Conversations program deserves reincarnation

Last year, the University eliminated Duke Conversations—a program that provided funding for student-invited speakers to host intimate discussions on campus. The administration purports that it did not cut Conversations because of budget strain during the economic downturn. Rather, it was a consequence of the program’s failure to meet its goals, said Steve Nowicki, dean and vice provost for undergraduate education.

President Brodhead initiated Conversations after his arrival from Yale, in order to mirror a residential speaker program there. But the program drew skeptics for its questionable allotment of funds—a suspicion vindicated by a 2008 review that demonstrated that a small number of students were using a large portion of the funds. More troubling, however, is that the $150,000 budget was at times being utilized to bring back recent alumni who were friends of the nominating students, but who provided little contribution in the way of valuable discourse. The 2008 review led to a 33 percent budget reduction in 2009—to $100,000—as well as the creation of a selection committee to read applications for proposed speakers. Ultimately, the program was eliminated in 2010.

Now, the time is right for the revitalization of Duke Conversations.

Fortunately, University administrators are open to considering its revival. Nowicki is leading the way to assemble a committee to discuss its potential reinstatement under the house model.

As all Duke affiliates are well aware, the house model marks a drastic shift in campus life. Duke Conversations could make a vital contribution to this shift. Reinstating Conversations in conjunction with the house model would provide the ability to host speakers, fomenting house identity which, in turn, would encourage increased participation in Conversations. The new manifestation of the program should allow only houses to invite speakers to emphasize the unique responsibility that houses have to create their own identities.

We believe that allowing individual houses to be the sole solicitors of Conversations provides an important opportunity to each house. Houses can invite speakers specifically geared toward their house’s interest, where relevant, and should have the agency to dictate the scale of the event—whether it is a large gathering or a small dinner. Regardless, the houses should host the event within their walls but open up attendance to the larger Duke community. If demand for an event exceeds supply, preference should be given to those within the house on a first-come, first-serve basis.

In the past, failure to publicize speakers acted as a hindrance to student attendance. But if houses serve as the initiators of inviting guests, poor turnout poses less of a threat. Speakers should be determined by consensus of the house and can be easily publicized via house emails.

To prevent the abuse of funds that occurred during the first few years of Duke Conversations’ existence, the new form of the program should heed the suggestions of the 2008 review committee. We recommend that a selection committee is again utilized, as in 2009, and should be comprised of students and faculty to ensure the quality of speakers and the intentions of those inviting them. Duke Conversations will encourage house cohesion within the new residential model. Nowicki and his committee would be wise to reincarnate the programs for the upcoming academic year.