Vote no, vote for responsibility

Regardless of who you choose to vote for this week, vote “No” on the referendum included in your ballot Tuesday.

Very early Thursday morning after a four-plus-hour meeting that began Wednesday evening, we voted at the close of the Duke Student Government Senate meeting to put a referendum on the ballot for Tuesday’s Presidential election. After hours of debate on restructuring the composition and makeup of DSG Senate, we could not settle on a single plan. Procedural issues, conflicts of interest involving a variety of people in the room, and the dual vices of ego and the necessity to get to Perkins to do homework abounded.

The constitutional amendment is a simple one – allowing DSG Senate to complete reform of the size, makeup of elected vs. non-elected senators, and committees that compose the Senate without mandating a vote of approval by the entire student body—but the implications of such a change are far too unethical and troubling to not warrant public comment.

The proposed changes reek of a level of elitism and a lack of responsibility that has plagued DSG for years. Beyond the issue at hand, such a mentality undermines our capacity to be the kind of leaders we aspire to become.

Having been involved in DSG for my entire Duke career in a variety of positions, but primarily in the Senate, I will be the first to tell you that sometimes we can’t get out of our own way when it comes to procedure. In this case, we’re trying to fix our inability to reform ourselves by removing any form of student oversight over the process to reduce our responsibility in doing so in accordance with election season. In some respects, such internal changes truly mean nothing for the average student, but any changes to the structure of DSG’s Senate have significant ramifications for the budgeting and control of the nearly $1 million student activities budget paid for each year by every single Duke student.

The one actual power DSG possesses is the budgeting and allocation of these funds to student organizations, and it is something that consumes the bulk of most Senate meetings. On principle, students should have a voice over how their money is allocated to events and programs throughout campus. If we remove the one check said students have to the organization tasked with spending that money, then how do students have any power over the way DSG distributes student activities fees, let alone in advocating and working for students with the administration?

This argument may seem trivial, but I recognize how small decisions made in the moment by a DSG Senate barely paying attention to the matter at hand can have vast ramifications for student organizations.

When we spend thousands on parties and large programs in the fall but then run out of funds toward the end of the year to fully pay for a small organization’s guest speaker, it matters how DSG is structured.

When someone in DSG is unfamiliar with an organization and its funding request or a group has not been properly educated about the nature of SOFC funds, it matters how DSG is structured.

When it comes down to spending versus continuing to sit on a nearly $200,000 surplus account built by years of inaction, it matters how DSG is structured.

On the whole, I fundamentally believe we at DSG are responsive to student needs, spend money wisely and fairly and provide for vibrant and diverse programming options on campus. There are moments, though, when we clearly do not, and ultimately we have to be responsible to our constituents in the student body when these moments happen. In moments such as these, when we fail to do our own jobs within the system of checks and balances that has been created, we need to be held accountable.

Another failed Senate reform does not give us as student representatives the license to change the rules of the game in the hopes that one day we might get our act together and restructure. Students should not give us a free pass on Tuesday, when we have one nearly every other day of the year in meetings with administrations and while deciding on funding allocations.

Extending the discussion beyond this single vote in DSG, I have become increasingly troubled by the tenor of campus leadership. Increasingly within DSG, people have worked to box collaboration out of projects and initiatives for the purpose of claiming sole credit of an accomplishment. While this practice makes for great consulting resumes and presidential campaigns, they also hinder these positive efforts to improve the student experience and make campus a more equitable place.

Being able to recognize the impact amplifier of having peers on board and active on a project is one that requires the humility to realize that the best outcome is not always the one that you can reach alone. Every student has the capacity to do great things at this University, and regardless of whether or not they are in DSG or the right classes or leadership positions they can contribute and exhibit leadership to achieve an outcome whether a policy change or a new project or initiative.

My message to DSG, to the candidates running for office this week and to student leaders throughout campus today is a simple one. Cultivate the leadership of others and have the humility to recognize that collaboration and responsibility go hand-in-hand with each other. We have the responsibility to do the best we can for our organizations and for the people whom we will entrust when we graduate, to set an example for how one should act in practice when it comes time to make an important decision.

Abdicating responsibility in favor of what is expedient should not and cannot be the standard we set.

Jay Sullivan is a Trinity senior. His column runs on alternate Mondays.