Disincentivize selective living

When reading last Thursday’s article “Twenty-six organizations apply to become selective living groups,” I cannot help but feel that we are headed down a slippery slope toward an increasingly fragmented Duke. Although more intentional community-building can happen through these groups, they are still based on principles of selectivity and exclusivity. As such, more lines of division are drawn, which will negatively impact the current range of student-to-student interactions.

But seriously, is it really any wonder there are so many organizations seeking selective living status? Even if the new groups are not randomly assigned their preferred housing locations, group members will still be a part of living communities that enhance their residential experience. These networks are not currently accessible to unaffiliated students, who have their block size limited to six under the new house model. And though administrators might argue that community can be built over time in independent houses, I highly doubt it will be the painless, organic process the house model working group envisions. (Remind me again, why does the existing quad model not work for unaffiliated students?)

To curb fragmentation for the long-term health of Duke and truly address social inequity in housing, we need to disincentivize selective living—selective groups cannot have both enhanced community and even the chance to be assigned preferred housing locations on campus. We all know what the less-preferred housing options are; place selective groups there. (Edens and Central, anyone?) Although this might seem unfair, affiliated students are in an undeniably better position to cope. This also encourages current unaffiliated students to invest in existing environments and feel less compelled to be part of selective groups when it should be entirely their choice to not do so. The selective living experience in already a privileged one; there is no reason to privilege it further.

Ming Jiu Li, Pratt ’12