No Greek tragedy

Duke’s Panhellenic sororities have not had an identifying space on campus for more than 50 years. The exodus of the Panhellenic sororities began in 1959, when the closing of the Crowell building forced the displaced groups into more than four decades of vagabond wandering from public space to public space. That this shuffling takes place in the shadow of West Campus’ towering fraternity sections only adds insult to injury.

There is no room at this University for an inequity that’s only justification lies in historical accident. But, as with so much, the blank slate of the house model offers the chance for rejuvenation. What could be a better use for this fresh start than the resolution of an inequity that underpins a social oligopoly at Duke, one that gives power to some and not to others? Duke’s sororities need spaces to call their own.

Identifying space is power in the university social world, and sororities get short shrift in the status quo. Not only do they rely on common space for meetings and recruitment, their social activities depend on access to fraternity controlled spaces—spaces that, unlike any space controlled by a sorority in the National Panhellenic Conference, allow for the free flow of alcohol.

The social leverage that comes from this control cannot be underestimated—the public release of crude fraternity listserv emails last October show just how little some groups worry about social retribution.

Administrators get great rhetorical mileage out of appeals to student autonomy and choice, but meaningful choice can only happen in the absence of social coercion. For this, Duke’s Panhel chapters need space. A generic Panhel section will not do—the lack of life at the Panhel section on Central Campus attests to that. Although all nine Panhel chapters may not want houses, Housing, Dining and Residence Life should nonetheless be prepared to add space for all nine groups when the house model launches next year.

Realizing this ambition will require coordinated action from both Panhel and the administration. Panhel should reject the misplaced dream of unified entry into the house model. Some sororities may want houses and some may not, and diverse preferences should not stand in the way of progress for all groups. Every sorority ought to have a designated, permanent space, but this space does not have to be residential.

The administration has thrown no shortage of obstacles in the way of Panhel housing. The slow, incremental rollout of house model details have led Panhel leaders to express justified angst about administrative transparency—it is difficult to plan for a chapter house when the very concept of a house has long been inchoate. Even as late as last week, HDRL purportedly expressed surprise about distinct Panhel houses. Needless to say, surprise was the wrong reaction—HDRL should have encouraged this idea from the start.

Nevertheless, HDRL has left room for this project to come to fruition—recent discussions have left the possibility of nine Panhel houses on the table. We expect HDRL to make good on what this sliver of potential represents: the type of social leap forward that the house model promised to create in the first place. Panhel applications for housing should be met with approval.