This week, Special Secretary for the Young Trustee Process Amanda Turner will hold her final open forum, and on Nov. 4, she will submit her recommendations for reform to Duke Student Government.  

The previous YT process funneled applicants through a three-tiered selection in which a committee of 10 DSG and 10 Inter-Community Council members would cull an initial pool of applicants to eight semi-finalists and, after conducting interviews, select three finalists. The DSG Senate and ICC then voted to select the Young Trustee from these finalists. More often than not, a DSG or ICC insider was selected as Young Trustee.

Regardless of the form it takes, the YT selection process will be subject to biases and disappointments—no process created by students and run by students to select a fellow student can ever please all involved parties. That said, there is definite room for improvement.

A reformed process, unlike the previous one, would help to facilitate the democratic election of a Young Trustee who possesses a comprehensive knowledge of the University, a strong ethical standard and the ability to make important, thoughtful contributions while serving on a complicated and intimidating Board of Trustees. In the end, the best person for the job is one with intellect and energy, not status or titles.

DSG is a democratically elected organization, and to a certain degree, it must play some role in choosing the Young Trustee to legitimize the selection process. Its influence, however, should be mitigated to prevent unfair conficts of interest.

To this end, a student selected in the Spring DSG elections should manage the YT process. This director would work independently from DSG and be ineligible for running for Young Trustee in the future.

With the director at the helm, the selection process should still begin with a nominating committee to narrow the list of applicants to eight and then three. But the composition of this committee should be changed to include six DSG members, six ICC members and six at-large members selected from the student body by the director of the YT Process. Such a committee, with the inclusion of at-large students, would represent a wider range of perspectives than currently is the case.

And instead of DSG and ICC controlling the selection of the YT from these three finalists, the decision should be put up to students. Juniors and seniors—those who know the candidates the best and have the most familiarity with the University and the YT position—should select the Young Trustee from the pool of finalists in a general election held in February.

To prevent the election from devolving into a popularity contest, finalists should be prohibited from campaigning and their initial applications ought to be made public, allowing the students eligible to vote to make an informed electoral decision.

Moving forward, we suggest that, if she is willing, Amanda Turner should head up the YT process this year since she has already been democratically elected, has publicly stated that she will not run for the YT position in the future and possesses a considerable knowledge about YT selection.

This Spring, a new director would then be selected to manage the process for the 2010-2011 academic year.

In reality, there will never be a perfect Young Trustee selection process. But by increasing transparency and broadening the stakeholders involved, we can craft a fair, accountable and inclusive process that commands as much respect as the position it selects.

Will Robinson and Chelsea Goldstein recused themselves due to ties to ICC and DSG, respectively.