“Free the Pegram 24!” reads the headline of an editorial submitted to The Chronicle in March 1972.
I do a double take while flipping through the 1971-1972 archive of The Chronicle.
Excuse me? From where?
From banishment to off-campus housing, that’s where.
On March 28, 1972, twenty-three male Pegram dormitory residents on East Campus and one non-resident were notified that they were ineligible to receive on-campus housing during the following year. Why you ask? Because they refused to vacate their dorms over Spring Break after the administration notified them that all dormitories on East Campus were closed.
According to the administration, the decision was reached in order to preserve the safety of students and avoid unnecessary costs. Adding that security costs and the need for staff to go on vacation, as well as the initially low numbers of students opting to stay over break prompted the dorm closures.
In 1972, Duke’s men and women colleges merged into one co-ed school, subsequently moving men into dorms on the previously all female East Campus. University policy indicated that all dorms on East Campus were to close for extended holidays, however, men on West Campus were permitted to remain in their dorms and the newly settled male East Campus population found this unfair.
“’We find this arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the University, as well as a tremendous inconvenience for us. The problem is particularly felt since there are now men on East Campus and these men who would have formerly experienced no problem on West, have articulated the grievances to keep East open for everyone.’ Peterson [Pegram house president] continued.” (March 14, 1972, “Pegram members fight dorm closing”)
On March 13, Pegram house submitted a letter signed by 30 men to the administration stating, “active opposition to University policy in this matter” and emphasizing their “intention to remain in Pegram during the break,” in a Chronicle article. The office of the dean of men agreed to meet with the students to discuss the policy but noted that it was unlikely that the University would change the decision.
“Richard Cox, dean of men, said yesterday that anyone sitting-in would be in violation of Pickets and Protests, and indicated that the room contracts for next year might not be offered to anyone who protested.” (March 16, 1972, “Pegram may take legal action”)
“Since the dorms would be locked, Cox added, any entry into the buildings during this period would also constitute a “clear case of breaking and entering.” (March 16, 1972, “University refuses to leave East dorms open”)
Paula Phillips, dean of women, noted that traditionally there were only 5-6 women staying over vacation times and such a small number of women in a building meant for 120 people was not safe. However, The Chronicle reported a different figure suggesting that that 30 women requested to stay in Alspaugh, 28 in Wilson and 50 in Southgate.
An editorial on March 29 responded to the administration’s claims that safety motivated the close:
“Phillips never mentioned that all women’s dorms are equipped with key card systems which provide as much protection for 30 students all day as 120 at night. The women’s dorms on West survived the burdens of using 24 hours a day key cards during the break. The men’s dorms were kept open, as usual.” (“Free the Pegram 24!)
Regardless of safety concerns, the Pegram students maintained that it was their decision whether to stay or leave, noting that “their rooms [were] rented from the opening of school in the fall to the closing of school in May.” In contrast, Phillips indicated that the housing contract excluded officially announced breaks.
Ultimately, on the first day of Spring Break the students met administrators in the Pegram common room, insisting they would not leave and described their action as “a symbolic protest, an exercise of our first amendment right.” Administrators took down their information, and notified the students of their terminated housing contracts when the break was over.
The March 29, editorial left students with a final word of caution:
“All in all, the University’s position throughout the affair has increasingly tenuous. Students should lobby now, as individuals and through ASDU, to back the Pegram 24 if they hope to have any dorms open next year.” (“Free the Pegram 24!”)
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.