Over the course of this past week, The Chronicle has published a series of articles and editorials related to the abrupt "suspension" of Annual Review. As a member of Campus Council and the committee which scores each group's Annual Review materials, I have gained some unique insight into this decision which I hope may now help to give direction to the collective student voice. I present here my personal opinions on this issue as gained through conversations with various faculty, administrators and student leaders.
The reasons presented to Campus Council as to why Annual Review was removed center around a desire to eliminate mandatory, group-created programming.
The opinion of the administration ostensibly has resulted from a belief that selective living groups (both greek and non-greek) will organize programming even without direct pressure from the administration.
I simply cannot agree with this perspective. Having read through Annual Review documents of every group on campus, it is obvious that many events are thrown together simply to appease the administration, with no interest from the group itself. Such patterns throughout the documentation give me little reason to believe that groups will continue to create such programming without being forced to do so.
Many of you may see no need for programming organized by selective living groups. I strongly advise anyone who values the existence of such groups to challenge this perspective. The removal of Annual Review is synonymous with the removal of the only means by which selective living groups can demonstrate and present to the administration their positive influence on campus in a consistent, measurable manner. Selective living groups must do their best to keep this from happening. As it stands now, the best option is for IFC to work in conjunction with the leaders of non-greek selective groups to create a new, self-policed Annual Review process. If such an initiative does not come to fruition, the administration will eventually cite a lack of positive influence from selective groups who will inevitably become more trouble than they are worth. Removing such groups will become trivial in that kind of environment. This is especially true for non-greek groups who are not protected by a national organization.
It may seem at this point that I am being overly cynical in my predictions that this decision is the beginning of the end for selective groups. I ask you to consider the relocation of Delta Sig to Edens next year. The move was the result of continuous conflicts between Delta Sig and Sigma Nu, who were placed in adjoining sections two years ago. Believe me when I say that it was no coincidence that the announcements to remove Annual Review and to relocate Delta Sig coincided with one another. The reason? The administration is frustrated with the difficulty of disciplining groups who have demonstrated a positive influence on campus through Annual Review. In this case, Sigma Nu's stellar Annual Review record has left the administration little flexibility to give the group anything more than a slap on the wrist. Administrators have stated explicitly that they are concerned with this dependence of disciplinary procedures on Annual Review. Removal of Annual Review gives the administration much more freedom in punishing groups without giving consideration to any good they have done for the Duke community. Some may think this is fair, but I certainly do not agree.
There is more evidence of the potential removal of selective groups, at least from West Campus. The administration is currently throwing around an idea known as the new quad model. Achieving this model is, I assure you, their current goal. This quad model follows the residential college system used at Ivy League schools. The goal is to create unity within quads, directed by RCs, GAs, RAs and quad councils. With emphasis on quad unity, administrators have explicitly cited selective living groups as being divisive, inherently damaging the ultimate goal of the new model. Basically, the new model seeks to create a community in which the quad is the living group, not divided into smaller groups.
I would like to emphasize that what I have written is based on more than Chronicle articles or conspiracy theories. Rather, it is based on statements made by campus leaders and administrators at various levels. If you wish to preserve the existence of selective groups on campus, heed what you have just read. Groups should work to create programming, even if voluntarily. In addition, students should seek out the help of the faculty. While Duke has seen a decline in faculty participation in student life, the fact remains that the faculty voice is more poignant than the student voice. Regardless of your opinion, take action to create the Duke you want. This campus should belong to the students; do not let the administration take that way.
Hany Elmariah is a Trinity senior and a member of Wayne Manor and Campus Council. His views do not express the opinions of these groups or The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.