Last week I wrote about issues I had with the content, style and representation of The Chronicle’s Editorial Board. I hope the tone of my column did not show any disrespect for the work of the Editorial Board. In fact, part of the reason I wrote “Edits for the Editorial Board” in the first place was due to the potential for on campus change I believe the Editorial Board has.
I was therefore further disappointed by the editorial, “Pushing for an earlier major declaration” that the Editorial Board published on Monday.
For those who read the editorial, you might have noticed the fine print at the bottom reading, “The Editorial Board did not reach quorum for this editorial.”
While it is not controversial that a writer publishes an article expressing their opinions, it becomes problematic when the opinion of a few continues to be labeled the voice of many.
Take for example the fourth paragraph of the editorial published Monday. Starting, “we believe that this shift toward a more streamlined, guided exploration makes an earlier major declaration worthwhile.”
While the logic present behind this statement is sound, my problem lies with the first two words, “we believe.” “We believe” implies a collective discussion and a collective decision neither of which were truly present with the lack of quorum.
In the past two years, five separate editorials, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, were published in the name of the Editorial Board, each without a full quorum present.
In the past two years, seven editorials, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, published in the name of the Editorial Board were written by Chronicle staff members, rather than the actual Editorial Board.
The issues and discussions presented in these editorials range from ideas about mentorship at Duke to what the role of Duke’s President should be to calling out the silence of the administration.
These are all present relevant issues. However, in each case, the name of the Editorial Board was placed on the editorial. Regardless of the “Editor’s Note,” the alleged voice of our student body has been given to editorials that could represent the opinions of one or two individuals or staff members instead of the whole Board itself.
The purpose of having quorum or having collective discussion is to make sure that an organization considers a variety of voices. It is why decisions in organizations ranging from Duke Student Government to Business Oriented Women to basic fraternity chapter meetings cannot happen without a quorum or its respective members present.
Going forward, I hope the Editorial Board does not put its name to editorials that do not truly represent the collective discussions they hope to have. Perhaps they might alleviate issues of quorum by expanding and varying its members. I am not saying they should refrain from publishing content when they do not have enough members. Instead, I hope that they continue to strive for a better explanation of their collective opinion, and the many perspectives that form it.
George Mellgard is a Trinity senior. His column, "esse quam videri," runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Correction: The editor's note at the bottom of an editorial when the board does not meet quorum indicates that the specific editorial acknowledges that it does not represent the entire editorial board. Editorials written without quorum represent the members present in the discussion.
The editorial board does not seek to represent the voice of the student body nor the editorial staff of The Chronicle. The Chronicle regrets the errors.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.