​Conversation is a two-way street

Last Friday, a coalition of students organized a second conversation in Page Auditorium to cover a range of issues that included racial and socioeconomic diversity at Duke. The event separated itself from the previous forum hosted by President Brodhead, Provost Kornbluth and Dean Ashby in that it centered on a list of demands presented by students and statements by concerned student groups. While a thorough listing of many issue areas that have been launched into the spotlight of national and campus conversations, the demands lacked some coherency, failed to acknowledge the timeline of institutional changes and in some places reflected shallow implementation research.

Even though some felt the three administrators were merely paying lip service to students at the event, we wholeheartedly find their repeated statements of good faith to be sincere. After the forum, we were unsure of how productive it was for the organizers to, at some points, take an adversarial stance towards the administrators by demanding yes or no answers to questions with a callous tone. Though the content of the discussion was ultimately the point, due deference should not be an unreasonable expectation. That aside, there remains a clearly palpable disconnect between students and administrators after Friday’s conversation. Several students communicated their feeling that administrators might see but fail to understand their lived experiences in terms of fear and discrimination, though Dean Ashby signaled her understanding of the issue.

With respect to the demands made, any member of the undergraduate community should feel comfortable suggesting improvements to better undergraduate life, but they should also understand the resources and power, staff-wise, that go into evaluating, planning and implementing changes to our University. Understanding of and submission to this process is a core requirement to make progress. For example, it seems unreasonable to be unhappy with a one semester timeline for the new taskforce’s recommendations to come out. That viewpoint fails to understand what it takes to appoint and gather a large, diverse committee, design and conduct research, draw conclusions and deliberate on appropriate action items. It would do justice to no party to rush this or other proceedings because it is, or should be, the priority of both administration and concerned students that things be done right and not hastily.

In his speaking segments, President Brodhead attempted to contextualize the progress which Duke as an institution has made on racial tensions, and we think it would be helpful for undergraduates to think twice and internalize what he is saying about the history of Duke and how progress is as incremental as it is project-based. Ultimately, the burden is still squarely on administrators to lead in these changes and for students to participate to the extent that their being students allows, but that does not mean students should play ignorant or unwilling to learn from administrators and their experiences. As finals and the holidays approach, we hope that the conversation and actions taken between campus leaders and administrators does not slide back into complacency.

Administrators should continue to be transparent and in touch with students via minutes and periodic announcements. Coming to the forums in good faith and establishing a task force are great steps, and we hope to see continued actions as well as the realization that all parties ought to be more proactive given the highly reactive nature of the year’s developments. Above all else, however, we believe there is still a silent majority of undergraduates who have yet to engage in this dialogue and their engagement will be essential for changing the student culture that is at the root of many of these issues.