leaving a number of students angry about changes some feel were not needed.

"It's not enough of a change in the long run to compensate for the terrible times now," said Trinity sophomore Anne Williams.

But the changes this spring did not come out of nowhere. Ripple effects of BOG's dissolution raised important concerns about student life which needed to be addressed a full three years ago, Tolsma said.

"As we moved this one living group off campus, a number of bigger issues came to the surface," said Tolsma, who was a Residential Policy Committee member.

These discussions alone might not have brought the revolution approved in December, which converts East Campus into all-freshman housing -- save Epworth, a cross-sectional house -- and houses upperclassmen on North. But the RPC's recommendations to form three new selective dorms and a committee to study greek life coincided with other conversations about residential life. Coupled with scathing indictments of undergraduate life from two prominent teachers, measures to lessen dorm overcrowding and the arrival of a new president, a convergence emerged that pushed residential issues to the forefront.

In the ensuing year, task forces studied residential, intellectual and greek life, and a fourth group examined the future of East Campus. Coupled with discussions in dorms and at faculty meetings last fall, reports from the task forces provided a framework for the new plan.

Administrators and student leaders spent much of the fall gathering input on the plan, but despite DSG-sponsored discussions with members of 35 different organizations, many students say they felt left out of the decision process.

Letters to the editor have called Keohane a dictator and accused her of ignoring student concerns. Just this week, protestors gathered in front of the Allen Building to protest the residential plan and petition for, among other demands, improved communication between students and administrators.

Student demands for a clearer dialogue echo findings of a recent external review of the Office of Student Affairs, which noted that students often feel left out of decision-making.

As an example of less-than-ideal communication between students and administrators, Tolsma cites rising seniors who did not realize that they could be wait-listed in the lottery for next year's housing until lottery results appeared.

In any case, Keohane denies that student voices were ignored in the planning process. She told legislators that their report, based on DSG's canvassing of an estimated 1,200 students in meetings with dorms and student groups last semester, was directly in front of her as the residential plan was drafted.

Keohane and Tolsma are quick to point out that most of those recommendations, which included preserving selective housing, keeping undergraduate access to Central Campus, offering block housing to independents and simplifying housing rates, were included in the plan.

Only one recommendation, which asked administrators not to place upperclassmen on North Campus, was not implemented.

Some students acknowledge the role DSG played in the decision-making process, but charge that DSG did not represent the concerns of all students.

"DSG has historically been a group that has had strong ties to the administration," said Trinity junior Lex Wolf, Interfraternity Council president. "Is that the way to reach the most angry and irrational group of people? Probably not."

But Tolsma said, students had ample opportunity to express their views. "I think it's unfair to say we didn't represent these students when they didn't come out to be heard in the fall," he said.

Keohane offered another interpretation. "Part of what you're hearing in terms of `You're not listening to us' is that people don't necessarily find that the answers are what they wished," she said.

Even if Keohane followed all of DSG's other recommendations, many consider her decision about North Campus unacceptable.

"In principle, I think it's unfair to send someone to North just because they're a sophomore," said Trinity sophomore David Nguyen. "I think they should close North."

But Keohane says the University cannot afford to close North, at least for the foreseeable future. She says it would cost an estimated $22 million to replace Trent with a new dorm. Such an expenditure seems unlikely, at least until the University finishes raising funds for the $25 million new recreational facilities on East and West Campus.

Given the trade-off between new dorms and a recreation facility, Nguyen said he wasn't sure which he would choose.

His block mate, Trinity sophomore Zeyad Mobassaleh, answered easily. "I would personally live anywhere on campus if that would mean we'd get better recreational facilities."

Seniority in the lottery, another point of contention this spring, raises similar trade-offs. In order to ensure that the six residential quads had equal proportions of sophomores, juniors and seniors, the University had to give some seniors their last choice for housing, Tolsma said. Otherwise, less desirable quads would have been filled with sophomores, while popular quads would have been weighted with seniors.

Similarly, he explained, the waiting list had to include equal proportions of sophomores, juniors and seniors. He was quick to add that wait-listed seniors will be placed first, and seniority will return to the lottery next year.

Nevertheless, many students consider seniority to be sacred. "In theory, it's a good idea, but seniority is way too important to give away," Williams said.

Perhaps the most damning criticisms of the plan come from students who don't believe it will change the underlying problems with residential life.

Lottery dorm resident Emily Hassell, a Trinity sophomore, said, "The way it is now, the people across the hall don't ever talk to us--I don't think that's going to change."

Tolsma disagrees entirely. "Duke finally has a vision for what it wants out of residential life, and that's the best thing we could have done," he said.

With two years to go under the new system, Mobassaleh was more lukewarm in his support, but seemed open to possibilities. "There's not more people pissed off at this plan than there were last year," he said. "How much worse can this residential plan be than the old one?"