Reimagining Davidson

We want to hear from you about what Davidson would look like without an IFC-fraternity dominated social scene. What would Davidson College look like without IFC frats? Without binge drinking? Without Armfield(F)? We encourage everyone to use this as an exercise in imagination and creativity. You can submit your imaginings here

Submitted answers will be published below. 

What could davidson's social scene become?

“A modified version of what it was in the 1970s – a mix of organizations on the court involving co-ed eating houses, with socialization truly based on personal/social interest, rather than imposing the current formal and informal “rules” and patterns of gender and campus involvement in Greek life.”

“It would become nothing, absolutely nothing.”

“I don’t see how “burning down the frats” would have any impact on binge drinking. I think that students would just do so in less safe ways, such as pregames with hard alcohol instead of the watery Keystones of F. I think that without established IFC frats on campus more drinking events would occur off campus and introduce a whole new unsafe space with little to no possibility for intervention from Davidson or the campus police.”

“Fraternities at Davidson provide more than a just social scene (they give people a new community, food alternatives, educational opportunities, mentorship from upperclassman, etc.), meaning that removing them would have a negative impact on Davidson’s campus. There are reforms that should be enacted in order to address issues on campus, but removing them altogether is not the right option. Rather than creating a divisive space, this website should promote further educational opportunities for IFC. Risk managing has always been a crucial part of PCC organizations, meaning there is at least an increased level of safety associated with PCC-affiliated events. Many on Davidson’s campus truly appreciate IFC fraternities, for more than just their social status. It’s important to recognize these opinions while also addressing issues. The two are not competing issues.”

“In addressing the issue of all physical party spaces being owned by male organizations, the first step is having Eating Houses host parties consistently as well. This is a very important goal and will lead to a less IFC-dominated social scene. I think a major part of the discussion that is missing is the willingness of Eating Houses to host open parties consistently at down-the-hill apartments. Re-allocation of space will only work if the non-IFC organizations that replace the IFCs can provide the open party atmosphere that many students currently partake in at the senior apartments. I think reducing IFC’s social power that stems from physical spaces is just the first step, and this discussion must also focus on the non-male organizations that will be filling the demand for party atmospheres at Davidson. Eating Houses are large organizations with the membership, financial stability, and social capital to play a role in this new vision of Davidson’s party scene.”

“There would be absolutely zero sense of independence and students would be unfairly punished for no reason.”

“Replace eating houses and IFC frats with non-Greek affiliated co-ops. co-ops could still provide food and social/party atmospheres but through an explicit lens of sustainability and justice.”

How would you reallocate the space currently belonging to IFC fraternities?

“Repurpose these spaces as co-ed eating houses and social spaces for large student orgs (e.g. [Davidson Outdoors], religious life).”

“To me, taking away IFC houses would also necessitate either the removal of the eating houses (which tbh I am not opposed to) and an entire restructuring of what those spaces are (for instance, homes for various non-PCC orgs), or a vast expansion of new eating houses, including co-ed and gendered houses. A conversation about frats NEEDS to take eating houses and NPHC orgs into account. One possibility I see is we ban frats (except for NPHC orgs) and disband the current eating houses and create a radical new eating house structure. But also? Maybe we just actually burn down/ bulldoze Patterson court and build altogether new structures (student housing, student resource centers, org meeting spaces).”

“Maybe give it back to the fraternities after you realize this is a horrible idea.”

“Male eating houses seems like the only fair solution if you want to get rid of IFC frats entirely and not even consider eating houses and NPHC orgs.”

“Keep spaces dedicated to IFC fraternities. Add spaces for non-IFC and NPHC organizations. The two are not competing.”

“The ownership of houses should be proportional to the added value of that organization to campus. For instance, the four NPHCs put on an incredible amount of programming on this campus and are very involved in a wide array of student groups, so it doesn’t make sense for them all to be confined to the BSC in terms of a physical meeting space. I think each Eating House and IFC fraternity should be evaluated on the merits of what they add to campus. Providing meal plans to 50+ students is certainly a valid way to add value, but for many IFCs that’s where the story ends. If a large student organization would more effectively use that space, then they should certainly replace the IFC. I think an important logistical concern would be if the school could handle almost half the student body no longer receiving meals from PCC houses.”

“I wouldn’t.”

“affinity or interest-based co-ops”