T H E I N D E P E N D E N T D A I LY AT D U K E U N I V E R S I T Y
The Chronicle
“
Administration needs to take responsibility
O
n Monday, the Duke community learned the shocking story of an alleged criminal incident involving Executive Vice President Tallman Trask. Before a basketball game in 2014, Trask hit a game day parking attendant with his car and allegedly called out a racial slur as he abruptly left the scene. Shelvia Underwood, the attendant, sought medical care for a muscle contusion and possible elbow fracture shortly afterwards. Trask “categorically denied” hitting Underwood with his car until The Chronicle presented him with a copy of the apology note he had written to her for the incident. We also learned that a special events manager for the Parking and Transportation Services department made clear to President Richard Brodhead that the allegations made against Trask were part of a hostile and discriminatory environment within PTS, claims corroborated on Tuesday after interviews with 12 current and former PTS employees by The Chronicle. We urge all students to read these articles to better understand the severity of these incidents. These investigative reports highlight our previously articulated concerns about how administrative conflicts of interest can manifest at Duke and how our community must not back down from addressing systemic issues of race and inequality. Trask conducts himself as though he is untouchable
more often than any administrator should, evidenced by a reputation for not properly displaying his parking permits and his outright lie to The Chronicle when first asked about hitting Underwood. Legally, for Trask to leave the scene without ensuring Underwood’s wellbeing possibility constitutes a criminal offense and, at a basic level, is behavior no student trying to become a scholar “in the service of society” should see in one of our highest ranking University leaders. We find ourselves even more concerned that the
Editorial Trask incident and reports by the PTS employees reflect fundamental flaws in our administration’s hierarchy of oversight and accountability. PTS and the Duke University Police Department are supervised by VP of Administration Kyle Cavanaugh, who is directly supervised by Trask, yet DUPD was the body investigating Underwood’s complaint. Further, while deputized to carry out investigations, DUPD’s status as a private police force exempts it from regulations on many federally supervised departments. This allowed DUPD to decline to provide Underwood with her full police report until Underwood spoke with the Raleigh Police Department. Additionally, PTS
onlinecomment
“University and college students are starting to use the app, YES to SEX, as a step-by-step verbal safe sex consent. This app is the answer to ‘HOW do we do this consent thing?’ It covers consent facts, protection to be used or not, and oral agreements with safe words to use later – if necessary.” — “YES to SEX” commenting on the Feb. 25 column “More than consent”
LETTERS POLICY The Chronicle welcomes submissions in the form of letters to the editor or guest columns. Submissions must include the author’s name, signature, department or class, and for purposes of identification, phone number and local address. Letters should not exceed 325 words; contact the editorial department for information regarding guest columns. The Chronicle will not publish anonymous or form letters or letters that are promotional in nature. The Chronicle reserves the right to edit letters and guest columns for length, clarity and style and the right to withhold letters based on the discretion of the editorial page editor.
Est. 1905
The Chronicle
www.dukechronicle.com commentary
14 | WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016
”
Direct submissions to: E-mail: chronicleletters@duke.edu Editorial Page Department The Chronicle Box 90858, Durham, NC 27708 Phone: (919) 684-2663 Fax: (919) 684-4696
The Chronicle
Inc. 1993
AMRITH RAMKUMAR, Editor RYAN HOERGER, Sports Editor
O
CAROLYN CHANG, Photography Editor TOM VOSBURGH, Editorial Page Editor LEONARD GIARRANO, Editorial Board Chair MICHAEL LAI, Director Of Online Development
CHRISSY BECK, General Manager CLAIRE BALLENTINE, University Editor SARAH KERMAN, Local & National Editor ABIGAIL XIE, Health & Science Editor LILY COAD, Sports Photography Editor ELIZABETH DJINIS, Recess Managing Editor BARAK BIBLIN, Editorial Page Managing Editor EMMA BACCELLIERI, Towerview Editor MATTHEW ROCK, Towerview Photography Editor ALEENA KAREDIYA, Special Projects Editor SOPHIE TURNER, Special Projects Photography Editor MICHELLE MENCHACA, Recruitment Chair SAMANTHA NEAL, Senior News Reporter MEGAN HAVEN, Advertising Director MARY WEAVER, Operations Manager
