Greater transparency for Young Trustee

Uncertainties about the selection and role of the Young Trustee will get more befuddling: The traditional three-year term—divided into one non-voting and two voting years—will be changed to alternate with a two-year term. Changed to ensure the equality of undergraduate and graduate representation on the Board of Trustees, the new structure will allot graduate and undergraduate Young Trustee alternating years of two and three-year terms. For example, while the undergraduate Young Trustee holds a three-year term, one non-voting and two voting, the graduate will hold a two-year term, one non-voting and one voting.

Though the effort to promote equality of representation between undergraduate and graduate Young Trustees is commendable, the procedural change adds yet another murky layer to a position many students already find confusing. Voter turnout for Young Trustee elections has decreased in recent years, dropping precipitously this year from 53 percent participation last year to only 38 percent in the elections last month. If low voter turnout is reflective of decreased student interest, complicating the position with alternating term lengths may deter uncertain students even more. While the actual power a Young Trustee wields in the boardroom is itself at question, reducing the tenures of half the Young Trustees is incommensurate with the time and resources spent acclimating them to the board’s bureaucratic and administrative processes to begin with.

Yet, if the Young Trustee position is nebulous to many students, it is mired in the broader inaccessibility and enigma of the Board of Trustees itself. Many students do not know who the board members are, what their function is or their central role in shaping the vision and trajectory of the University. Such a gaping disconnect between students and the people who govern their academic and collegiate experience is deeply problematic.

Increasing the accessibility and visibility of the Board and its responsibilities to students should be a top priority. After all, if the Board is dedicated to the resilience of its students and the broader University, hearing the voices of students experiencing the programs it discusses is crucial. One simple remedy to bridge the disconnect between students and board members is for the Board to hold meetings on campus amongst students—Penn Pavilion or the Allen Boardroom, for example—rather than at isolated locales like the Washington Duke Inn. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees can offer a short public forum where students can sign up for five-minute presentations slots to raise concerns or thoughts on relevant campus issues. Such a system would provide students an avenue to voice their opinions or, in the least, serve as a symbolic gesture.

Increased visibility, however, should be accompanied with greater effort to educate the student body on the Board’s role. Increased awareness of who board members are along with greater transparency as to what they do, how they can be accessed and how one might propose a petition or appeal will not only allow students more ownership over their Duke education but also provide the Board important means to shape university policies. Such a connection between students and the Board is particularly important for the Young Trustee who, three years removed from campus, can be out of touch with student life.