After the fact, when asked about the March 6 Duke Student Government Town Hall meeting regarding the Campus Culture Initiative, I believe DSG Chief of Staff Paul Slattery, a junior, put it best: "It was productive that we at least had a meeting."
The agenda was rather simple: "Welcome from Chief of Staff Paul Slattery; Brief comments from President Elliott Wolf; Address from Provost Peter Lange; Discussion."
And so the evening went.
I'll admit I was skeptical at first.
The meeting was supposed to be the previous Thursday then was apparently rescheduled at the last minute for the following Tuesday. A blast e-mail from Wolf to the undergraduate student body was the only main form of advertisement.
When I showed up at the meeting, however, I was pleased to see a significant number of students were taking the time out of their evening amid studying for midterms to discuss the CCI Report.
Wolf explained that Slattery would be monitoring the meeting, and Lange took the time to introduce his role in evaluating what CCI recommendations should be applied on campus. Lange then began to explain the "Four Hot Issues," as he called them: selective housing, athletics, alcohol and diversity. He sat on the stage, notebook in hand, prepared to lead the discussion regarding these topics.
Slattery and Wolf, however, added a few more words before Lange could continue, and Slattery then immediately opened the floor to discussion, noting that the meeting would follow the format explained on the handy-dandy agenda handout.
Lange looked slightly surprised.
Nonetheless, the meeting continued, addressing issues from the advising program to kegs on the quad to renovating the West Union. Some topics encouraged more discussion than others, and Slattery joked, "We deliberately selected a room where everything was bolted down."
But his wit was misguided.
There was no real intense debate nor did anyone get up in arms regarding the high-profile topic of selective housing. Overall, the dialogue was respectful.
And that was one of my biggest problems with the meeting.
Rather than a debate in which students actively exchanged ideas with other students, it became a case of students simply making statements or asking questions for Lange or Wolf to answer.
Unfortunately, I think the format of the meeting did not encourage anything but relaxed repartee.
Because of this design, my greatest worry is that Lange was not able to take from the meeting what he needs to make accurate judgments regarding the CCI's recommendations.
In the earlier e-mail sent to the student body, Wolf explained that Lange is "leading the effort to determine if and to what degree each recommendation should be implemented."
Wolf later commented, "I have far more faith in the process Peter Lange set up than the CCI process," explaining, "a lot of the recommendations were ill-informed."
Then, the DSG meeting left Lange, in my opinion, with little to work with.
For this reason, I feel the need to pose two challenges.
First, I challenge the student body to not only continue to have conversations regarding the CCI Report but also to relay the thoughts, feelings and conclusions you and your friends discuss to Lange. He's the guy in charge right now; let him know what you think.
Second, and more importantly, I challenge Lange. I've been impressed by him when he's spoken in front of DSG this year and by how well he seems to respond to student comments. He's identified the "Four Hot Topics," but I think he should put those flashcards away. At this point, he must listen to all input concerning every campus culture issue that concerns students.
At this stage in the process, all ideas need to be on the table for review. There will be a time once the necessary debate has taken place to focus on the most talked-about, the most obviously crucial issues; right now, we just need to talk about the issues.
Allie Vergotz is a Trinity freshman. Her column runs every other Monday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.