Despite tremendous campus policy achievements over the past four years, from online course evaluations to a Red Mango in the Bryan Center, there are still many places where Duke can do better. Ever motivated by opportunities for marginal improvement, I have kept a running list of campus problems I have identified, solutions I have heard from others or devised myself and policy examples that work well at other schools. As a senior, I still have a few months left to change policy, but I fret the ideas I never get to address will remain only thoughts forevermore. So I list some of my favorites here, hopeful a proactive student or administrator will pick them up and make them a reality. Some of the ideas are audacious, some are straightforward—but I firmly believe all are actionable within a year and would make Duke a better campus.
1. We should remove group fund codes as a barrier to organizing.
It makes sense that any entity wishing to request funds for programming or capital expenditures would need to be first vetted and trained by the University Center for Activities and Events. UCAE trains student groups how to get performer contracts approved, gas money repaid and pizza expenditures reimbursed, and as a certificate of completion for this training, student groups receive a fund code that serves as a key to these resources. Fund codes, however, do not just give students access to university resources—fund codes are also required to reserve student classrooms, table on the Plaza and request services from Duke’s student design agency. While approved student groups obviously benefit from access to these organizational resources, students or informal groups might benefit from access to these resources too. If a group of students wishes to organize a grassroots initiative in response to an issue, classroom space open to unapproved groups is undersupplied, and ad hoc entities that wish to avoid weeks of bureaucratic vetting have to exploit loopholes to request space or table. During the 2012 election season, the quickly formed Duke Students for Romney faced this problem when it sought to table and reserve classroom space. The Romney group was not approved as a student group when it filed a request, as it was decided that they would only last a few months and could partner with Duke College Republicans to accomplish their goals. But a partnership might have muddled the aims of both groups (not all Republicans supported Romney and vice versa), so the Romney group temporarily could not organize and meet its goals. If students want to collectively organize for any reason, it seems problematic to require government approval of that group’s organization first. If students want to suddenly organize a seminar on Sylvia Plath or a campaign against plastic bottles, should they not be able to do so easily and without barriers? We can keep the money for vetted groups, but we should open after-hours classroom reservations and tabling to everyone who needs the space.
2. We should create a University-wide break during the day.
The hustle of University life means individuals on campus are on constant treks between classes and meetings. Respite comes in packed buses, where the ability to check email or have a conversation is obstructed by the inertia of an accordion bus. Students may or may not schedule their own midday breaks, but purposeful scheduling of this sort is hard to do when classes are slated back to back. Scheduling a University-wide break during every weekday, an idea inspired by North Carolina Central University, could mitigate this problem. This break could potentially last 30 minutes and during it no classes would be scheduled. The entire academic schedule for the day would therefore be pushed back 30 minutes to accommodate the break in the middle. Over time, perhaps student groups might organize performances or food events during this break, knowing students will congregate in public spaces. If everyone had a break at the same time, friend meet-ups could be coordinated, meals could be grabbed, the demands of a university schedule might dissipate, and a new campus tradition could emerge.
3. We should push for student government representation that is neighborhood-based.
DSG senators currently run for seats allocated by class year and policy issue. This method of representation leads to an inflexible Senate, where representatives are locked in one policy silo all year and constituents have little idea who they should go to with concerns. Given the house model, fewer students define themselves by class year and instead by the communities in which they live. Rather than electing senators by class year and policy issue, senators should campaign to represent their residential neighborhood. Under this model, every constituent would have a go-to representative for their concerns, and elected students would be versed on all policy issues. Class diversity would be maintained because some neighborhoods are still class-based, and voter turnout would increase because candidates would have smaller and targeted areas for their campaigns. Representation based on geography is not only a method our Founding Fathers supported—it is a method used on most campuses around the country. We are beleaguered by an outdated method of representation that provokes misaligned incentives, and it is time we corrected it.
Patrick Oathout is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Tuesday. Send Patrick a message on Twitter @PatrickOathout.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.