Administration should reconsider Duke Conversations

The Duke Conversations program, for those unfamiliar with it, affords students the opportunity to apply for the funding necessary to bring speakers that catch their interest to campus. The funding goes toward the travel and accommodations of the guest, who during his brief stay will host a casual Dinner Dialogue with up to 16 students as well as a more structured Community Hour devoted to the speaker’s story and craft. The program, needless to say, allows for intimate interactions that cater directly to the interests of the students involved.

Unfortunately, the University has decided to cancel the program, at least for the academic year. In a recent report by The Chronicle, Dean and Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki claimed that “it was a lot of money; it just wasn’t doing what it was hoped to originally accomplish.” Of course, he also stated that the temporary elimination of the program, which ran up a tab to the tune of $100,000 last year, wasn’t a “cost-cutting measure.... it’s marginal savings.”

The contradiction inherent in citing expenditure as a reason for elimination while at the same time undermining the figure of that expenditure seems to suggest that the problem with Duke Conversations, at least for the administration, lies more with its failure to achieve its goals. This notion is buttressed by the fact that a 2008 review committee for the program, which has seen the number of conversations drop from 85 two years ago to just 11 last year, discovered that some students were attempting to abuse the system by using the funding to invite back friends who had recently graduated.

Although this sort of misuse of University funding should certainly raise eyebrows, it should not be responsible for even a temporary elimination of a program with such potential value for students. It’s difficult to believe that whoever is reviewing the applications to the program cannot be vested with enough investigative power to easily ensure against such abuses in the future. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Duke Conversations could eradicate this kind of misuse by requiring an official’s silent presence at the Dinner Dialogue and the Community Hour. Advertisement of such a measure would most likely either deter any students seeking to game the system or would force their alumni friends to earn their brief stay back at the school by putting together a comprehensive presentation and program, which still fulfills the goal of Duke Conversations anyway.

However, simple solutions such as these are putting the fix on a problem that seems to be garnering too much focus instead of concentrating on improvement itself. This could most likely be accomplished through a more extensive advertising campaign concerning Duke Conversations. After all, there must be some reason that the number of Duke Conversations went from 85 one year to 11 the next, and it is highly unlikely that some sort of general shift in student body disposition is responsible for such a drastic decline. It is preposterous to suggest that the entire student body is aware of the existence of a program that allows them, at no charge and with little red tape, to bring whomever they want to Duke’s campus in an intimate, small group setting, but are simply disinterested. Perhaps not every student’s speaker of choice would be entirely in keeping with the intended goal of Duke Conversations, but there must be more than 11 worthy causes out of over 6,000 students.

It is possible that I am wrong, and that Duke Conversations is in some way a largely flawed program that attracts dishonesty more heavily than scholarly curiosity. My contention, though, is that the program is actually suffering from the same downfalls as the previously hampered Flunch program (which has now thankfully been re-expanded). Instead of cutting back on the program, the University should seek to expand student awareness of it and to mobilize the student body to embrace it. Not only will this result in greater success for the program, but heavy competition in Duke Conversations applications will also put a de facto end to funding abuse in a way that regulation cannot.

Hopefully, the student body will see the return of the Duke Conversations program next year, if not sooner. Perhaps the coverage that will run in the paper will be advertisement enough to renew student interest but, if not, then the administration should have other means of spreading awareness in place. It would be a shame to see a program with such potential for student and University enrichment go to waste as a result of ill-conceived correction measures and stillborn thought processes.

Chris Bassil is a Trinity junior. His column runs every Friday.