The independent news organization of Duke University

DSG Judiciary rules in favor of tenters, vacates missed tent check. So why aren't they in K-Ville?

In a whirlwind decision, the Duke Student Government Judiciary ruled in favor of the tenters in Tent 74 that claimed that Krzyzewskiville policy is discriminatory.

On Monday, the Judiciary heard arguments from Tent 74 and the head line monitors about the events that resulted in Tent 74's second missed tent check Feb. 14. The tenters' petition stated that two students in their tent had hearing disabilities. In its summary statement, the Judiciary decided that even though line monitors, who complied with K-Ville policy, provided sufficient evidence that students with disabilities have had their needs met, the K-Ville policy itself was unconstitutional.

"Since the K-Ville policy itself does not include specific language regarding reasonable accommodations for students in K-Ville, we decided that the policy did not fully satisfy the requirements of the DSG Constitution Bill of Rights," the statement read.

Specifically, the Judiciary was concerned with the "reasonable accommodation process" for tenters. It vacated Tent 74's second missed tent check and issued an injunction that "establishes that students seeking a reasonable accommodation in K-Ville should contact the Student Disability Access Office."

Senior Dev Dabke, chief justice of the Judiciary, noted that ensuring tenting procedures were fair was important.

"In my opinion, the crux of the case was the tent check process, more than if the tenters were present in K-Ville at the time of the tent check," Dabke said, who added that a full opinion would be coming later.

But it's not all blue skies for Tent 74, who are still kicked out of K-Ville because the Judiciary also allowed head line monitors to reassess the contested second missed tent check to address whether two students actually were in K-Ville at the time. Less than 12 hours after the Judiciary's decision, the head line monitors decided two people were not in Tent 74.

"The evidence that Tent 74 provided did not prove their presence in K-Ville at 2:30 a.m. that night and therefore could not grant an exemption," wrote co-head line monitor Sara Constand, a senior.

Junior Charlie Pearlman, captain of Tent 74, wrote in an email that there were two tenters in their tent during the tent check, but did not indicate that the tent was planning on pursuing further action to appeal the line monitors' decision.

"There were two people in our tent, we thought we belonged in the game and we tried to demonstrate why," he wrote. "Unfortunate, but it is what it is. Catch us in the Walk-Up Line."

Read the Judiciary's summary statement here:

Likhitha Butchireddygari

Follow Likhitha on Twitter

Class of 2019

Editor-in-chief 2017-18, 

Local and national news department head 2016-17

Born in Hyderabad, India, Likhitha Butchireddygari moved to Baltimore at a young age. She is pursuing a Program II major entitled "Digital Democracy and Data" about the future of the American democracy.


Share and discuss “DSG Judiciary rules in favor of tenters, vacates missed tent check. So why aren't they in K-Ville?” on social media.