Now that Duke Student Government President Awa Nur has vetoed the Young Trustee bylaw, the DSG Senate has another opportunity to improve the YT selection process. To this end, the Senate should consider the following proposals.

First, final selection of the Young Trustee should be determined by a 50 percent vote from the Young Trustee Nominating Committee and a 50 percent vote from juniors and seniors.

It seems nonsensical for the Nominating Committee to play such a large role in the selection process, and then simply be eliminated from the final selection. The members of the committee represent a wide range of students and they have spent time interviewing the candidates and reading their applications. Their valuable knowledge and multiple perspectives should not be put to waste.

That said, this process should also include some type of election. The bylaw vetoed by Nur puts the selection of the Young Trustee to a general student body election in which campaigning is prohibited. Without campaigning, however, many students—especially underclassmen—would be unfamiliar with the candidates. If this part of the bylaw were to hold, some kind of modified campaigning would be necessary.

A better election model would give only juniors and seniors the privilege of voting. Upperclassmen know the candidates and possess a greater knowledge of the University, and they have witnessed previous YT selections. Because of their familiarity with the candidates and the process, juniors and seniors are more likely to be informed voters, and their participation in the selection process will not require extensive campaigning from the finalists.

Regardless of the type of election the Senate chooses,  it should not permit campaigning similar to that allowed for DSG positions. YT candidates do not run on a platform, and regulations should deter issue campaigning in favor of informing voters about the candidates’ backgrounds.

Second, the special secretary—not the DSG Judiciary—should select students for the at-large positions on the Nominating Committee. The special secretary is elected specifically to coordinate the YT process and therefore has the political legitimacy to choose at-large members.

To minimize bias in this process, at-large candidates should be required to complete an application, which will be posted online for the student body to review. Once the special secretary has selected the at-large members, these nominees should be subject to questioning and final approval by the DSG Judiciary.  

Third, it is important that the special secretary should not be allowed to run for Young Trustee in future years. The special secretary should not view the position as a stepping-stone to YT, as any desire to run in subsequent years would inevitably color their work. In addition, a ban on running in future years would encourage more experienced seniors—instead of sophomores—to run for the secretary position.

Fourth, there should be a clearer mechanism for determining which student group presidents should sit on the Nominating Committee. If the president of a student group applies for Young Trustee, then their organization should be ineligible to appoint a proxy to the Nominating Committee. This would prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that only the eligible presidents sit on the committee.

By enacting these changes, the Senate could bring much needed YT reform—even if it takes the second time around.