February 28, 2004 is the deadline for one of the most important decisions concerning Duke in the next decade. And no, you are not the only person who has no idea what I am talking about.
By that date, the 9th president of our beloved university will have been selected.
Most students are aware that Nannerl Overholser Keohane is leaving for greener pastures. But for some reason, the fact that someone will succeed her has not registered with the majority of undergraduates. This is outrageous, disgusting and borderline criminal. Causality should not be a concept alien to Duke-caliber students. President leaves--president comes.
Even though the Presidential Search Committee has been up and running since last March, no public debate has taken place among students.
Let me state very clearly that ignorance is no excuse. Anyone who is unaware of the change in administration should have been eliminated by Guttentag's aides long ago. Any educated person should be aware of the leadership in their community, be it their country, region or university. (Pop quiz: Who is Bill Bell?)
Complacency is a more probable explanation for the silence on the quad. Students could apparently not care less about who is going to head the University in their remaining Duke years. Maybe they think that the choice of president will not affect their lives enough to require attention. If this is indeed the rationale for the observed passivity, they could not be more wrong. Nan has put freshmen on East. Nan has raised enough money to make us believe we go to an Ivy. Nan has paved the way for same-sex unions in the chapel. Nan has appointed Moneta. Nan has taken kegs off the quad.
Not to forget that if you ask the Progressive Alliance, you will hear that Nan is personally engaged in the immoral oppression of thousands of Mexicans, and if you ask the DCU they will tell you that Nan has personally triggered a huge influx of incompetent black faculty.
Why then this deafening silence?
According to the Duke website, Robert K. Steel, vice-chair of the Duke Board of Trustees and chairman of the Presidential Search Committee has solicited input. On the website you can find the following paragraph:
"Before the search committee begins its review of candidates' credentials, we must clearly define the University's needs and determine the type of leader who is best suited to help us achieve our goals," Steel wrote in a letter mailed to the faculty. He sent similar messages to student leaders, administrators, volunteer leaders and others, both within the Duke community and beyond.
End of quote. What have these student leaders done with Steele's message? They sure as hell have not brought the issue up with their constituents. I carefully read all six available event calendars, and have not come across a single town hall meeting for undergraduates.
The Duke website does not make clear exactly which student leaders have received a request for input. There is one, however, who I want to hold personally accountable. Devon MacWilliam serves on the Search Committee as undergraduate representative. She is in a position where she should be reaching out to students to receive input. So far she has failed miserably.
Why is the undergraduate representative not representing undergraduates?
When I spoke to Devon on the phone, she told me in response to my criticism that during summer session, DSG had hosted a lunch where undergrads could voice their opinions. That most students were elsewhere at this time did not seem to bother her. I was also assured that she took comments from everyone she conversed with to heart. But what about those of us who do not live next door to Devon? The Visions of Duke survey by DSG would, additionally, prove valuable input to the search process, she informed me. The results of the survey, however, have yet to be published. Time is running out.
The Chronicle also carries considerable responsibility for the lack of discourse on the presidential search. The last article covering the activities of Steele's committee appeared on Sept.18. That is over two months ago. This is a unforgivable failure for an award-winning independent student newspaper.
Had the editors of The Chronicle been more capable, we would have seen a shortlist by now--the sports department seems to understand this. Or at the very least they would have published an interview with my dear friend Devon on the committee's progress.
I am not saying that we need a formal process collecting student's opinions. We do, however, need a broad campus discussion on the qualities students look for in Number Nine. Apparently, this has to happen with support from neither our representative on the committee, nor from our campus daily.
With Feb. 28 approaching rapidly, it is time for undergraduates to start voicing their opinions on the issue. Please write letters to the editor, sing in the shower, post on listservs and harass your friends. In a May 22 Chronicle article, Steele is quoted as saying: "You got ideas, shoot them in, baby." By all means, please do. The email address of the committee is pres-search@duke.edu.
Let us, for once, show that we care.
Joost Bosland is a Trinity sophomore. His column appears every third Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.