Free food courtesy of quad council... RA programming event on internships... First panel discussion of the week, it has something to do with global health... Mandatory sorority fundraising event ($25 fine if you do not attend)... Second panel discussion of the week, it has something to do with gender at Duke... Musical act on the plaza and more free food... Third panel discussion of the week, it has something to do with "hooking up" (What?! People do that? I had NO idea)....
Ahh, we are blessed: During a given week we can watch a Pitchfork or two, learn about an obscure documentary film thanks to student organization #18679, eat Spanish bakery goods with the Langdorm and drink free beer on Campus Council.
At first it appears that Duke is akin to de Tocqueville's vision of America, with an array of associations "religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute." But, his "Democracy in America" needs one edit: "Programming is of great importance to these associations and must be planned even if completely unnecessary and even if no one attends, including the association's own members. No one will attend unless you include free food. Better yet, free beer."
An unfortunate edit implying overzealous student leadership and an apathetic student body. When is enough-enough?
I thought about this during a meeting last Friday when a '99 Duke alum mentioned a Chronicle Column (most likely Jaime Levy's 2000 column) that posited the question, "Who are Duke Student leaders really leading?" The alum noted that when he was at Duke, "student leadership" was somewhat of a fallacy, with everyone leading one group or another, planning some programs, and not really accomplishing much. Had anything changed?
I thought: Well, no. Leadership at Duke isn't leading... it's planning programs that no one attends, duh. That and a little resume-building here and there. Plus, didn't you know that everyone at Duke is a leader? Everyone is special?
Then I caught myself.
I used to have a different definition of leadership. Before coming to Duke, I thought organizational leaders were passionate go-getters, wholeheartedly committed to a cause-they were authentic, becoming involved in something because they genuinely cared. Some marched out front; others mobilized a movement behind the scenes. People wanted to participate in the organization because the leader's enthusiasm was contagious.
This leadership was not top-down, but inclusive, meaning that members did not have to be bribed or fined in order to participate in an event. Most important, the leader was not just an individual planning event X, but a member of a team and as such did not lead from a pedestal, but instead led on equal footing.
Duke's definition of leadership contrasts with this story.
"Duke leaders"-a term used to describe anyone on campus who is in charge of an event or runs a group-join, create or revamp organizations and then sponsor program after program, our student activity fees burning holes in their pockets. I can easily conjure up a few caricatures.
First, there is the "social entrepreneur." Differentiated with a focus on the individual, this person is the star running the show. The kid sits in a class (usually PPS 144, the enterprising leadership class), thinks up an idea, and launches a program that a) fails, b) is moderately successful, but lacks progeny and falls off the face of the earth once the individual graduates, or c) achieves success. In any case, the "entrepreneur" adds a bullet point to a resume.
Second, there is the leader via force. This leader usually takes over an existing organization and becomes so obsessed with being the power that he/she forgets about the rest of the students in the organization. These leaders are notorious for planning programs and events without consulting the organization's members and then making attendance mandatory. Usually these leaders focus on programmatic output, rather than critically examining their event or program's added value to the University. If four groups already sponsor a panel discussion on important issue Y, is another one necessary?
Finally, there is the visionary leader. This leader, given a normal student body with less "special" kids would be the ideal leader I described initially. Unfortunately, this student has no one to lead, no movement to mobilize and only program planning details to delegate. This is because there are no followers-students are either in the library, off starting their own "innovative" programs or refreshing the eRecruiting Web page. Hence, this student goes largely unappreciated: making decisions, dealing with administrators and doing the grunt work that a largely apathetic student body is too self-absorbed to do.
And so I present a pessimistic overview, but my frustration lies with a thirst for authenticity. I long to meet someone whose motivation is not external validation or future reward, but a commitment to a grand purpose or idea and a recognition that yet another panel discussion, attended by believers, is an ineffective way to achieve this purpose.
However, as I continue to contemplate how Duke can leave these caricatures behind, transform its definition of leadership and put an end to our program-planning compulsion, I should point out:
I do enjoy the free beer.
Rachel McLaughlin is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every other Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.