Transitions exclude student voice

Moves by the administration to revamp the housing model, alter dining policy and restructure social events point to an extensive campaign to redefine Duke life. While the end result of this cultural transformation—curbing the excesses of previous years and fostering strong community through collective living and eating arrangements—may one day serve to mend a divided undergraduate community and breathe new life into a decaying Duke image, the immediate consequence has been effectively to exclude students from crucial discussions regarding the future of the University. Regrettably, in their attempts to recalibrate campus culture, Duke administrators have ignored student voices and risked writing off the current academic year as an unfortunate transitional period.

Like a field burned in preparation for a new crop, this year seems to exist as little more than a gap year before the new housing system takes root. It promises to be a year of uncertainty—as we have already seen in closed-door deals surrounding the Merchants on Points program and decisions regarding life after Tailgate—and top-down decision-making. The tone struck by administrators in negotiations surrounding Football Gameday seemed to treat this year as a necessary loss. In fact Duke Student Government leaders reported that Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta initially saw no need for a pre-football event in the 2011-2012 academic year.

Although a transitional period remains necessary, administrators should not allow grand images of Hogwarts-esque houses bustling with studious (and sober) undergraduates to obscure the more pressing picture of a student body deprived of a voice in University decisions. We condemn not the administration’s desire for change but its unwillingness to engage in a genuine dialogue with students and its failure to communicate effectively. Negotiations regarding Football Gameday included only a small—and unrepresentative—portion of the undergraduate population, and when those students pushed for a more inclusive pre-football event, their calls were largely ignored by an administration that seemed bent on installing a pre-fabricated vision for the future. News of the modifications to MOP, though swiftly reversed, spread not through administration communiqués but through disheartened Jimmy John’s employees. Communication failures like this cannot be overlooked as isolated blunders. They demonstrate a clear disregard for student opinion and involvement.

Failing to engage students in a dialogue about University policy not only risks enacting changes counter to the wants and needs of students—it also threatens to delegitimize the administration, prompting backlash and reducing the potential for future student cooperation. Most students understand the need for cultural changes at Duke. Administrators, by neglecting to clarify their intentions and failing to cull student participation, only drive those students away.

To succeed in creating an inclusive academic community, the administration must promote transparency, emancipate its negotiations from the shadowy corners of the Allen Building and communicate to students its goals. It must involve students in a genuine and constructive way and invite individuals and student groups to help plan for what could be exciting and progressive changes. Uncertainty and ambiguity breed contempt, and the University should not expect broad cultural transitions to succeed unless students understand them and help bring them to fruition.