I've often wondered why Duke Student Government never seems to do anything substantial. Sure, they manage to do a lot of interesting little things, which is fine in the general sense. But why don't they ever seem to enact real change?
The answer is the subject of my final column. I submit that DSG is simply incapable of doing something truly profound, effective and beneficial for the student body. The theory that follows is the product of four years of research, discussion and analysis.DSG politics is a game of self-interest, nothing more. All the actors involved enter with goals that span the time they spend playing the game. Once on the field, they then seek to act on those objectives along the path of least possible resistance (as any rational politician would).
This is problematic because where interests clash, students inevitably lose. Let's examine the incentives of the two groups of actors-students and administrators-in order to understand how this works.
Students run for DSG for a variety of reasons. I imagine that the main motivations are making changes, adding an "impressive" notch on the resume, enjoying politicking, being close to power, and feeling important. Sure, most hope to benefit the students they ostensibly represent, but I refuse to give this priority.
Alternatively, the University has a firmly entrenched set of preferences they are loathe to change. These define the field of play, and they are rigid because, as a collective of individual administrators, the University has no incentive to give up any share of its power or compromise its beliefs.Because the University sets out the rules of the game-that is, precisely what policies it is willing to discuss-the students are forced to make sacrifices in order to prevent total failure, at least in their own eyes. DSG therefore lacks the bargaining power to demand an equal seat at the negotiating table.
But the administration has to play the game: Preventing DSG from doing anything and completely ignoring the student body would create unnecessary and dangerous conflict across campus. Instead of simply saying no and denying student initiatives, administrators concede something in order to keep the situation proceeding in their favor. This is why they are willing to let DSG make small changes at the expense of more monumental ones, such as allowing kegs on the quad, but only with University bartenders.
These minor sacrifices are thus the price of perpetual victory, which they gladly pay to pacify the students and their representatives in order to prevent substantial change. But why would DSG accept this ruse? Couldn't they just protest, get angry, go public, or start a riot? They go along because the game works to prioritize cooperation.
First, students think that doing something is better than nothing, so they bypass the barriers to progress by moving in fits and starts. This is why, for example, that the meal equivalency plan is always rejected at the beginning of the year and then enacted several months later. No one is willing to put their reputation on the line and take a stand for the cause that presumably brought them to office.
Moreover, fighting the University for real change is more difficult and time-consuming than accepting the little victories, so they avoid it, just as classroom assignments are put off until the last possible minute.
Then, there's the pervasive insider mentality that being successful means developing working and congenial relationships with administrators, which later helps to resist action on larger goals. DSG reps don't want to anger key officials with whom they might have to work on later projects by not going along with the system. So, for example, they got behind the revised Duke Community Standard, which increases the University's purview on matters of academic integrity at the expense of students' rights.
Getting on the administration's good side also has its perks-insider knowledge, a feeling of importance, proximity to power, and, of course, the uber-desirable letter of recommendation. These fringe benefits are too persuasive for student government to ignore; in a sense, these are bribes offered in exchange for complicity.
Simply put, DSG representatives gain from shelving their dreams in favor of the ease of the moment. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the University wants, which is why change happens so infrequently. The institutional dynamic of the DSG machine is thus resistant to making substantial moves or achieving significant progress, like fighting back against the Campus Culture Initiative from the start, resisting West Campus housing policy changes, and sticking up for fraternity rights.
We are not powerless, but as anyone who has ever been prosecuted by Judicial Affairs knows, Duke isn't just going to give you your rights. You have to fight for them.
And that's what students must do if they really want to see different results-stand together, demand change and accept as our "leaders" only those who are willing to do what's necessary to achieve it. Anything less would be uncivilized.
Jon Detzel is a Trinity senior. This is his final column of the semester.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.