Tomorrow are the Duke Student Government elections. And you should vote.
But only once you’ve finished reading this column.
I’ve collected the platforms of the three candidates for DSG president—Ashley Jordan, Isaac Mizrahi and Pete Schork—and pored over them. Today, you’re going to get a little summary and analysis, longer on critique than on praise.
Last week I wrote that a good DSG president should have perseverance in the face of adversity, the ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances and the perception to seize opportunities when they present themselves. I also said that we shouldn’t evaluate the candidates based on what they promise us in their platforms.
So why did I go through such trouble getting the platforms and writing a column about them? Platforms speak volumes about how candidates think about policy. They also should be pretty clear statements of priorities. So if you are interested in what the next DSG president thinks is important, then you’ve got to take a look at the candidates’s platforms.
I believe that Duke Student Government ought to be guided by two paramount objectives: first, increase student freedom and choice, and second, reduce costs to students. How do the candidates think about those goals? What strategies do they articulate to achieve them?
The candidates’s platforms are vastly different in length: from Jordan’s three pages, to Mizrahi’s 11 pages, to Schork’s 31 pages. They have some things in common. They all take swipes at current DSG President Mike Lefevre. Jordan critiques Lefevre’s redecoration of the DSG office, costing about $6,000, as “unnecessary and frivolous spending.” Mizrahi, in an ironic turn of phrase, critiques Lefevre’s handing of Tailgate: “DSG left its students hanging out to dry once administrators decided to end Tailgate.... Taking into account how beloved Tailgate was by some students, DSG’s response seemed to lack any heart.” Even Schork, a longtime protege of Lefevre, notes that he will approach the so-called “emergency” dining fee differently next year in order “to prevent this year’s negotiating collapse from happening.”
Schork and Mizrahi hand out cabinet posts like so many pieces of candy. How happy this must make campus interest groups! Mizrahi would have posts for 15 student groups or identity centers. Schork is almost as bad, promising cabinet posts for LGBT life, women’s life, religious life, multicultural life and greek life. Schork’s scheme would see these functionaries presiding over their own committees of appointees. This is an unashamed spoils system, Duke-style, and one can only hope that these parts of the platforms are for campaign use only.
Sadly, Jordan’s platform is as vague as it is short. Although she alone seems serious about my pet project, a strategic plan for DSG, many of her other ideas are too nebulous, like “increasing student voice,” or recycled from previous years, like “more e-print stations.” Having spent most of her time in student governance on Campus Council, I am surprised that the house model, which should rank at the top of each candidate’s platform, is given only a single bullet point. Totally absent are mentions of the coming renovations to the West Union or to the Page and Baldwin Auditoriums.
Jordan isn’t the only candidate to make serious omissions. Mizrahi’s platform, like Jordan’s, makes almost no mention of academics, even though DSG has an entire vice presidency dedicated to it. He also neglects to mention his plan for getting rid of the so-called “emergency” dining fee.
The candidates also use their platforms to give us hints as to how they intend to work with administrators. Mizrahi seems downright confrontational. Not only does he strike a defiant tone regarding Tailgate, but he also lets everyone know that, should he be elected, there will be a new sheriff in town when it comes to RLHS. It’s certainly good to have a president who isn’t afraid to say “No!” But if I were in the Allen Building, I might be more worried about Schork’s approach. Schork has a good grasp of one of DSG’s special strengths, its institutional access to the Board of Trustees. Schork threatens no fewer than three times to go over the heads of administrators to the trustees. This approach certainly has value, but the DSG president must be careful about this. You don’t want DSG to win a battle but lose the war.
Schork wishes to write a strategic plan for dining (perhaps the best way to get rid of that troublesome fee), dedicates a significant amount of space to reforming Curriculum 2000, and has a clear approach to how students should be involved in the implementation of the house model. Based on platforms alone, Schork seems to have done the most thinking about what needs fixing at Duke.
But, again, it’s not all about the platforms. Please vote responsibly.
Gregory Morrison is a Trinity senior and the former Executive Vice President of DSG. His column runs every Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.