Guest Commentary: Eliminating Annual Review

The e-mail below was distributed last week to individuals and groups most directly impacted by my decision to suspend Annual Review. It is unfortunate that in The Chronicle's zeal to cover a story, they prevented me from telling groups about my decision in a respectful manner. The information I shared with leaders of Campus Council was told to them in confidence that was not respected, and my decision was leaked to The Chronicle.

I specifically told the editor who contacted me that I would be happy to discuss this issue with him, but that as a courtesy I wanted to first tell the groups about it myself and not have them learn about it in the paper.

Nothing was gained by breaking the story immediately except to create an air of suspicion that need not exist. I have had an open door with The Chronicle since my arrival at Duke and meet with two editors on a regular basis. I will continue doing so, this unfortunate experience notwithstanding.

All,

We no longer have 54 houses. The "house" model still exists on East Campus; however, the West Campus model is now built around the concept of the Quad.

We now have a comprehensive residential life and housing program that includes professional live-in staff and enhanced expectations of RAs and GAs. Significant financial resources have been allocated to hall staff, Quad Councils and Campus Council to promote programming that meets the needs of students. All sophomores now live on West Campus, many of whom have participated in the link system in the past two years. Any one of these changes carries important implications for the residential experience on West Campus; together, the change is very significant and warrants a re-thinking of what the residential experience could and should be.

Since my arrival 16 months ago, I have consistently heard that the Annual Review process is flawed and needs to be reconsidered. In August I sought the counsel of student leaders and several staff members about how we might best respond to this perceived need. This ad hoc committee spent several months wrestling with this issue and made recommendations which were endorsed by Campus Council at the end of October. These recommendations sought to create positive incentives for SLGs to continue providing programming for their respective quads and for the campus by making cash awards if certain ratings were achieved in an annual evaluation. They sought as well to emphasize the importance of SLGs being "good citizens" within their Quads. The citizenship factor was intended to provide a one-rating swing in the overall rating--up or down, depending on the citizenship score.

On the face of it, many would agree that these recommendations are an improvement over the previous model. I agree, as far as it goes. I have elected, with respect for the efforts of the ad hoc committee, to decline the recommendation for the following reasons:

1. Introduction of the Quad as our residential model is perhaps the most important change we have made. Inherently, this model seeks first to include all members of its community. For all their positive points, it is reasonably argued that SLGs as we know them today can and often do serve to promote exclusivity among subgroups within a Quad and in some real (if not perceived) ways divide the community. This is no different than the former house system. A Quad System can thrive only when the organizing principle is the larger group, not subgroups which may view themselves (or be perceived by others) as "Quad members in address only." This observation is supported in numerous ways, the most visible of which is the allocation of dedicated commons rooms to SLGs.

2. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Annual Review prescribed a series of programming expectations with the presumption that if a group failed to achieve expectations it would suffer a negative consequence. The common understanding had been that a group might lose its commons room, be relocated or lose SLG status altogether. The reality is that groups often considered the process little more than hoops to jump through and that retaining their status was a game imposed upon them by "the Administration." The recommended changes in the process did nothing to really change this.

The imposition of "you must do these things," even if there is greater choice and a possible financial payoff, still carries the imposition of duress. Compelling groups to do things because they fear that if they don't they face losing their status does not make for a true and sustainable community.

1. There seems to be a mantra that would have one believe that groups will not do programming unless someone forces them to. Rubbish. I don't believe it and have more faith in our groups than that. I say this because of why these groups were given SLG status in the first place. The overriding presumption about SLGs is that they will provide a value-added experience for their respective members. About this I agree completely. These groups will continue to do programming because of who they are, but perhaps with altered expectations. I care more that the programming happens than how broad its audience is. I see programming done by SLGs as an extension of the programming efforts initiated by the Quads and by Quad staff.

2. Greek groups who have SLG status already are subject to a formal review and recognition process that includes specific expectations. It seems most appropriate that the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life retain responsibility for evaluating the performance of greek chapters and not also subject them to an additional process.

3. Responding to behavior issues of groups cannot be Annual Review dependent. RLHS must be responsive to the needs and rights of a community when a group chooses to ignore its responsibility to those among whom they live. Civility is a minimum standard all members of a community should expect. We have recently exercised our responsibility and have taken action, in collaboration with the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, against two groups that earned our attention.

I took a long time to consider the committee's recommendations. It's an important and complicated issue. In retrospect, I should have kept those who had worked in this effort better informed of my thinking. I value their efforts and thank them for making me look more critically at this important issue. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that Annual Review seeks to respond to an outdated model, uses (perceived) threats to compel groups to provide programming and fails to address what is really the basic question: Why do we have SLGs in the first place and what does having them really mean?

RLHS will be undertaking this question as part of its strategic planning process and will include affected stakeholders in the discussion. Should this action be seen as a death knell for Selectives? No. Does it mean that the look and feel of Selectives may change in the future? Possibly so, but any changes will include careful consideration of how themed communities, regardless of what we call them, can best complement the Quad model and the residential experience Duke seeks to provide for its students.

In the meantime our Residence Coordinators and Quad staffs, in concert with Quad Councils and Campus Council, will work with SLGs to see how all may partner in providing programming for the residents with whom they live. This is part of being a community that should not require duress to be successful. I recognize that this decision may confuse or even frustrate some in our community. I will be happy to discuss this issue further if it will help clarify what I have done, why and where we are headed.

I especially regret that most of you learned about my decision in the paper. There were only seven people who knew what I was going to do, and one of them leaked it to The Chronicle despite my request to first let me tell those most directly impacted by the decision. When asked to respond by The Chronicle, I confirmed the decision, and added that I would be happy to speak with them after I had let all of you know. My request to respect that relationship apparently fell on deaf ears.

Eddie Hull is the Dean of Residence Life and Executive Director of Housing Services