The students who submitted a list of 12 demands in the wake of the Sigma Chi incident received the response they deserved from the administration--very little in the way of direct changes, but a formal affirmation that minority issues will continue to be key components in shaping University policies.
The administration's written response correctly identified those demands that deserved immediate action, specifically the call for increased dialogue between student leaders and key University officials and a clarification of the purview of the Community Standard. The authors demanded monthly, open meetings between the President's Council and top administrators, but instead were promised two meetings per semester with Larry Moneta and other student affairs officials. The administration also encouraged attendees to share the results of the sessions with The Chronicle, so that the issues raised will be accessible to the entire student body. Of all the demands, an increase in dialogue was the most feasible, and carries the most potential to impact campus life. The Sigma Chi misunderstanding arose primarily due to a lack of understanding and communication, problems that increased interaction can remedy.
The University will also take steps to outline the scope of the Community Standard, including its application to offensive verbal expression and punishment. As it stands, many students struggle to reconcile the Community Standard's statements about mutual respect and conduct with its vague treatment of the consequences of violating those norms. A clarification of the policy would be welcome. However, the Community Standard should not govern student speech--regardless of its offensive nature. The Community Standard and the University's Rules and Regulations pertain to offensive or harmful behavior, and cannot infringe on freedom of speech and expression. In addition, the Community Standard should not assign pre-determined punishments to specific offenses. The Undergraduate Judicial Board and Judicial Affairs should continue to evaluate violations on a case-by-case basis.
Although several demands were not met, minorities and other concerned individuals should not take this as a sign that Duke has pushed them to the periphery. For instance, individual programs in Native American and Asian studies will not be created in the near future, but several interdisciplinary courses and an American Studies faculty seminar have been formed to meet the demand. In addition, while separate cultural centers for different ethnic groups are equally unlikely, the University has indicated that it will expand the size and resources of the multicultural center during future student center renovations. The administration has also been clearly committed to the hiring of minority faculty and administrators and increasing the racial diversity of incoming classes.
Finally, the door was left open for the creation of an oversight committee to advise selective groups and clubs about racially insensitive themes. Such a committee will be ineffective and unnecessary. Speech and ideas cannot be regulated, and it is likely that in the wake of the Sigma Chi party, groups will now receive advice on these matters from current event personnel when they register events.
The authors of the demands have a right to air their concerns to the community and to University officials. However, by framing their ideas as "demands," the authors displayed a lack of respect for the pro-diversity administration at Duke, and the efforts they have made in the past. The administration should be applauded for engaging in dialogue with the authors in a timely fashion and going beyond granting lip service to the issues raised. Minority issues have been, and will remain an integral part of campus life.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.