This past week, Residence Life and Housing Services Director Eddie Hull abolished the annual review process for the current semester without any prior warning, without an explanation and without presenting even the outline of a plan that will replace it.
Hull's management of the situation was deplorable, as campus leaders and students were completely blindsided by the announcement. The student body deserves immediate clarification of the motives underlying the decision, the reason for the lack of communication and the method by which selective living groups will be evaluated, and most importantly, punished, in the future.
Hull's actions are puzzling for several reasons. First off, Hull and Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta, have long voiced their commitment to empowering students and giving them a say in the rules and regulations that govern their residential communities. By removing annual review without consulting Campus Council or Duke Student Government, the groups responsible for representing the student body, Hull and Moneta have left students powerless. The move hardly seems in line with a philosophy that values student input in decision making.
Additionally, the abolishment of annual review comes only months after a successful overhaul of the process by Campus Council, culminating in a resolution that passed the body unanimously. While Hull was not obligated to accept the recommended changes, his decision to scrap the process altogether, without first discussing it with Campus Council, seems both unprofessional and subversive. If Hull really cared about student input, he would have taken steps to disclose his thought process to student leaders.
What remains to be seen are Hull's true reasons for abolishing annual review. The cloak and dagger nature of the announcement, and the lack of disclosure of a replacement system might very well indicate dubious intentions. Imagine this scenario: a selective group is denied housing on campus by Hull's office, as the result of an evaluation on undisclosed criterion. The group would be left without a leg to stand on, as it would not have documented instances of programming and other community-based activities to appeal to. Without too much guesswork, one can see the abolishment of annual review as another step toward the abolishment of selective living on campus.
While this scenario is alarming, students should not necessarily jump to conclusions. It is also possible that Hull simply views annual review as an unnecessary hurdle for selectives, and believes that students should participate in programming and faculty interactions because they want to, not because they are required to. Regardless, Hull should make strides to elucidate his intentions.
Annual review was an important component of residential life at Duke because it attempted to provide a certain level of accountability on the part of selectives to the larger community. Selectives are granted amenities, like commons spaces and guaranteed on-campus housing, that independents are not. Annual review provided grounds for justification, and fostered community interaction. Hull was wrong to ignore the recommendations of the annual review committee, and to scrap the program. He owes students an explanation before Spring Break.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.