Editorial: Eliminate Annual Review for Frats

Finally, the Annual Review is under review. After years of forcing fraternities and selective houses on-campus to jump through meaningless evaluative hoops with little hope of reward, campus officials have commissioned a new committee to overhaul the process. The committee, led by Campus Council president, junior Anthony Vitarelli, has pledged to make the system one of positive incentives and one that takes into account the varied strengths of different organizations.

 The current Annual Review system is complicated and unbalanced. It reviews selective living organizations on the basis of seven separate categories--faculty interaction, member-led programming, community service, educational programming, cultural programming, leadership/scholarship/citizenship and social programming. The basic idea behind the process is that members of selective groups are guaranteed Main West Campus housing for three years, while the average student is not. In exchange for this privilege, the University expects a show of good faith and contribution to the community in return.

 Such an exchange is not unreasonable, but it does not need to be complex and overly burdensome. Unfortunetly, the existing Annual Review process is both of these things. First, the rules for what kinds of activities count for which of the seven categories are unclear and often unrealistic. Further, the system is inherently designed to cater to groups that have been formed for reasons other than socializing. A fraternity organized around community service or cultural diversity will have a much easier time completing the Annual Review than socially-oriented groups.

 In addition, the University seems not to take under consideration the fact that fraternities are already beholden to requirements similar to those of the Annual Review by their national organizations. Most frats must perform community service and take other steps to be involved in the community. University officials should also be careful not to overlook the tremendous social contribution frats make to the social lives of students. They provide parties, mixers, barbeques and off-campus events that many students attend. Indeed, the social activities sponsored by the school's fraternities are directly responsible for many of the experiences that contribute to people's image of a true "college" experience. In light of these considerations, the new Annual Review should not apply to fraternities. The national organizations exist to oversee the frats, and they are not chartered by the University. Let the nationals do their jobs. The national organizations are often the ones who punish their chapters most harshly, and if the frats can keep their national officials happy, they are likely not disregarding many University regulations.

 While the new Annual Review process should not apply to frats, selective houses must necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the University. Without national supervision, selective houses lack oversight and inherent community involvement requirements. However, the new Annual Review process should take into account the fact that different selective groups have different strengths, and should be acknowledged for the unique contributions they make to life at Duke. Also, the new system should reward improvement and consistent excellence, rather than simply promoting the status quo and punishing those who do not complete one or two categories. The proposal to grant monetary rewards to successful groups is a step in the right direction. However, the committee should also consider giving the top housing picks to groups who do well in the review process over time.

 It is the University's right to expect groups with guaranteed housing privileges to prove that they make significant contributions to life at Duke. However, fraternities' national officials already take care of such oversight. Annual Review, if adjusted properly, can serve as positive reinforcement plan for non-affiliated selective houses as well.