This week in Chronicle history: Male Pegram residents defy administration

17 Mar 2011, Posted by Caitlin Johnson in Featured, News, 0 Comments

“Free the Pegram 24!” reads the headline of an editorial submitted to The Chronicle in March 1972.

I do a double take while flipping through the 1971-1972 archive of The Chronicle.

Excuse me? From where?

From banishment to off-campus housing, that’s where.

On March 28, 1972, twenty-three male Pegram dormitory residents on East Campus and one non-resident were notified that they were ineligible to receive on-campus housing during the following year. Why you ask? Because they refused to vacate their dorms over Spring Break after the administration notified them that all dormitories on East Campus were closed.

According to the administration, the decision was reached in order to preserve the safety of students and avoid unnecessary costs. Adding that security costs and the need for staff to go on vacation, as well as the initially low numbers of students opting to stay over break prompted the dorm closures.

In 1972, Duke’s men and women colleges merged into one co-ed school, subsequently moving men into dorms on the previously all female East Campus. University policy indicated that all dorms on East Campus were to close for extended holidays, however, men on West Campus were permitted to remain in their dorms and the newly settled male East Campus population found this unfair.

“’We find this arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the University, as well as a tremendous inconvenience for us. The problem is particularly felt since there are now men on East Campus and these men who would have formerly experienced no problem on West, have articulated the grievances to keep East open for everyone.’ Peterson [Pegram house president] continued.” (March 14, 1972, “Pegram members fight dorm closing”)

On March 13, Pegram house submitted a letter signed by 30 men to the administration stating, “active opposition to University policy in this matter” and emphasizing their “intention to remain in Pegram during the break,” in a Chronicle article. The office of the dean of men agreed to meet with the students to discuss the policy but noted that it was unlikely that the University would change the decision.

“Richard Cox, dean of men, said yesterday that anyone sitting-in would be in violation of Pickets and Protests, and indicated that the room contracts for next year might not be offered to anyone who protested.” (March 16, 1972, “Pegram may take legal action”)

“Since the dorms would be locked, Cox added, any entry into the buildings during this period would also constitute a “clear case of breaking and entering.” (March 16, 1972, “University refuses to leave East dorms open”)

Paula Phillips, dean of women, noted that traditionally there were only 5-6 women staying over vacation times and such a small number of women in a building meant for 120 people was not safe. However, The Chronicle reported a different figure suggesting that that 30 women requested to stay in Alspaugh, 28 in Wilson and 50 in Southgate.

An editorial on March 29 responded to the administration’s claims that safety motivated the close:

“Phillips never mentioned that all women’s dorms are equipped with key card systems which provide as much protection for 30 students all day as 120 at night. The women’s dorms on West survived the burdens of using 24 hours a day key cards during the break. The men’s dorms were kept open, as usual.” (“Free the Pegram 24!)

Regardless of safety concerns, the Pegram students maintained that it was their decision whether to stay or leave, noting that “their rooms [were] rented from the opening of school in the fall to the closing of school in May.” In contrast, Phillips indicated that the housing contract excluded officially announced breaks.

Ultimately, on the first day of Spring Break the students met administrators in the Pegram common room, insisting they would not leave and described their action as “a symbolic protest, an exercise of our first amendment right.” Administrators took down their information, and notified the students of their terminated housing contracts when the break was over.

The March 29, editorial left students with a final word of caution:

“All in all, the University’s position throughout the affair has increasingly tenuous. Students should lobby now, as individuals and through ASDU, to back the Pegram 24 if they hope to have any dorms open next year.” (“Free the Pegram 24!”)

Vending machines get Duke makeover

16 Mar 2011, Posted by Christine Chen in News, 1 Comments

Did you notice a breath of fresh air in the downstairs Bryan Center? Maybe tulip scented?

The vending machines outside the Post Office have new covers that feature a picture of a vibrant array of tulips from the Duke Gardens. Chris Brown, the Duke Student Government vice president for athletics and campus services, wrote in an email that it was “part of an effort by Duke Stores to improve the image of vending on campus.”

Duke Stores director Jim Wilkerson said he talked to Vice President of Student Affairs Larry Moneta about the covers and submitted 15 possible images. Moneta and his staff chose the one currently affixed to the machines, which cost $2300 and came from the Duke Store’s marketing budget.

“We hoped that most people would like [the covers],” he said. “We plan on installing more around the institute where people are interested in seeing them.”

Wilkerson noted that the overall response to the vending machine’s new look in the Bryan Center has been 95% positive.

“There may be two or three unhappy comments, but overall they said the covers were better than the old ones,” Wilkerson said. A few other responders also said they would have liked to see a different graphic, he added.

Brown was certainly someone who was pleased about the changes.

“I am a big fan of changes like this because they de-emphasize the corporate labels and bring the focus back to Duke,” Brown said. “The students I have talked to have all liked the concept.”

