Accountability policy unambiguously ambiguous

In a well-intentioned but disappointingly ambiguous policy memo from the Office of Student Conduct, the University has stated that it will hold leaders of student groups accountable for the misdeeds of group members during group activities. Although the new measure may encourage student leaders to promote healthier and more responsible behavior, the vagueness of the official policy statement leaves students with little idea of what to expect from the administration. Exemplifying the lack of clarity characteristic of recent University statements, the policy explication primarily serves to confuse and frighten.

In addition to the traditional Duke doublespeak regarding alcohol—students must “be in accordance with... state laws”—the current policy fails to provide clear and rigid criteria for evaluating the responsibility of student leaders. As it stands, accountability rests on nebulous and ill-defined standards such as student leaders’ “reasonable opportunity for prevention” of the misbehavior in question and “level of engagement” in the organization. The statement also fails to define “group activity” and “student leader”—leaving it unclear how far down the chain of command responsibility extends—and omits considerations of student leaders’ financial responsibility.

While ambiguous policy may allow conduct rules to adapt to unanticipated circumstances, it also opens up the possibility that future interpretations will defy the original intent of the policy and broaden its scope to an unreasonable extent. Moreover, the lack of concrete criteria for adjudicating cases threatens to allow for more or less arbitrary assignments of guilt, an unproductive and unjust judicial method.

The only thing clear about the new policy is that the Sanford School did not have a hand in it. One especially unintelligible criterion for responsibility reads in totality: “the nexus of the activity to identification as a ‘group’ event.” The administration’s statement typifies poor policy writing, and, while we agree with the spirit of the measure, we disapprove of the decision to circulate such an unsettlingly vague explication. Releasing the statement in its current form defies reason and illustrates the administration’s failure to communicate effectively with students.

Finally, we find it ironic that the University should hold student leaders accountable for group members’ behavior, while the administration routinely fails to assume a comparable degree of responsibility for the conduct of Duke students at large. So long as the administration remains complicit in fostering the kinds of cultural attitudes it purports to reject—allowing fraternities to send sexist emails with few repercussions, maintaining a liberal alcohol policy—and neglects to communicate clearly its goals for cultural change to the student body, it too must bear responsibility when students misbehave.

We do not desire that the administration meddle needlessly in students’ affairs. Allowing students to take on increased responsibility represents an important and positive development. We only contend that administrators, like student leaders, have a “fiduciary” duty to their constituents and request that, when they ask students to bear added responsibility, they do the same.

The new policy statement declares that “student leaders have an added responsibility to ensure clear communication and a climate of integrity and accountability within their organizations.” We agree, and hope the administration will hold itself to the same standard.