In honor of Duke’s Centennial, The Chronicle is highlighting pivotal figures and events throughout the University’s history. Here, we take a look at the history of the bench burning tradition:
Bench burning has been a core aspect of the Blue Devil student identity for nearly 40 years, but the tradition hasn’t developed without controversy.
Many agree that the unique form of celebration is a special part of Duke’s history. Yet, the union of passionate students with blazing bonfires has also raised concerns of safety and fueled disputes with University administration and public safety officers over the years.
Starting the tradition
Early records of the on-campus bonfires date back to the 1986 NCAA men’s basketball semifinals, but the first bench wouldn’t actually burn for another few days. After the Blue Devils defeated Kansas 71-67, students celebrated with a bonfire fueled by “everything from notebooks to dorm room furniture,” as well as fireworks and chants of “we’re number one” and “we want Louisville” — the team’s upcoming competitor in the finals.
Shortly thereafter, William Griffith, then-vice president for student affairs, remarked that a bonfire wasn’t entirely unexpected.
“I’m glad they put it in a place where it would be as safe as possible,” he said.
Public safety officers helped to keep the blaze under control, and Griffith described the celebration as the biggest he’d seen in his 35-year career at Duke.
Duke then lost to Louisville in the NCAA men’s basketball national championship. The blaze that followed served as an expression of anger rather than celebration.
Soon after the initial burning, complaints surrounding the benches on campus reached the University’s administration.
On Sept. 29, 1986, Joan Lukins, Trinity ‘66, wrote a letter to former Director of Alumni Affairs Laney Funderburk expressing concern over the “eyesore” that “effectively ruined the landscape” — referring not to the wooden structures set ablaze during the post-game frenzy, but rather the benches that stood in their regular positions around campus.
Lukins recommended strict regulations on bench size and design, as well as the immediate removal of “all existing such benches.” Two weeks later, Funderburk replied.
“I could not agree more with your assessment of the big, ugly benches in front of the various residence halls,” he said. Funderburk proceeded to distribute Lukins’ letter to other figures within University administration, including Griffith and then-President Keith Brodie.
John Dewey, Trinity ‘88, had submitted an opinion piece to The Chronicle shortly beforehand, in which he highlighted what he saw as excessively stringent bench policies in effect during the 1986-87 academic year. He also criticized efforts to further restrict benches and remove them from campus.
“Our benches are an integral part of life at Duke,” Dewey wrote. “If we do not respond to this soulless attempt to change the University, we will lose our benches.”
Around the same time, Lou Mintz, Trinity ’87, and Phil Shaikun, Trinity ’87, co-authored a piece in which they described an interaction with a member of groundskeeping staff who sawed an oversized bench to meet new specifications.
As of October 1988, formal policy reflected a rigorous process for design and approval that involved both the dean of residential life and safety manager. Benches were also to be surveyed annually “to assess compliance with dimensional restrictions, sitting approval and visible soundness of structure and maintenance.” The bench policy did not include any immediate mention of bonfires.
Conflict with authority, safety concerns
Although the celebratory fires were not mentioned within the University’s policy on benches, they continued to persist.
Public Safety successfully protected the benches after a March 6, 1989, men’s basketball victory over North Carolina. The following year, the Duke University Police Department sponsored a bonfire for the men’s basketball national championship game against UNLV but faced low turnout due to bad weather.
After a men’s basketball elite eight victory in 1991, several of “the ugliest benches” were burned in celebration.
Earlier that year, an away victory for the men’s basketball team against the Tar Heels had resulted in multiple student-led bonfires and a mudslide, overwhelming DUPD and causing safety concerns. As a result, the campus police convened a special committee to regulate the celebratory bonfires. Updates included the banning of mudsliding — a source of multiple injuries that year — of standing on actively burning benches and of burning benches without permission from its living group owner.
“At that time, Duke’s residential model on West Campus was based on a House Model structure,” wrote Dean for Residence Life Deb LoBiondo in a Sept. 9 email to The Chronicle. “Nearly every house had a bench.”
The new policy did not immediately impact student activity, but it was met with criticism from some. One piece from The Chronicle’s editorial board noted that “parts of the policy are ridiculous,” such as the requirement that living groups contribute benches willingly.
“A tradition of burning benches and the like exists, and the administration, not wanting to ignore this tradition, has created a pretentious yet logical policy to emphasize safety,” the board wrote. “But it is ultimately up to students to follow the logic behind the policy and celebrate safely.”
The ensuing years saw more bonfires and continued contention between Public Safety, University administration and the student body.
Dozens of students were injured — including at least three students with burns and at least six struck by flying bottles — during celebrations after the men’s basketball team’s 1992 national championship victory.
“We spent a whole year in preparation to make this a safe celebration and the students made our jobs as difficult as hell,” said Duke Public Safety Chief Robert Dean. “… The students have got to take some responsibility to make this thing much safer instead of fighting against us.”
Dean’s claims were contested by Josh Batkin, Trinity ’94, in a letter to the editor published several days later. Batkin argued that “Public Safety was the group acting irresponsibly and initiating the fighting,” citing student accusations of officers being “unnecessarily rough.”
“Instead of bending and trying to influence what was going on to encourage safety, Public Safety broke and opted for an attempt at total suppression that ultimately failed,” Batkin wrote. “… The actions of these officers were ill-advised and infringed on the rights of those Duke students who were assaulted trying to celebrate another great Duke basketball triumph.”
In 1994, Duke Student Government passed a resolution calling on their president to “do everything in his power to organize a bonfire … provided the team wins,” in an effort to improve conduct. Yet the following weekend, students again took on Public Safety with the goal of a student-controlled blaze.