Wilkerson said he is happy that people are reacting positively to the change and he looks forward to having more installed.

Heated ball games

15 Mar 2011, Posted by Melissa Dalis in News, 0 Comments

In the world of baseball, hotter temperatures may lead to more heated players.

After a pitcher’s teammates have been hit at bat by the opposing team during a game, the pitcher is more likely to retaliate by hitting his opponents at higher temperatures. These heated environments apparently increase hostility when teammates are hit by a pitch, while decreasing restraint against retaliation, according to “Temper, Temperature, and Temptation: Heat-Related Retaliation in Baseball,” a study conducted by researchers in the Fuqua School of Business and published last month in Psychological Science.

“The baseball lore, ‘a batter for a batter,’ where I hit one of your guys if you hit one of mine, only applies in hot weather,” said Richard Larrick, professor of management at Fuqua and co-author on the paper. “People are more aggressive on hot days because they are more uncomfortable and more easily angered.”

Data for this study was collected from 57,293 Major League Baseball games. Overall, there is a 0.7% chance that a player will be hit by a pitch, and that player is 1% more likely to be hit if the temperature is above 90 degrees and two teammates have already been hit, Larrick said. In terms of the roughly 1,500 batters hit each year, 100 more would be hit in 90 degree weather, and 100 fewer in 50 degree weather, he added.

The chart to the left shows the relationship between the probability of a batter getting hit and the temperature and number of teammates hit during the game. Even when controlling for many other factors, it is clear that temperature increases the probability of a player getting hit, and its impact varies with the number of teammates hit by opposing pitchers.

Aggression generally increases on hotter days, in baseball and in other contexts such as violent crimes, Larrick said. Unlike in cold temperatures when people can wear a jacket to stay warm, people in hot temperatures tend to be more uncomfortable and easily irritated. People are more likely to interpret actions such as someone hitting or insulting as hostile in hot weather, and are also more likely to take revenge.

Hot weather may also impact other sports, such as football and soccer, Larrick noted. Football players, for example, could accumulate more fouls in hot temperatures if their teammates have also been fouled. In soccer, a similar situation could happen with yellow and red cards.

Larrick added that this research will be especially important in the baseball industry, as well as on the academic side when they  analyze emotional conflict. Socially this study can help them understand how fights break out and how people can be more likely to retaliate in high temperatures, he said.

“I don’t want to go too far with [the implications], though,” Larrick said. “I’m not sure I could predict bar fights, but this is at least analogous to understanding why more conflict occurs on hot days because more people are more easily provoked.”

Some students opt for alternative spring break

14 Mar 2011, Posted by Caitlin Johnson in News, 0 Comments

Last week nine Duke students opted to “Dive into Durham” instead of your typical spring break spot.

The students spent five days volunteering with local non-profits as part of a pilot program for the Office of Student Community Volunteer Programs’ new alternative spring break.

“The point was to expose kids to non-profits in Durham,” said Sadhna Gupta, a sophomore who participated in the program. “[They're] understaffed and underfunded, and they need more hands.”

Throughout the course of the program, the students volunteered with six different organizations, including Genesis House and Seeds, whose work related to the week’s theme of hunger and homelessness in Durham. They also dialogued about the state of Duke-Durham relations and the idea of service work.

“Duke students are all about big changes — policy changes,” Gupta said. “We don’t take enough time to go out and do the less glamorous things. But I think it’s valuable to stay local and help out your community.”

Optimistic MBAs more likely to find jobs

13 Mar 2011, Posted by Christina Pena in News, 0 Comments

For students seeking jobs with a “glass half-empty” mindset, it might be time for a paradigm shift.

A recent study of MBA students shows that graduates who express overall optimistic outlooks receive job offers and promotions more quickly than their pessimistic peers.

In the study, authors David Robinson, a professor of finance for the Fuqua School of Business, Ron Kaniel, an associate professor at the Fuqua School of Business and Cade Massey of Yale University jointly describe an optimist as one who “places more weight on favorable states of nature when making [job-seeking] decisions than a pessimist does” and hold the “broad, general belief that good things tend to happen more often than bad.”

Following the results, Robinson and Massey told the press that they recognized that optimism contributes to student applicants’ charisma and assists in one’s ability to adapt and engage in realistic courses of action.

For Duke students seeking employment, Sheryle Dirks, associate dean for career management at the Fuqua School of Business, said her experience in working to help students seek jobs largely reflected the results of the study.

“Seeking a new job is difficult, particularly in current economic conditions, so a great attitude is an important ingredient to seeing the job search through to a successful conclusion,” Dirks explained. “Those who are intuitively positive or more resilient may tend to allow failure or rejection to ‘get them down’ for shorter periods than others, and they may also be more likely to see how those ‘no’s’ can teach them something and ultimately move them in a positive direction.”