An open administration

Earlier this month, 28 Harvard Law School professors published an open letter in the Boston Globe criticizing Harvard’s sexual harassment policies, which are quite similar to Duke’s. The letter identifies as key issues the lack of due process for the accused, the deference of administrators to federal officials and stepping beyond the statutory requirements of Title IX. These questions were similar to those regarding sexual assault that we raised in our September editorial. Today, we would like to address larger issues raised by the Harvard letter and the ways in which they apply to Duke: a notable lack of transparency and communication regarding policies that do not reflect the interests of the community at large.

A backward glance at the University’s recent past displays a disconnect between policy decisions and the community most affected by new initiatives. Examples of the administration’s failure to gain the input from its constituents—faculty, students and the broader community—are present in examples like the 2U online consortium announced, and subsequently struck down, in Spring 2013 without the support of faculty members and the general lack of openness surrounding some of the delays and concerns at Duke Kunshan University. We have previously lamented the lack of communication from administrators regarding DKU, urging them to provide “frank and substantive answers to the concerns raised by community members.”

In another instance, Duke Dining eliminated the food truck “Fosters on the Fly” even after it had received the highest number of votes in a DUSDAC survey designed to gauge student food truck preferences. The lack of transparency both during the process of deciding policies and after they are established is problematic and concerning.

This failure to communicate actions when making important decisions affecting large swathes of the University has also persisted in issues surrounding campus construction. During the beginning stages of the West Union renovations, the University launched an outreach campaign to solicit student opinion on plans and ideas for the new space—an initiative that we commended. This thorough communication has not been present throughout the remainder of the process, however. Earlier this month, we criticized administrators for dismissing student concerns about the effects of construction on student life, in particular the closure of the Bryan Center entrance this Spring.

All these cases lead us to believe that instances in which the administration does not effectively communicate with the community and solicit its input are not isolated oversights. Moving forward, we beseech the administration to be more forthright in addressing the community and reaching out to constituent parts such as students, faculty or alumni when making decisions impacting the school.

But, what about cases where the administration avoids a conversation because its interests don’t align with those of the community? For example, take the case of the University’s medical leave policy, which we resoundingly criticized in an editorial last April. Although we hesitate to theorize intent or impugn motives, the medical leave policy seems designed to protect the University from liability rather than helping students with health problems.

However, we firmly believe that even when the issue is controversial and administrators’ interests don’t align with those of the community, a serious conversation must still be had over policy and actions. The administration must explain itself to the stakeholders of Duke University. To do otherwise is to sacrifice transparency and accountability.