Five Years Later

Five years after proposing the exceptionally controversial plan that eventually put all freshmen on East Campus, a group of top administrators mulled over the recent studies of the upperclass residential situation and, jettisoning many other potential avenues for change, made essentially one recommendation: put all sophomores on West Campus.

The idea is as shrewd as it is controversial. Based on the same philosophy that underlaid the decision to move all freshmen to East, the concept is that institutional structures determine culture. Thus, mandating that all sophomores live on West will likely lessen the divisions between students.

The philosophy also serves as a justification for pricey changes such as building a new dorm and revamping financial aid packages so students have no financial incentive to choose an apartment or non-air-conditioned room. In short, the proposed changes are united under the umbrella idea that the University must take responsibility for inequitable conditions fostered by its institutions.

But requiring all sophomores to live on West is going to be a hard sell that will require very careful, extremely honest articulation of the plan's strengths. And in writing a misleading report for the academic affairs and student affairs committees of the Board of Trustees, the high-powered working group that designed the plan has not started off on the right foot.

The report states that the University needs to address campus "divisions by race or nationality" and "conflicts between those who opt for selective housing on main West and independents who, by virtue of the present lottery system, are assigned to Trent." It is very important that the trustees understand and address these valid concerns.

But the report also makes a number of other claims of far more dubious merit. For one, the report states several times that, after experiencing East, students pine for "more of the academically-related programming that characterizes the first year experience." Later, the report claims, "Today, there is virtual unanimity among students, faculty, administrators and trustees that the first year experience has been successful."

Let's hope the trustees do not just accept these weighty claims at face value. Although several academically-related programs were instituted as part of the full East Campus package in 1995, very few of them, save the FOCUS program, have enjoyed success. And by isolating underclassmen, who lack a strong pre-major advising program, from their more knowledgeable peers, it is extremely difficult for freshmen to learn about opportunities in academic life. The fact is that bringing academics outside the classroom continues to be a very weak area for Duke.

Furthermore, claims that "there is virtual unanimity" that the first year experience is a success are dangerous. Writing it off as a success story might mean forgetting to think about the costs of the program. For instance, maybe the dearth of activity in many West Campus dorms is because freshmen-who are by the nature of their inexperience more dependent on dorm structures-no longer wander through the halls.