“Ain’t it like most people? I’m no different. We love to talk on things we don’t know about.”
I have learned a lot over the past fifteen months of writing columns for The Chronicle, but perhaps nothing more important than the fact that you don’t know how much you don’t know until you open up your ideas for public comment.
With that in mind, I tread very carefully over what I am about to say.
Like most students on campus, I have stayed quiet over the last many weeks as racial tensions have percolated and boiled over. As a function of who I am, and from whence I come, I feel like this isn’t my battle to fight. Nor is it mine to fight against.
I have made one observation, however, that deserves to be said.
There’s no doubt there are many students who are unsympathetic, or even opposed, to the various activist groups and movements that have recently sprung up (#DukeYouAreGuilty, Concerned Students, etc.). But for some of these people, the issue is one of methods rather than message. That is, they believe in the message but are made uncomfortable, are offended or are tired of the way that message is being delivered.
Today a friend put a pamphlet on my desk titled “#DukeYouAreGuilty: To Hell With Your Task Force!” It was written by a group called Duke Enrage, although it is not entirely clear who that is. I encourage you to read the pamphlet for yourself, but in brief it was a response to the announcement of the new Task Force on Bias and Hate Issues, the qualifications of its leadership and the role they see students playing as the school works to address these issues.
I don’t want to deal with the content of the pamphlet—because I’m not sure what I have to add that’s of value—but I did have a reaction to the way that message was written.
Over the past few weeks—including forums, statements, columns, etc.—I have seen a profound disrespect for the University and the people who run it. And that’s hard for me to swallow. First let’s just take this most recent document. Throughout, key administrators are referred to flippantly and disrespectfully. Whether you like President Brodhead or not (and I very much do), he runs this University. To dismiss his work as “Dick Brodhead’s non-response” denies him the respect that he deserves and is commanded by his title—President. Although only one word differs, its admittance signals disrespect for what he has accomplished through his graduate work, scholarship, leadership and service to students at Duke and elsewhere. The same goes for Deans Brownell and Burton, two highly respected scholars in their respective fields.
These two examples may seem trivial and nitpicky. And in isolation that’s probably true. But I think they underlie an attitude that has guided campus discourse recently. In the Page Auditorium forums, for example, students repeatedly cut off, talked over and denied questions to President Brodhead.
Thus it seems important, for any movement, to not alienate its supporters by the way it takes care of its business. If the protestors sincerely seek to achieve their goals, it behooves them to work in good faith with the administration for the betterment of the university. Their current demeanor, sadly, leaves much to be desired and is counterproductive to their cause.
Max Stayman is a Trinity senior. This is his final column of the semester.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.