“Not affiliated with a larger controlling unit.” That’s how Merriam-Webster defines “independent,” which makes the recently formed Group of Duke Independents an especially paradoxical proposition.
The upstart group intends to play an advocacy role for independent students on campus to counter the loud lobbying voice of housed Interfraternity Council fraternities and other selective living groups. The group has its work cut out for it, however; a few weeks since its inception, the GDI Facebook group has less than 200 members, a small percentage of the large group of people and diverse opinions they hope to represent.
If that sounded overly negative, I apologize. To be perfectly honest, the term “independent” has never sat right with me. The title strikes me as a misnomer for any active member of our Duke community.
Whether you’re involved in a cultural club or an activism group, a musical ensemble or a freshman orientation program, almost everyone on campus affiliates themselves with at least one organization. A lack of residential focus doesn’t cheapen that connection. Even those students who have managed to repress the extracurricular-seeking instincts that got them through high school and into Duke in the first place are members of classroom discussions, study groups or pick-up basketball games that tie them intrinsically to the larger Duke community.
I’m sure there are a few truly “independent” students out there—lone wolves who ignore their peers and lock themselves in their rooms for most of the day. I just don’t know very many of them, and they probably like it that way. I’m also willing to bet they won’t be the first people to jump on the GDI bandwagon.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with independence. It’s what we celebrate on the Fourth of July; it’s where we buy our wagon wheels and oxen before departing on the Oregon Trail. But here at Duke, those who choose independence over living in a dorm with a colorful sign out front are a socially stigmatized majority.
The biggest problem independents face is not one of agency, but of identity. As soon as rising sophomores buy into the “independent” mentality, the stigma becomes self-perpetuating. Sophomores arrive on campus with the previous years’ relationships already in their back pocket. Making friends with your hallmates is no longer a priority—in fact, I went through my whole sophomore year without knowing the names of the guys who shared a bathroom with me. It’s an okay existence, but it can feel isolating at times.
The formation of the GDI signals that not all students are happy with the current state of residential life. But there is already a student group charged with addressing residential concerns—Campus Council. They are the student body’s primary liaison to Residence Life and Housing Services, and they serve all segments of the residential community, affiliated or not. Campus Council accepts ad-hoc members to its committees by application, so you don’t even need a huge fraternity voting bloc to participate. With all due respect to the GDI’s founders, I don’t think a brand new bureaucracy with a tongue-in-cheek name will necessarily be any better than the existing bureaucracy at addressing the underlying issues faced by independents—second-rate housing options and a lack of a sense of community.
Maybe the physical set-up of housing on West needs to be reexamined. The current quad model was voted into existence by the Board of Trustees in the Fall of 2002, shifting the focus of RLHS from individual entryways and houses to six bigger quads. Initially, freshman dorms were “linked” to specific quads on West Campus in the hopes of preserving the communities that were fostered during the widely-acclaimed “First Year Experience” on East. That system was abandoned in 2005 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that nobody wanted to be “linked” to Edens.
But devoid of these connections, the quads now lack character. With no discernable identity differentiating one quad from the next, it’s only logical that Room Pix participants base their decisions overwhelmingly on square-footage, air-conditioning and proximity to the rest of campus. Each quad is ultimately a hodgepodge of 250 to 500 very different students, many of whom will only live in that quad for one year. Under those conditions, despite the best efforts of the many hardworking residence coordinators and resident assistants, a few nights of free food during finals week cannot a community make.
Maybe the real culprit here is not the selective living groups’ lobbying arms. Maybe it’s just time to think outside the quad with respect to housing models.
Let’s pre-select a handful of blocks of eight to 10 contiguous rooms with adjacent common rooms for a separate lottery to allow independents the shot at their own section. Let’s put a limited level of squatting on the table for good neighbors to remain in the quad they’ve made their home. These sorts of changes foster lasting community-building and allow different dorms to develop identities. Maybe over time, living groups could develop organically rather than through an application process or an administrative mandate.
And maybe one day, the term “GDI,” with both of its meanings, will no longer be needed in the campus vernacular.
Bradford Colbert is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.