Currently, University policy mandates that all parties on campus hosted by selective groups and fraternities be open to all students. However, at a recent Duke Student Government forum, Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta hinted that he was in favor of on-campus groups hosting closed, or members-only events. Both open and closed parties have intrinsic benefits and drawbacks, making it difficult to argue for the supremacy of one system over the other. Ideally, University officials will abolish the rule banning closed events, leaving groups free to host a mixture of open and closed events at their discretion.
The University's current open-party system plays a prominent role in the structure of the social scene. Greek and selective organizations have taken the lead in providing social opportunities on-campus for many years, and though several indicators point to the decline of the greek system, fraternity parties are an integral component of many individuals' social lives. Due to the fact that events are open to everyone, numerous unaffiliated students take part in the party culture without having to join selective organizations themselves.
Introducing a closed-party system would seriously hamper this dynamic, and leave some students feeling marginalized, or pressured to join selective groups.
The open-party system also goes hand in hand with the University's "desegregation" of West Campus and its attempt to create a sense of community on West. A great deal of interaction between groups and individuals takes place at parties that would not occur otherwise. Mandating closed parties while speaking of unity would be a contradiction in terms.
Another important corollary of the open-party system is its impact on the rush process. Due to the fact that all parties are open, first semester freshman have the opportunity to spend time with the different selective organizations on campus before deciding which ones to rush in the spring. Duke's second-semester rush format is widely praised by a majority of those who participate in rush. If parties were closed, frats and selective houses would be forced to target only certain freshman or invite them to parties randomly--inadequate methods of introducing students to campus social culture. It is easier to meet people during the first semester of freshman year because no one is as of yet affiliated with a specific selective group. Eventually, rush would be forced to take place in the initial weeks of each school year, as it does at many other universities across the nation.
It is important to note the obvious benefits of closed or guest-listed events. First, student safety is easier to monitor at closed events because members of the host organization are aware of the approximate number of people present. This allows members to more easily notice missing, potentially ill members and guests. In addition, the distribution of alcohol would be easier to monitor, because unknown guests would no longer attend parties for a few minutes to obtain alcohol and then leave the party.
With the social scene in the midst of a period of transition, now is the perfect time for the ban on closed parties to be lifted. However, closed parties should by no means be mandatory. The host organizations themselves should be trusted to evaluate the times and places appropriate for both types of gatherings. A mixed open/closed party system would have a positive influence on the student body.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.