Nobody cares about DSG.
To revise that lede, very few people at Duke pay attention to what Duke Student Government does. This cohort obviously includes those on the body, as well as The Chronicle’s beat reporter. I’m most interested in things most people don’t care about (indie music, the Liberal Party of Canada, Newt Gingrich, et al.), so naturally, I am one of few constituents who enjoys keeping up with the latest DSG news.
What has surprised me, this year, was how little Duke’s administration seemed to care about DSG. This is a bit inaccurate, so I’ll revise “care” to “take care to include DSG in initial discussions involving the creation of policy and policy implementation” (yes, I did just quote myself).
To be fair, I worry that DSG doesn’t always advocate effectively on behalf of student interests. The problem for both parties is similar: no one is intentionally negligent or malicious, but due process gets lost in bureaucracy and miscommunication.
I wanted to corral a few instances of this together in order to identify past problems and future areas of improvement. If at this point you’re wondering “WHY?” then the answer is that I needed a break from the real world’s obsession with putting discrimination in our state’s constitution and probes in women’s vaginas.
To go chronologically, the first instance occurred in September, when Duke Dining quietly restricted Merchants on Points hours, preventing students from ordering through the program before 7 p.m. After receiving complaints, DSG worked with Rick Johnson, who was then the interim administrator in charge of dining, to reinstate the hours. Students felt warm and fuzzy.
Alexandra Swain, the current vice president of Durham and regional affairs (who is running for DSG president), identified this as a successful instance of lobbying for a policy change. The other one she highlighted was this Spring’s collaboration with the Office of Public Relations and Government Affairs: We’ll have an on-campus early voting site starting April 19 (plug: Vote AGAINST Amendment One).
Second, the house model. I sat in on a few meetings of the House Model Working Group last Spring. The discussions concerned me because they lacked vision and were increasingly rushed. When the administrators in the room couldn’t conclusively decide on an element to the model, they’d propose to delay discussion until the summer. Discussion tiptoed around the specter of eventual renovations to Craven, and any mention of the need to set-up new placement program software seemed to induce panic among members of the working group. The essential question of how this actually improves the residential experience for independents remains unanswered.
In an interview, DSG President Pete Schork agreed with my frustrations. He admitted that “[DSG] got late to the game only because of Campus Council and the work they had done. The house model was going to happen no matter what coming into this year; there was no stopping it absent of some act of god or riotous student outcry.” In the absence of unanimous, coherent opposition to the model we are hurtling toward the precipice of a very weird amalgamation. Let’s just say I’m thrilled I’ve completed the three-year living requirement. Schork notes that in hindsight, “Maybe we could have said ‘Hold the phone, we have all these things we haven’t figured out.’”
Third, the reduction of the state of limitations on reporting sexual assault. The change seems untenable for the negative PR it engendered (though Stephen Bryan, associate dean of students and director of the Student Conduct Office, didn’t seem to think so). Ebonie Simpson, DSG vice president for student life, points out that the administration made the decision over the summer, when most students were conveniently absent from campus. Having learned about the decision upon their return to school, student leaders have had to catch up in trying to reinstate the old statute of limitations.
Fourth, the potential dining plan contract fee reduction. The rate was initially raised for the 2009-2010 academic year—Schork explained that it was meant to act as a “stopgap for the entire dining budget.” Dining is still losing money out of every orifice so it seems a high dining plan fee will endure for the foreseeable future.
Finally, I’d like to address the fact that no one can explain why gender-neutral housing is restricted to Central. … Life goes on—DSG is preoccupied with reorganizing itself and restructuring its own committees. I asked two of the three DSG presidential candidates, juniors Swain and Chris Brown, to comment on whether students see DSG as our advocates. Brown says it “depends on the issue at hand; if they think we can make a difference, they absolutely do,” while Swain thinks “DSG could do a much better job in making our advocacy more visible.”
This is all a wash. What really matters is whether or not the administration even sees DSG as our advocates—and therefore, whether or not they are inclined to seek out DSG’s input during the policy-making process.
Schork wishes administrators would bring in students to help answer “meta” questions, like “How can we improve Duke together? What are the big pulse issues? How can we be co-visionaries?” Individual administrators will engage student leaders, but rarely, if ever, is this engagement done with everyone on one page in one place. Good things get done independently, albeit without initial student consultation. As Schork notes, “the onus is on students to find opportunities for improving the extent to which students are involved in the ongoing dialogue.”
Do we care that the onus is on us?
Samantha Lachman is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every other Thursday. You can follow her on Twitter @SamLachman.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.