Chronicle Reporter Michael Saul noted that many students “viewed Public Safety’s failure” to stop their bonfire “as a triumph,” but Public Safety staff viewed the situation differently.
“The fire is such a potential hazard that we will never sanction it,” said former Public Safety Chief Lewis Wardell. “Our biggest point is not to stop the fire but to stop injuries.”
Bench burning was again thrust into the center of University discourse in 1998.
In place of celebrations involving fire, the University had planned “giant foam parties.” Although the policy faced some criticism from students, a Chronicle article titled “Students reject foam, beg for fire” reveals that students “do not object too much to the foam — they just want bonfires back.”
A day before the 1998 men’s home basketball game against North Carolina, University administrators wrote a joint letter urging students to be safe.
“The Campus Social Board has planned a Clocktower Quadrangle foam and fog party the likes of which have never been seen before,” wrote Janet Dickerson, vice president for student affairs, and Executive Vice President Tallman Trask. “Let’s have a good time celebrating, but let’s do it safely and without fires. We want everyone to survive for more celebrations next month.”
The next night, the Blue Devils defeated the Tar Heels and held a celebration that was later described as “mayhem,” “explosive” and “combative.”
A March 2 article published in The Chronicle explained that “More than 1,000 students ran from one end of West Campus to the other and back again all night, setting benches on fire.”
“Tonight was Duke students at their best and the administration at its worst,” said Brad Kimmel Trinity ‘00. Both DUPD and University administrators expressed disappointment in students for their behavior the night of the game.
“I enjoyed the opportunity to celebrate and relish in the victory, but that feeling and spirit did not last very long because of the adversarial nature of the evening,” said Sue Wasoliek, assistant vice president of student affairs.
Three days later, students burned and destroyed 14 benches in response to both previous rejection of bonfire proposals and University plans to remove 14 benches from campus to prevent future fires.
In spite of their previous anti-bench burning responses, administrators quickly changed their tactics following the fiasco of the previous days.
In a March 4 meeting with about 20 student leaders, the University decided it would seek a permit from the City of Durham to host a bonfire on March 30, the scheduled date for the NCAA championship game. University administrators assigned two conditions to the decision: the Blue Devils had to advance to the game and win, and the bonfire needed to be student-planned with University oversight.
DSG led efforts to draft a proposal for the bonfire. Following deliberations, the University also lifted a previous ban on the rebuilding of benches, but students would need to gain approval through official channels before beginning construction.
The student government used its platform again in 2001, calling for students to abandon plans for a bench burning after the upcoming men’s basketball game against the Tar Heels. DSG President C.J. Walsh and Head Line Monitor Greg Skidmore wrote in a Jan. 24 joint email, “the Heels ain’t worth a bench, they ain’t worth a bonfire, hell they ain’t worth S---!” The email also asked that students save their benches for “very special wins.”
Several years later, an unsanctioned bench burning put the student tradition back in jeopardy. After an away men’s basketball victory against North Carolina in 2008, students unexpectedly set fire to a bench, breaking from what had previously been an NCAA championship or home-victory tradition.
LoBiondo, then assistant dean for residence life, reportedly informed former Campus Council President Ryan Todd that the granting of future bonfire permits by the Durham fire marshal would likely cease as a result.
But like many classes before them, students shared their intentions to proceed with bonfires for similar games in the future — with or without permits.
“It would be better to have the A-Team and the fire department there, but I think we’re still going to burn benches if we beat UNC,” said Frank Jemison, Trinity ’10.
A February 2008 opinion piece published under “Staff Reports” in The Chronicle emphasized the importance of a “clear, flexible and realistic bonfire policy.” Asserting that the University “failed to inform students” of the need for a permit, the editorial emphasized the importance of safety precautions while respecting the bench tradition.
“Sports traditions evolve, and it’s time we seek permits on a situational basis so that safety does not go up in smoke,” the piece reads.
Present-day blazes
“Over time, as our residential model changed from house … to now QuadEx, there have been a few changes to the bench practices,” LoBiondo wrote in the Sept. 9 email. “… A decision was made to provide benches pre-made. This allowed us to ensure the structure was sound and was made from non-toxic materials, making them safer to burn.”
As of 2014, bonfire guidelines included eight policies governing when, where and how benches were permitted to be burned. Some rules are technical — such as the requirement that bonfires be contained within 40 feet — while others are historical — like the specification that benches are burned in front of Kilgo Quad.
Tara Singh, DSG vice president of campus life and head of the A-Team, highlighted in a Sept. 9 email to The Chronicle that the University currently hosts bonfires for “wins against UNC” and “NCAA Championship wins.”
The A-Team, composed of students, faculty and administrators, works to ensure undergraduate safety while supporting game-day traditions, and Singh noted that “the A-Team itself burns benches” for both the men’s and women’s basketball teams.
A-Team members are split into three roles for bench burning — stokers, roamers and extinguishers — that each do their part to support the tradition in collaboration with the director of public safety, DUPD and the fire marshal.
Footage from 2015 and 2017 reveal that although the tradition has since slowed, it persists — along with associated bench controversy — as a Duke classic.
On Feb. 5, 2022, the Office of Student Conduct launched an investigation into the events surrounding an unsanctioned bench burning after the men’s basketball team defeated North Carolina in a rivalry match. Students found responsible faced the possibility of suspension or dismissal from the University and a potential criminal investigation by local authorities.
Since 1986, bench flames have lit the spirits of Blue Devils and fueled the passion of Cameron Crazies. Marked by both controversial disputes and productive conversation, the Duke community has watched its beloved tradition evolve while preserving the cultural significance of each bonfire.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Ryan Kilgallen is a Trinity sophomore and an associate news editor for the news department.