Fix my DSG, pt. 2

Forecast for the next two weeks? Flyers, profile pictures and platforms galore. In this round of Duke Student Government elections, Annie Adair, Tara Bansal and John Guarco have entered their names as our three presidential hopefuls. Two others are vying for Executive Vice President and three for chair of the Student Organization Finance Committee. Today we turn not to the candidates and their campaigns but to an inspection of DSG in the status quo and our vision for the organization.

In our view, DSG finds its first purpose as a representative government, a conduit between students and the administration. Compared with student organizations, DSG provides a formally structured institution and persistent connections with administrative and academic leadership to translate legislative advocacy into policy change. Most importantly, DSG’s reach and elected nature task it with envisioning and moving towards a better Duke in close consultation with student sentiments.

But ask any student, and they can hardly tell you if DSG is accomplishing its mission or improved since we commented last in "Fix my DSG." We see the great potential for DSG to make students feel heard on campus and leverage its relationship with administration, but there is a disconnect. The problem may start with the self-selection of those who are interested in being on committees and working through legislative channels. While selection bias for an organization is not unique to DSG, its implications have consequences for the whole campus. DSG cannot continue to attract bureaucratic types or climbers of elected hierarchies. We recognize the range of passions that motivate individuals within the organization, but the disinterest and even disdain shown by students are symptoms for some broader failure. DSG has made strides this year to better connect with student leaders and their organizations, but only after last semester’s campus and national turmoil. DSG ought to also serve as a countervailing force of student interests to administration with regards to sexual assault policy and student affairs.

Past low voter turnout demonstrates student apathy towards DSG. The disjointed nature of the DSG-student body relationship stems in part from a lack of transparency. Even when the most promising projects are adopted, they disappear from public view and updates are sparse. The DSG Research Unit promised great work but has yet to release any research on the student body or University to make headlines. DSG’s social media updates and blog are poorly maintained, and its weekly emails feel promotional. This forces students to choose between being frustrated or uninterested, bolstering the sense that DSG may not be living up to its claims.

This is not to say that DSG has not followed up on all of its promises. The living learning community set to debut in Edens next fall and the release of DevilsGate are two great big projects to come out of DSG’s work. Our critique also does not mean to diminish the work of passionate individuals within DSG. We recognize the potential for pushback and obstacles that make many projects more difficult to complete, but if that is the case, we reiterate the necessity for public communication back to students and concerned student groups. Key platform mentions from elections last year regarding mental health leave policy and PACT training expansion require more accountability in the year those candidates took office.

While we certainly prefer the Duke with DSG to the one without it, and while exemplary senators, VPs and leadership do participate in the organization, the fact remains that DSG can do much better in the eyes of students. When elections roll around in two weeks, we hope candidates not only run for their positions but also for improving their organization.