New housing policy poses risks

Opting into a selective living group might mean you can never leave. Beginning in Fall 2015, all selective living groups—including greek housing—must meet a resident quota of 30 percent upperclassmen, at least 10 percent of whom must be seniors. Under this system, failure to meet the guidelines could result in consequences as severe as probation or revoked housing. While the spirit behind the new policy may be well intentioned, its restrictive implementation risks entrenching the very problems it seeks to address.

The benefits of increasing interactions between sophomores and more experienced juniors are numerous. On the local level, juniors and seniors can offer invaluable mentorship to their younger peers. With a wealth of diversity and several years of experience more in the classroom, clubs, research and internship realms, they serve as instrumental resources to help others navigate Duke’s campus and life more broadly. On a more general level, the inter-mixing of students across age and academic divides strengthens the community. Indeed, it is these relationships, and being surrounded by similarly inquisitive individuals, that encapsulate the formative college experience.

Yet, mandating that upperclassmen students live together—at the risk of revoking group housing—is counter-productive. It risks rupturing the very organic communities that bring diverse students so closely together in the first place. The policy enforces a blanket mold across all selective living groups that ignores the unique internal structure and identity of each. Some are heavily weighted toward sophomores, for example. Others foster deep and organic mentorship networks precisely because upperclassmen live predominately off campus. Enforcing a mandated quota with the consequence of disbanding the organization places burdens on students and could reverse the relationships already so strongly formed.

In this way, the new housing policy can lead to numerous and problematic unintended consequences. On one hand, students of all years may be deterred from joining selective living groups in the first place. Senior year for many is an important stepping stone from the artificial college environment to the “real world”—a year in which living off-campus eases one into the realities of paying water bills, self-care and neighborly conscientiousness, among others. Off-campus living is also appealing for its affordability—cheaper rent for better amenities—a real concern given Duke’s hefty tuition. Being tethered to campus housing, then, may deter students from joining selective living communities they might otherwise be enthusiastic about. Even more, the 30 percent quota places an extra burden given the increasing number of juniors who opt to study abroad. The policy, then, may decrease the importance of SLGs and remove barriers to administrative dismantling. If the objective is to foster and strengthen community on campus, then the implementation of this housing policy misses the mark.

Ironically, the community that may be most adversely affected by this new SLG housing quota is the very student demographic it seeks to benefit: sophomores. The transition from East to Central and West Campuses is already one fraught with insecurities and apprehension—one that contributes to what has been coined the “sophomore slump.” Many first-year students rush living groups precisely in response to the dread of leaving behind their close communities and instead entering a vacuous one. The new quota mandating 30 percent of beds be filled by upperclassmen will inevitably push these sophomores seeking living intimacy out of the housing community. Rather than bring older and younger students together in mentoring relationships, the policy simply reallocates the age demographics within the houses. In the process, it disadvantages those who need it most.