What a surprise it was to read Elliott Wolf's March 7 guest column, which declared the report of the Campus Culture Initiative "trite" and worth only a "C" in an academic setting. As a member of the CCI steering committee, Elliott would certainly know. But for him to say so publicly, and in such an honest and candid way, is shocking.
Unfortunately, Elliott's derision is also emblematic of the Initiative's process. From concept to execution, the CCI's attempt to define the "values and behaviors that should guide Duke students in their relations with others" has been an unmitigated disaster. Its membership has been fractured, its purpose unclear and its process flawed. Today, its conclusions are widely seen as illegitimate by students. In fact, the CCI has become a caricature of University governance, populated by agenda-driven individuals, operating under cover of secrecy and lacking meaningful student input or support.
As a student who agrees with President Brodhead that this "conversation" about policies encompassing housing, athletics, admissions, race/gender and alcohol is "deeply important," I find the CCI's failure regrettable. Which is why I'd like to hold the Brodhead administration accountable for the mess they've made of what was actually a very straightforward mandate: sustaining a discussion in the aftermath of what Elliott rightfully termed the "10,000-volt electric shock that was the 'lacrosse incident.'"
Interestingly, you could trace the CCI's problems all the way back to President Brodhead's decision to announce the Initiative in an April 5 e-mail that implicitly assigned Duke students-and particularly Duke lacrosse players-a "culture of privilege," an "arrogant inconsiderateness" and certain "attitudes of superiority." Of course, subsequently sprinkling the committee with individuals who decry our "subculture of reckless 'entitlement,' sexual acquisitiveness and aggressive arrogance," to quote CCI member Sam Wells, was equally ill-advised.
In fact, the committee's highly controversial membership was so poorly considered The Chronicle worried the CCI had been stacked with "critics of 'white male privilege'" seeking to "pacify countercultural professors, rather than to shape a new and improved campus culture." Given these serious charges, it is hard not to wonder whether President Brodhead intentionally stocked the committee with voices sure to be considered illegitimate by many in the Duke community. Alternatively, were Allen Building officials so ignorant of student and alumni opinion that they simply didn't realize their error?
Either way, that mistake left the CCI a virtual caricature of University governance before it ever began, populated by agenda-driven individuals and operating without a student support. But it's what came next-i.e., the unbelievably misguided decision to allow the CCI to operate under cover of secrecy and without meaningful student input-that consigned the Initiative to perpetual illegitimacy.
Indeed, the CCI's rules are such that meetings were confidential. This effectively ensures that individual members cannot be held accountable for their contributions to the report, nor can they discuss the actions of others on the committee. Elliott Wolf noted in an e-mail two similarly troubling characteristics of the Initiative's process: Firstly, "the committee did not weigh any alternative recommendations and ultimately explain why they chose one specific option." But even more importantly, "the committee relied heavily on [Consortium on Financing Higher Education] data that could not be released, undermining the public justification for the conclusions, as no one knew the survey methodology or the peer institutions involved."
Again, if the Allen Building were actively trying to design a committee whose conclusions would not be taken seriously, it's hard to imagine how they could have done a better job. Unsurprisingly, the CCI had become so fragmented by its end that the Initiative had to agree on the following ambiguously worded statement to get members to sign at all: "Given the size of the committee and the diverse views of its members, it is not surprising that there are differences among members about specific issues and recommendations. The CCI Steering Committee, however, endorses this report as a reflection of its work."
Perhaps it should have been no surprise, then, that President Brodhead greeted the CCI's report by noting that "none of the recommendations is a done deal" and inventing a new, eight-month long deliberation of the conclusions-a sort of "conversation about the conversation"-to be led by Provost Peter Lange. This process, which was never mentioned when the committee was formed last spring, is nothing less than an attempt on the part of nervous administrators to bury the CCI's report, which has long since become an embarrassment.
That attempt will likely be met with success. As administrators well know, CCI members' plea that the "entire University. must now engage in the discussion and the process of implementation" will not make it so, and students are likely to let the report die exactly the sort of slow, quiet death that is planned for it. Heck, even Lange announced, "We don't take for granted that all the ideas captured in the report are good ideas" at his first town-hall discussion with students March 6.
So have no fear if your chief concern is that fraternities and selective living houses remain ensconced on West Campus, or that Duke continue selling seats in its freshman class to the underqualified children of wealthy families. But if you, like me, had hoped for the frank discussion that Brodhead promised us all last spring-a discussion that risked presidential credibility and challenged false illusions in the hope of making this campus stronger-then you're almost certainly out of luck. The lessons of lacrosse will go unlearned yet again.
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.