Editorial off on YT reform

Yesterday I was disappointed to read the Editorial Board’s deeply unfair characterization of the Young Trustee reform process. The editorial painted a picture of a reform process designed to maintain Duke Student Government and Intercommunity Council hegemony over the Young Trustee process. This could not be further from the truth. The editorial was erroneous on several counts.

1. Firstly, the editorial refers to the special secretary position as that of a “reform czar.” This grossly mischaracterizes the role of the position. The Special Secretary for the Young Trustee process will serve in an advisory role to the democratically elected Senate, which will then make the final decision. Further, he or she will hold a minimum of four public forums in which the student body will be encouraged to voice their opinions about the way to approach reform. The special secretary will not be an all-powerful czar who singlehandedly reforms the Young Trustee process.

2. Secondly, the editorial suggests that the means used to advertise the position were somehow lacking. It fails to mention that method for advertising for this position was all but identical to the method for advertising the open Senate seats and presidential committees. Both the Senate seats and the presidential committees received an unprecedented number of applicants this semester. Further, it neglects to mention that The Chronicle reported on this new, temporary position more than a week ago.

3. Thirdly, it suggests that having two candidates for the position indicates a lapse in communication with the student body. This is simply not the case. In last semester’s Executive Board elections, four out of six positions were contested by two candidates. One position had three candidates, and the other was uncontested. Having two candidates for a position in DSG is by no means out of the norm.

4. Finally, the editorial attacks the legitimacy of the two candidates for the special secretary position: Ben Getson and Amanda Turner, who have ties to DSG and the ICC respectively. It pegs them as “student government insider[s]” whose “independence, evenhandedness and legitimacy” may be in question. I categorically reject the notion that their deep involvement in the life of the University should somehow disqualify them from taking on one of its most important questions. I’m flabbergasted by the suggestion that individuals with experience in DSG or ICC should not have the opportunity to use their knowledge to advise the Senate on how to proceed with reform. Their understanding of the current process—with its pros and cons—ought to distinguish them as people specially equipped to handle this task. Yet the editorial attacks their credibility.

I sincerely hope that as students we will see past these mischaracterizations and examine both candidates’ merits as intensely as we did with the president and the vice presidents. And on Sept. 14 I hope we’ll all make our voices heard in this race, the Senate races and on the referendums.

Ade Sawyer, Trinity ’10, is public relations director for Duke Student Government.