As I established earlier in the DukeDrinking blog, the debate regarding Duke drinking has become a binary between one group against alcohol on campus and another group in favor of alcohol's place on campus. While they seem like opposites, both sides really want what is best for the University. The group against drinking opposes drinking because it does not want Duke to suffer academically from the culture of drinking on campus. The group in favor of drinking on campus is in favor of it because they believe the University will benefit from its active social scene on campus by attracting students desiring of an active social scene in college. Both sides have a common goal: the success of Duke University. Success, as mentioned before in the Dukedrinking blog , is defined in American society by a University's prestige. Prestige is most widely defined in society by a college's ranking in U.S. News and World Report's Annual College Rankings.

But if they both really want the same thing, how did polarized sides come to form in the argument?

The way the argument became so polarized because although both sides have a common goal, both sides feel threatened by the course of action of the other side. For example, the side that opposes drinking feels that in order for the University to progress, the University must limit alcohol on campus. Limiting alcohol on campus is exactly what proponents of drinking fear the most. This fear inhibits the proponents from trying to find any common ground between the two sides because in the end, the main course of action of the opposing side is limiting what their side values most in reaching their goal. Likewise, proponents of drinking allege that it is in the University’s best interest to not limit drinking, which itself is a threat to opponents of drinking on campus, who fear that not limiting drinking will continue to hurt Duke academically. These two sides clash not in their motives, but rather in their approaches.

In a way, this binary is like many of the binaries we see today in modern America. Either someone is Democrat or Republican, pro-life or pro-choice, pro-affirmative action or anti-affirmative action. In actuality, the two sides have a common goal. Democrats and Republicans want what’s best for America. Pro-life activists and pro-choice activists both want the rights of the individual. Proponents of affirmative action and opponents of affirmative action both want equality in education. There are so many binaries in society today that have been going on for years, and in some cases, decades, despite the fact that both sides have a common goal. And this is so because in a static binary, both sides cannot come together to find a common ground because the courses of action supported by both threaten the opposite side.

But, does that mean then that a binary can never be solved? Well, if it exists solely as a binary, it cannot.

In actuality, the binary is a symptom of one or more other problems. And in order to end the binary, both sides need to recognize the main problem.

 In the Duke Drinking Debate, the problem is not alcohol on campus. The real issue is a matter of campus culture. Think about it, why is binge drinking so prevalent?

Well, imagine you are a freshman at Duke University. What did you used to do for fun back home? Go to a movie? What about a bowling alley? Or maybe head into a city with a few of your friends.

Well, interestingly enough, as a freshman at Duke University with no car, all three of those options are nonexistent on campus or in the surrounding Duke community. Many of the things I used to do for fun in high school in Chicago, such as going to the beach, hiking, or going into the city, aren’t even available here at Duke. Duke’s social variety is simply put, lacking.
Therefore, with fewer options both on and off campus, a student is then more likely to choose to go to a party, which also increases the chance that the student will drink. As mentioned before in the DukeDrinking Blog, an increased rate of drinking also increases the rate of binge drinking. In turn, binge drinking is linked with negative academic effects. If many students then are binge drinking, their aggregate reduced academic performance then lowers the average academic performance of the University. This reduced academic performance is then reflected in the rankings.

The current Duke Drinking Debate is occurring over changing drinking patterns at the University. Yet, if drinking is really just a symptom of a greater problem, then the better thing to do would be to target the real problem: lack of social options. If the University created more social options, both on and off campus, it would create more options for students on weekends. With increased alternatives for recreation, students would then have more options to choose instead of binge drinking, which, if the options are enticing enough, could lower binge drinking rates on campus. This strategy is the most effective strategy in battling destructive drinking habits on campus because it respects the view of both sides in the argument. It respects proponents of alcohol on campus by not limiting drinking privileges, yet it also respects opponents of drinking on campus by not encouraging drinking on campus. Also, in addition to solving binge drinking problems, it would add more variety to the Duke social scene, appealing to a broader number of students, which in turn could attract more students to apply to Duke.
In broadening the social selections on and off campus, Duke could finally end the Duke Drinking Debate and also improve the quality of the University’s social life.