DUSDAC should be more responsive to employees

The Duke Student Government decision to renew ARAMARK'S contract was based on a report that lacked thorough research and was gathered by the Duke University Student Dining Advisory Committee, an illegitimate group with little accountability to the student body or Dining Services employees. DUSDAC is an organization that evaluates dining services and makes recommendations to the administration.

Despite the enormity of DUSDAC's responsibility, it is an non-elected body with no specific bylaws for itself and an unclear selection procedure. DUSDAC's lack of accountability to students is reflected in its recent recommendation to renew ARAMARK's contract. DUSDAC's resolution spoke vaguely of student dissatisfaction with employees but did not cite important details about why some students perceived dining staff to be rude.

Student dissatisfaction often arises from frustration with portion control, which is actually an ARAMARK policy, not employee rudeness. Without specifically investigating concerns, DUSDAC cannot effectively resolve problems between students and the dining staff. DUSDAC should also be accountable to Dining Services employees. Their reports directly influence decisions on the oversight and working conditions of the entire dining staff. Thanks to large student opposition last year, staff in the Great Hall and Marketplace remain Duke employees. Employees can voice their concerns directly to the administration. However, DUSDAC's evaluations still have a significant impact on their future. It is disturbing that DUSDAC didn't bother to consult dining staff for this year's report.

Duke is a community. It includes students, administration, faculty and employees. Only ARAMARK officials were invited to the DSG meeting. DUSDAC should have also sought input from Duke students and employees. Excluding vital parts of the community shows complete lack of respect and speaks poorly of Duke's institutional integrity.

Although DSG's amendment to increase DUSDAC-employee interaction is a step in the right direction, it is extremely upsetting that this measure was reactive rather than proactive. Perhaps if the initiative was taken this year and a more inclusive report produced, the DSG vote on the renewal of ARAMARK's contract would have ended differently.

Janeil Belle

Trinity O05

Bridget Newman