Now that 2007's hotly contested undergraduate Young Trustee race has concluded, it's worth asking: When was the last time you heard a "regular" member of the Board of Trustees publicly define his platform the way Ben Abram, Jimmy Soni, Chrissie Gorman and David Snider were required to?
The answer is probably never. Aside from annual Young Trustee elections, the process for selecting the Board's remaining 36 members is, according to a January 1996 Chronicle article, "entirely confidential" due to "potentially serious political and financial repercussions for the University."
That process is not especially representative, either; in fact, the Methodist Church elects 24 of the board's 36 seats, with 12 apportioned to the church's Eastern Conference and another 12 reserved for the West. Duke's alumni are nominally responsible for electing 12 more trustees, although alumni leaders-and not alumni in general-are tasked with selecting these candidates.
This clandestine selection process may well respect the delicate political and financial considerations that go into selecting a trustee, but it also guarantees a board that is largely unknown-and unaccountable-to the Duke community. By excluding the press from nearly all the Board's deliberations and shielding its records from the public, the Board completes a cycle of clandestine decision making that leaves it accountable to no one.
Considering that Duke's bylaws vest "all powers of the University... in a Board of Trustees," including responsibility for everything from overseeing the University's financial well-being to choosing a president, that level of secrecy separates community members from nearly every important decision this University must make.
If this seems remarkably anti-democratic to you, well, it is; the Board's closed-door policy-which was re-instituted in 1996-was blasted by The Chronicle in an October 2000 editorial as an "unbending... refusal to resume an appropriate level of communication, making scrutiny difficult and removing all accountability." The editorial continued, saying this policy ensures the Board's "decisions will go essentially unscrutinized and its discussions will go virtually unquestioned and the distance between the board and the community it serves will grow disturbingly wider."
As the board's Feb. 23-24 retreat at the Washington Duke Inn approaches, it's worth asking when our trustees-as the University's top decision makers-plan to break their silence and publicly address the scandals embroiling our community.
A particularly appropriate place to start would be to address the major conflict of interest Chairman of the Board Robert Steel faces with his appointment as undersecretary of the treasury for domestic finance. This new role has forced the Board's prized "financial and economic genius" to "not be involved in anything connected to fundraising," a task that should otherwise define his job.
In fact, this prohibition is so restrictive that it's not even clear if Steel can function as ex-officio chair of the Board's executive committee, which oversees "operations and investment process" for billions of dollars of the University's endowment.
Indeed, if this board is really to make decisions that "cost people's jobs, refine their benefit packages, reshape their educations and change the dynamics of their city," the hypocrisy of overseeing University-wide priorities while the Board refuses to police itself deserves our input.
Equally important is that the board offer decisive leadership in the aftermath of the lacrosse scandal, which is increasingly pitting constituencies within the University-faculty, students, administrators and alumni-opposite each other. Just this year, Professor Kim Curtis has been accused of tampering with students' grades, while many of her colleagues have reported receiving racist and abusive e-mails and phone calls. Students and alumni are now openly signing online petitions that demand apologies from these same professors, with some of them going so far as to withhold financial support for the University.
Compare that to President Brodhead's defiance last month that he would handle the lacrosse scandal no differently knowing what he knows today-pressuring the coach to resign, suspending the team's season, sending not only the defendants but also Ryan McFadyen home. This level of administrative denial, coupled with the rising intensity of our internal conflicts and the threat of more lawsuits to come puts the board's erstwhile silence to shame. Although Duke's warring factions may be united in their fierce love for the University, the conflicts appear to be growing more acrimonious, not less, and a decisive, public response from the University's senior governing body is long past due.
After all, it was chairman Steel who defended the lacrosse season's suspension, saying, "We had to stop those pictures. It doesn't mean that it's fair, but we had to stop it." Perhaps it's time that Steel took his own advice and publicly addressed these issues at our University. It won't be pleasant, but it is vitally important if the board wishes to be considered a representative and responsible steward for our community-wide priorities.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.