Today marks the first official day of campaigning for the upcoming Duke Student Government elections. Two weeks from now, undergraduates will elect a new student body president, an executive vice president and five student body vice presidents. Before attention shifts to the candidates and their goals for next year, we will examine the performance of DSG during this past year under outgoing president Mike Lefevre.
Lefevre, a senior, has had a colorful history as a student representative at Duke. He served as a vice president and chief of staff. He brought Zipcars to campus and incited a controversy over union workers in campus eateries. But his sights were always set on becoming president. He ran unsuccessfully for the position in 2009 before being elected last year.
Although Lefevre has overseen several notable successes, his impact as DSG president fell short of our expectations.
The editorial board endorsed Lefevre last Spring because we believed he would be the candidate best prepared to “fight cuts mandated by the Allen Building” during the economic downturn. Our judgment was based on Lefevre’s long track record working with the administration—particularly his role in rejecting Dining’s proposal for “directed choice” over student meal plans.
Yet, on the two issues that elicited the most passion from students during the 2010-2011 academic year, Lefevre either wholly rolled over or was wholly duped by the administration.
Last Fall, Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta announced the supposed one-time increase in the dining plan contract fee would not be reassessed until the dining deficit was eliminated. During last year’s campaign, Lefevre took credit for negotiating this fee as a desirable temporary alternative to “directed choice.” But as president his priorities were elsewhere. The dining fee, which will continue until at least fiscal year 2013, is a witness to Lefevre’s failure to fight administrators over dining.
In November, the administration announced its decision to cancel Tailgate after a frightening incident involving a heavily intoxicated child. Lefevre told The Chronicle that he did not “have the heart to fight” the decision, noting that he was tired of striving to preserve Tailgate as it then existed. While this editorial board consistently harbored mixed feelings toward Tailgate and the many problems it propagated, Lefevre was wrong to abruptly cede the moral high ground to administrators without advocating on the student body’s behalf.
Perhaps Lefevre burnt out after three years of aggressive lobbying or developed a case of Stockholm syndrome toward the administration, but his public statements and actions took on a much more diplomatic tone during his presidency. Sometimes this served him well. During last semester’s controversy over the salacious PowerPoint created by Karen Owen, Trinity ’10, Lefevre became an ideal representative of the University, offering a thoughtful student perspective to The New York Times and other major news organizations.
The DSG president should always strive to balance unwavering advocacy on behalf of students with a basic level of empathy for the administration. Although DSG accomplished notable changes under his leadership, Lefevre too often favored an agenda based on responding to administrators rather than proactively engaging them. On April 5, students should remember these shortcomings and choose the candidate they believe can best balance the complex tensions of the presidency.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.