Most associate the final day of October with fright. This year, however, members of the Duke community got a big scare on the month's first day.
On Oct. 1, a group of disgruntled students who took direct and personal offense to the Sept. 13 Sigma Chi "Viva Mexico" party submitted to the Duke administration a set of 11 "demands." Aimed at remedying supposed systemic problems of intolerance and ignorance on campus, the demands included the formation of two new academic programs, mandatory recruitment of minority faculty and students, and the building of three new cultural centers. To the chagrin of many, the administration promised to examine the demands and respond in detail within a few weeks.
Last Tuesday, after much anticipation, Nan Keohane, Peter Lange, Larry Moneta,and William Chafe issued Duke's official response. Most all of the demands, especially those calling for obvious reform, were decidedly rejected.
Those familiar with the political ideologies of Keohane, Lange, Moneta and Chafe know that they each make Howard Dean look like a middle-of-the-roader. It was therefore surprising that they were so unaccommodating to the "Demanders."
The administration, arguing that verbal expressions and other forms of expression, however offensive, are not likely to be actionable under our Community Standard nor our published Rules and Regulations, actually did little more than restate its existing policies, assert its commitment to free expression and agree to meet regularly with campus leaders.
It seemed an unexpected victory for liberty and a defeat for political correctness. Finally, some thought, an administration that will not stand by and let those who have the thinnest skin and the loudest voices determine policy for all. Finally some objectivity!
But wait a minute. Duke, objective? This is the administration that, without gauging student or alumni opinion, strong-armed those at the Chapel into allowing homosexual unions. They have called Martin Luther King, Jr. Day more worthy of commemoration than Independence Day or Easter. Last March, they publicly defended the choosing of terrorist Laura Whitehorn as a University-funded speaker and accused Duke Conservative Union members who criticized her selection of ignoring "free speech."
And there's an even better example. In 2001, The Chronicle caused a firestorm when it published a David Horowitz advertisement entitled "Ten Reasons why Reparations for Slavery is a bad idea and Racist Too." Enraged students organized sit-ins at The Chronicle's office and Alumni Hall, threatened a Chronicle boycott and even discussed removing Chronicles from campus bins and throwing them away. Significantly, the students, calling themselves the "Duke Student Movement," also made numerous demands of both The Chronicle and Duke administration.
The situation would be analogous to the recent "Sigma Chi" one save one thing: in 2001, the administration caved in to the discontented and allowed itself to be shaken down for massive financial commitments to "progressive" policies.
In a document responding to the "Student Movement," the administration announced that it would significantly expand the African-American Studies program and Mary Lou Williams Center for Black Culture, create a new multicultural center in the Bryan Center, establish a task force to boost recruitment of senior-level black administrators, place the Office of Institutional Equity's Sally Dickson on all search committees for senior-level positions, create a task force to publish annual reports on the treatment of minority students, add a $100,000 annual subsidy for student organizations sponsoring cultural events, and assign a Development Office representative to attract outside money from donors to create diversity initiatives. It also offered to fund a Chronicle ad rebutting Horowitz's claims.
Yes, Nan Keohane, a friend to free speech who fervently defended The Chronicle's decision to run the ad, claims that a lot of those things were underway already (I wonder what "a lot" is?). But she also calls the Student Movement "a trigger" in their implementation, which is far more than can be said about those offended by the "Viva Mexico" party and their influence on campus policy.
So what's going on? Why the double standard for administrators catering to discontented extremists? Here are three theories.
First, perhaps the administration feared the 2001 Student Movement more so than it did the recent one. Keohane and Larry Moneta also knew that a rejection of the "demands" would be supported by the community at large. This year's Chronicle staff, which has lobbied for "Keohane Quad," certainly was not about to criticize such a decision. The paper's two editorials about the demands, "Demands are unrealistic" and "Authors get what they deserve," could have passed for DCU press releases.
Second, the party had been approved. Rick Gardner of the Student Activities office told me that either he or one of the four advisers in his office approved the party and its "theme" and "decorations." I have no idea if the offensive aspects of the party had been specifically approved but it seems that the administration would appear rather hypocritical if it punished Sigma Chi.
The final theory is that there exists a hierarchy of minorities on campus. Perhaps the seven groups who originally protested the party were on to something when they wrote that "racism is not merely a black and white issue." Latinos certainly should ask administrators why their demands, which were very similar to those offered by African Americans in 2001, were essentially put in File 13.
And speaking of a minority hierarchy, perhaps they could also ask administrators why a library website still lists Hamas as a "political group" and has a link to a barbed wire Star of David.
Nathan Carleton is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.