The Duke Student Government referendum was a sham. Your government pulled a fast one on you, and you may not even be aware.
Last week, Duke students were asked to increase the student activities fee. The voting mechanism was difficult to navigate, the referendum question unequivocally made an affirmative vote seem to be in the best interests of voters and there was a major lack of polling stations throughout campus. Above all, the referendum was unconstitutional.
DSG has a constitution and there were two major constitutional issues with this past referendum:
A referendum cannot be held within 10 days of an election, and freshmen elected their DSG representatives that same day. The only other way for a referendum to be administered is if the issue is placed on an election ballot. But, for three-fourths of Duke students, that wasn't the case. This can all be found in bylaw 1.9.
Bylaw 1.5.a states that "public polling stations with laptop computers connected to the Internet will be located throughout campus." According to a member of DSG on the night of the vote, the Marketplace polling spot was the only one available on campus. It opened a little before 6:30 p.m. The voting window closed at 8 p.m.
Although DSG maintains there is an exception to these bylaws, a careful reading of the bylaw proves otherwise. According to the bylaw, a referendum can only be placed on an election ballot if the vote takes place in the spring. DSG claims that this is a simple type-o, but the fact of the matter is that the bylaw should be followed to the word.
DSG's motivation simply boiled down to getting votes. DSG purposefully scheduled the referendum to take place on a freshmen election day to guarantee the mandatory student turnout would be met, and the only available polling place was in the Marketplace during dinner. In effect, DSG provided a framework in which the freshman vote counted for more. The freshman class ended up casting 40 percent of votes concerning the referendum.
It's not all about intricacies and constitutional technicalities. It's about a larger problem plaguing our student government.
When I flyered against the referendum on East Campus, the flyers were removed by members of DSG. When I notified DSG President Jordan Giordano of the constitutional infractions, I received an initial e-mail response. When I informed him that his reasoning was incorrect in more detail, all correspondence stopped. I e-mailed as many members of DSG as possible afterward, and one member asked to meet with me personally on behalf of the others. Giordano was not present at this meeting.
And now, when any of us picks up a copy of The Chronicle, we find another strange story about DSG. Whatever. Who cares, right?
We should. This past vote was an outrage. It was a sloppy, shoddy operation and it was an insult to Duke students. Our rights as constituents of DSG were violated, and we didn't even know it was happening.
Now DSG is threatening us with more direct punishments. The Readership Program and the yearbook are under attack, along with other Duke publications.
DSG's apparent response to students: It's our fault, as voters, that groups aren't receiving their funds. It's our fault that the Readership Program may need to be scrapped. It's our fault that all the hard work our government has put into making this referendum a reality has been for naught.
I'm not opposed to an increase in the student activities fee. I'm opposed to the way DSG is handling itself. If they can show all of us that the fee increase is necessary, let's do it. But DSG has not only failed to prove its point, it has failed to represent our interests.
Maybe it's time for a major audit of student groups. I'm sure some of this fund-cutting will be based on student group performance. Maybe, then, DSG should start with itself-DSG increased its own budget by almost $12,000, even while complaining of fund shortages for the other groups.
Maybe DSG should show us where the fund deficit actually is-the only budget DSG has made available shows a surplus in funds.
DSG was meant to be a government for us and by us. DSG is failing to do their part and we are failing to check them when they fail. But we can fix this together.
It's time to get rid of the fatalistic and haughty attitude, the complaining, the waste, the corruption. It's time to cast off the poor leadership and the failing structures. It's time to open the lines of communication. It's time for governance that will motivate students to be involved and take the 30 seconds out of their day to vote. It's time to end this travesty at the desk from which it all stems.
It's time to impeach the president and any other members of DSG who fail to rally to the students' side.
You want a real referendum that will get something done on this campus? Make it a recall of President Jordan Giordano.
Elad Gross is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.