All politicians start out as people, but along the way so many of them lose touch with those who elected them. Most, I assume, are good people who at some point let their own interests begin to trump those of their constituency. In this way, Duke Student Government is a microcosm of the failures of government.
Last March, three candidates ran for DSG president. No one won a majority, so the election went into an instant run-off. Senior Tara Bansal won with 51 percent of the vote in the runoff, beating senior Annie Adair by 51 votes—not exactly a resounding mandate. So it looked like a good idea when Bansal chose to include Adair and senior John Guarco—who came in third—in DSG this year. It was a coalition government of sorts.
Or so it seemed. This past summer Adair and Guarco resigned from DSG. Both cited differences of opinion with DSG leadership, though Bansal claims that neither was ousted from their position. In this instance, however, “differences of opinion” is about as canned an excuse as “leaving to spend more time with family.”
Nonetheless, Bansal has claimed she had no reason to not want them on DSG, even while her actions suggest otherwise. Before Adair resigned, Bansal appointed a co-attorney general. This was necessary, Bansal claimed, because Adair could be biased if she knew litigants. Only Bansal knows why this was necessary now even though it wasn’t in the past—surely, it wasn’t to undermine Adair.
With Adair and Guarco out of the picture, Bansal was able to institute the reforms necessary to re-legitimize DSG. She eliminated special parking passes to the Card Lot for DSG leadership—which the students paid for—while retaining her own universal parking pass. I don’t see how anyone in DSG is deserving of special parking privileges, yet I am taken aback by the arrogance of Bansal’s move.
I see nothing that Bansal gains by restricting other DSG members’ parking privileges other than a perverse joy in disadvantaging them. And while I generally do take a perverse joy in DSG’s failings, it seems unbecoming of the DSG president to share this view. It’s possible that the perception is far worse than the reality and that this isn’t an abuse of power—it’s also possible that Chris Christie did need to close those bridge lanes in Fort Lee during rush hour.
In line with her progressive agenda, Bansal eliminated the open application process that was previously used to select members of the DSG presidential committees. Now, she no longer has to operate under the guise of fairness and can simply handpick whomever she deems representative of the student body.
For some reason, there is this pervasive belief among DSG leadership that they are in some way more capable of choosing who represents student body than the students themselves. The majority of the 60-person DSG senate is comprised of at-large senators. And the committee that selects at-large senators also happens to be made up of DSG leadership, including the DSG president. So, it should come as no surprise that the senators have no incentive to hold those who give them their positions accountable for improper actions.
Even more absurd is that through this selection method, DSG executive vice president Ilana Weisman claims that this senate is “going to represent the student body at Duke…for the first time in a long time.” It’s hard to understand how a body that is primarily chosen by DSG leadership is more representative of the student body than a senate that was actually democratically elected by the students. But in the world of DSG, it seems that newspeak prevails and anyone who objects is an unperson.
Even when a proposal to reduce the size of DSG senate by only six members came before the senate earlier this month, the reform was voted down. Similar proposals have failed to pass more than half a dozen times in the past few years.
Fortunately, Bansal accepts that DSG is the source of its own problems. In a recent blog post on the DSG website, she admitted that “the problems with DSG perception are DSG’s creation.” My only disagreement is that the problems with DSG are very real and not merely perceptual.
Too often the people’s best interests only matter until they conflict with the politician’s. So while the student body would benefit from having Adair and Guarco in DSG, Bansal wouldn’t, so they aren’t. And while the student body would be better served by a more efficient and representative DSG, it isn’t.
Most people involved with DSG are interested in government and politics. They can explain the government’s failures and analyze the causes. Yet they have failed to realize that politicians often don’t realize how severely they’ve compromised their constituencies’ interests; the same can unfortunately be said of DSG. Until the members of DSG realize this and enact the appropriate reforms to hold themselves accountable, students’ perceptions will continue to reflect this reality—that DSG is ineffective and unrepresentative.
Justin Koritzinsky is a Trinity senior. His column, “performance review,” runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.