Last Friday was the application deadline for aspiring presidential committee student representatives, including those seeking to fill two undergraduate vacancies on the President's Council on Black Affairs. Here is the charge of this particular committee, as listed on the DSG website:
"Help insure that the University pursues its goals of increasing diversity of faculty and student body, building a more inclusive community."
I felt pretty excluded at that point.
Because last I checked the list, my only opportunities ranged somewhere between "Duke Forest Committee" and "Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility."
Which actually brings me to a point of praise: The administration is and has been pushing for student input on a host of wide-ranging issues.
And a problem: To what extent is everything we're convening and creating and merely continuing an elaborate but direct and limited response to everything that happened last spring?
To be fair, a limited response is exactly what the administration has spoken out against. A quick recap:
In his April 5 letter to the Duke community, President Brodhead outlined a five-step response to the lacrosse incident. Steps one, two and three were understandably investigatory: Inquiries into the men's lacrosse team in general, the administration's response and the student judicial process, all of which were undergoing heavy media scrutiny at the time. Step four, the Campus Culture Initiative, became the catchphrase for all official lacrosse-related introspection. Step five we've heard somewhat less about, that is, the creation of the Presidential Council.
The noble intent behind steps four and five is clear. What's not so self-evident is whether the Campus Culture Initiative and the Presidential Council will successfully address latent problems and tensions brought to the surface by that spring explosion termed Duke Lacrosse.
It hasn't been obvious to the Duke community what changes are being brought about by the new Presidential Council. It's not even certain that an attempt is being made to examine the roles and limitations of preexisting councils and committees. In the case of these committees must we be pushed to convene separate councils dedicated to black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American affairs?
While the President's Council on Black Affairs must be lauded for its contributions pre- and post-Lacrosse, perhaps a Presidential Committee on (fill in the blank) Affairs needs consideration as well. A suggestion for a title: Perhaps one that reflects the diversity of the students and faculty on a presidential committee charged with increasing diversity.
Whereas the roles and limitations of the new Presidential Council have been shrouded in some mystery, the Campus Culture Initiative appears to be very actively covering all of its bases, in a good way. As recently as Sept. 8, CCI co-chair Robert Thompson, Dean of Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, sent out updates both outlining the Steering Committee's timeline and progress and including descriptions of the four committee subgroups on race, alcohol, gender/sexuality and athletics. The simple CCI website is user-friendly and encourages students to leave comments and sign up for small group discussions taking place over the course of the next few months.
In addition, DSG President Elliot Wolf, a junior, recently sent out a mass e-mail encouraging undergraduates to get involved in the Campus Culture Initiative, in any and all possible ways.
In short, it was an e-mail asking us to care. Yes, involved administrators and faculty members are getting down and dirty. But who is to say whether they're on the right track?
We are.
The Steering Committee is actively seeking voices, and its members can't dig deep and wide all alone. The Committee can research, discuss, report and suggest, but for any change to take place, the students will have to provide manpower. For lack of a better term. And manpower is key, if only to avoid an impossible choice between digging deep and digging wide. We would hope that an examination of racial intolerance on campus, for example, would naturally lead us to question whether tolerance at Duke extends to those of all shapes, sizes, socioeconomic backgrounds and sexual orientations. But it's not enough to hope.
Instead, attempt action.
Or be annoying like me; ponder what feels wrong about the Presidential Committees, and share. If, after you've posted a comment, added a question or made a suggestion on the CCI site, you feel nothing of value has been left unsaid, consider what lies beneath the surface. If, heaven forbid, there is a "next time," and a crime is committed in such a way as to fuel another "perfect storm," will there be that desperate and palpable need to excavate our roots again?
If Channel 5 returns to set up house in front of the Chapel, and that blinding media spotlight comes to a rest on our faces again, may it find us determined to root out the source of injustice, but may we have no need to dig so deep.
Jane Chong is a Trinity sophomore. Her column runs every Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.