As outgoing Chair of the Board of Trustees Dan Blue, Democratic North Carolina state senator and Law ’73, passes the torch on to his successor, former Vice Chair Richard Wagoner, Trinity ’75, there is an opportunity to reflect on Blue’s tenure as chair and how his term has been perceived by the Duke community.
One of Blue’s most prominent characteristics as chair has been increased accessibility during a period when the University was strapped by financial limitations, but set on global expansion. Possibly due to his political background, Blue has been more visible than recent chairs, including his predecessor Robert Steel, Trinity ’73, noted for limiting the Board’s transparency. Still, Blue has not increased the Board’s procedural transparency to the larger community.
Throughout Blue’s term from 2009 to 2011, the Board was heavily involved in the development of important projects such as Duke Kunshan University, the new Keohane 4E Quadrangle and West Union building renovations. The Board also worked to achieve a state of financial normalcy, leading the University out of the economic recession. For the most part, Board members and top administrators seem to be pleased with the University’s progress under Blue, though some throughout Duke remain skeptical of these projects and the rationale behind them.
For example, consider Duke Kunshan University—many faculty members, particularly those in Arts and Sciences, have recently raised concerns about DKU. One of the issues they assert is that it does not make sense for Duke to spend significant funds on the China campus while funding is being cut from academic departments at Duke. Complaints arise even from departments that will not initially have programs at DKU. Yet the Board remains confident in their investment in DKU. Both parties would benefit from increased communication.
This relative disconnect has manifested itself throughout Blue’s term, though it has been a historical trend between the Board and the Duke community.
The fact that some faculty members said that they felt largely left out of many discussions surrounding issues, such as DKU development and certain financial decisions, raises another concern. The Board, as a representative body, is supposed to make choices that reflect the population it serves—the Duke community. But there is a vast chasm between some areas within the University and the Board. Just as the populace is unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Board, the Trustees are not necessarily attune to the needs and desires of students and faculty.
Blue, though certainly handcuffed by financial constraints, oversaw many decisions that show the University’s optimism for the future. It is, however, hard to effectively review his tenure because of the murky waters through which one must assess the Board’s activities. The Board and administrators’ positive outlook is overlooked, and potential excitement from faculty and students is lost due to sometimes strained communication between the Board and the rest of the University.
And though the Board has made progress concerning transparency and visibility, there is much room for improvement. Wagoner has an opportunity to bring the University out of the dark about many important issues that have been obscured throughout the past several years. Hopefully, Wagoner’s name, unlike some of his predecessors, will be one that is well known across the campus.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.