Critics never cease to accuse the Allen Building of administrative opacity. But recently filed documents in the lacrosse lawsuit and controversy over Duke Kunshan University have once again drawn attention to the administration at the conclusion of the year.
The administration’s decision-making process must improve. For too long, decisions have been made behind closed doors in the name of enhancing Duke’s reputation. This process fails to take the concerns of students and faculty seriously. The next academic year should bring with it a change in the relationship between students, faculty and the administration.
President Richard Brodhead was once hailed for his concern for students—he was even called a “great champion for students” by Kemel Dawkins, former vice president for campus services, who worked with Brodhead at Yale University.
Although Brodhead may have wanted to be this champion, he was forced to confront the controversial side of student life early in his term with the explosion of the lacrosse scandal, the repercussions of which continue to play out in an ongoing lawsuit against the University. Regardless of what it actually did, the Brodhead administration seemed to take an outsider’s view of Duke during the scandal and gambled against the students in the name of public relations.
This was a one-off incident. But it has become paradigmatic for how the Brodhead administration handles major issues—developing and executing plans with only superficial input from the University community.
Faculty members are now complaining about not being brought into the discussion about Duke’s new China campus. Once again, the administration firmly insists that its plan will benefit Duke’s image, this time abroad. But with only intermittent communication between the administration and the Academic Council’s Executive Committee, the faculty is right to be distressed about the DKU enterprise.
The trend continued in this year’s campus culture scandals. At discussions about Tailgate, gender relations and Greek life, Brodhead continually rehashed his position that these incidents do not reflect the real Duke—or at least are not particular to it. This was smart public relations.
But it was also a missed opportunity to lay out a clear response to Duke’s cultural problems. He emptily encouraged students to “visualize a change” in a November email to the student body. And, while numerous student working groups have formed in the wake of these crises, they are only pantomimes of true solutions. Cultural progress at Duke will require strong presidential leadership.
Going forward, the Brodhead administration needs to focus on what really matters to students and faculty. This includes more socioeconomic diversity in our student body, more student and faculty input in administrative decisions and more outspoken leadership from our president on the direction of the University.
Duke’s reputation is important, but it should not trump the substantiative concerns of students and faculty. We must return to the basics and focus on improving Duke and the problems within it.
In an interview with The Chronicle last Friday, Brodhead rightly identified Duke as a self-critical university. We need an administration that will invite this criticism and speak with students and faculty on issues before decisions are made behind closed doors.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.