This is not the Duke we want

“This is no Duke we want, this is no Duke we accept…and this is no Duke we want to create,” President Richard Brodhead declared on the Chapel steps last week before hundreds who came together in solidarity, in outrage, in hurt. Last Wednesday, a noose was found hanging from a tree on the Bryan Center Plaza. It was the most egregious act in a recent string of hateful behavior that had erupted both on campus and across the nation, including a group of students chanting to a black student the racist chant from a video of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity members at Oklahoma University. Although details surrounding the motivations behind the noose and the ongoing investigation are unknown, its effects ravaged and shook our community to its core.

As with the recent scrutiny of OU’s administrative response to the abhorrent incident on its campus, we now turn the lens inwards to assess Duke’s own response. From the judicial perspective, we commend the administration’s restraint in following procedures rather than jumping to premature conclusions. Though there has been some backlash, the University's decision to have the student off campus and to maintain his or her privacy while undergoing the Student Conduct process respects the rights of both the student and the community.

Yet, more important was the administration’s response to the Duke community. Early last Wednesday, Vice President of Student Affairs Larry Moneta emailed students to express his “disgust and anger” toward “this hateful and stupid act.” A Chapel forum was held in the afternoon in which President Brodhead and Provost Sally Kornbluth, among other speakers, addressed the events. Given the uncertainty of the motivations, Brodhead’s focus on the dark history the hateful symbol evokes, especially with the current campus climate, was a well-chosen approach to express what Duke does not stand for. Given the administration’s pattern of silence in recent events—most notably, during the call to prayer controversy earlier this semester—the public response was a commendable step forward. Yet, though the content of the speech was productive, it failed to offer actionable steps moving forward.

Acknowledging such galvanizing events that affect the entire community—be it through emails or holding forums—is the bare minimum that should be expected. While the response was immediate and proper, it was precisely just that: all too proper. It lacked the conviction in follow-up that would have placed true meaning behind the message it delivered. On one level, the University’s response is one that seems shrouded in a veil of political correctness—a manifestation of an aversion to scandal wrought from the controversies in the University’s recent history. Yet, given how disruptive the event was for so many members of the community, the University should have given students the space and time to reflect and engage, as Connecticut College did by canceling its classes when racist graffiti was found in a bathroom. Ultimately, the response of the administration should be commensurate to the severity of the incident and its impact on the community.

Why does it take an event so egregious, so overt and deeply hurtful to catalyze a conversation on race relations?Tomorrow we will discuss this question, and how we can ensure these discussions persist not just today, tomorrow or next week but, also, catalyze a deep change in our University’s culture.