ALEX GRIFFITH, University Editor NEELESH MOORTHY, Local & National Editor SANJEEV DASGUPTA, News Photography Editor GEORGIA PARKE, Recess Editor JESÚS HIDALGO, Recess Photography Editor BRIAN POLLACK, Sports Managing Editor NICK MARTIN, Towerview Editor THU NGUYEN, Towerview Creative Director CARLEIGH STIEHM, Senior Editor RITA LO, Graphic Design Editor DANI LAZARUS, Recruitment Chair ADAM BEYER, Senior News Reporter GRACE WANG, Senior News Reporter JULIE MOORE, Creative Director
The Chronicle is published by the Duke Student Publishing Company, Inc., a non-profit corporation independent of Duke University. The opinions expressed in this newspaper are not necessarily those of Duke University, its students, faculty, staff, administration or trustees. Unsigned editorials represent the majority view of the editorial board. Columns, letters and cartoons represent the views of the authors. To reach the Editorial Office at 301 Flowers Building, call 684-2663 or fax 684-4696. To reach the Business Office at 2022 Campus Drive call 684-3811. To reach the Advertising Office at 2022 Campus Drive call 684-3811. One copy per person; additional copies may be purchased for .25 at The Chronicle Business office at the address above. @ 2016 Duke Student Publishing Company
applauded. I nearly got up and left. Let’s get one thing straight: Scalia was brilliant. He was an inspiration to thousands of law students and revered even among his opponents. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia’s ideological opposite, called him a “jurist of captivating brilliance and wit.” POLIS, many of whose students are pre-law like me, should not be bringing in speakers who rhetorically spit on the work of a Supreme Court Justice—even if it’s done in jest. I understand Fugelsang was only making a joke, but I found it offensive: if a comedian comes to Duke after my death and calls me a racist, sexist homophobe by virtue of my constitutional philosophy, I certainly hope the joke is not received with laughter and applause. At Duke, where a “Cops and Robbers” party was recently protested as racist, no one is expecting to see any conservative comedians book shows anytime soon. Still, POLIS would be well-served to present some degree of balance. During the Q&A, an audience member asked, “Let’s be fair: how come there haven’t been any Hillary Clinton jokes?” Dominick responded that, while the Republicans are easy targets, he simply couldn’t find fault with “America’s first female president.” Obeidallah and Fugelsang agreed. Noah Kane Trinity ’17
Letter to the Editor
RYAN ZHANG, Co-News Editor GAUTAM HATHI, Digital Content Director STEPHANIE WU, Office Manager
Letter to the Editor
n Monday night, I attended the SiriusXM “Electoral College Tour” comedy show in Page Auditorium. The show was sponsored by the Duke Center for Politics, Leadership and Service (or Duke POLIS). Professor Fritz Mayer, the director, spoke first, describing the show as “an attempt to fix our broken politics through comedy.” By “broken politics,” he didn’t mean the corrupt political system that has drawn criticism from both the right and the left. He meant the Republicans. The first comedian to perform was Pete Dominick, who has previously toured with Stephen Colbert. Dominick harshly criticized the Republican field of candidates but spared the Democrats. Next to perform was Dean Obeidallah, who offered an equally harsh critique of the Republican field. He, too, left the Democrats unscathed. I didn’t agree with these comedians politically—this is an understatement—but I found their acts to be relatively tasteful. The third and final comedian to perform was John Fugelsang. He tore into conservatism, Catholicism, the Republicans and, tastelessly, even the late Justice Antonin Scalia (who died just over two weeks ago). “I can reduce [Scalia’s] life’s work,” claimed Fugelsang, “to one sentence: blacks are dumb people, women are dirty people, gays are evil people, accused are guilty people and corporations are people.” The audience, which included many students, laughed and
RACHEL CHASON, Co-News Editor
employees gave voice to their lack of faith in the Office of Institutional Equity’s complaint channels, mirroring faculty concerns in the Task Force on Diversity’s report. While Cavanaugh stated that all such complaints were investigated and resolved, students, faculty and administrators ought to be gravely concerned about the current state of transparency, accountability and fairness in some administration policies. We call today for a significant overhaul of University oversight and documentation and the removal of glaring conflicts of interest that contribute to their flaws. We ask university administrators to put their promises into action and not accept the inappropriate and hostile behavior reported through these investigative pieces. We are tired of reading lawyer-proofed responses that hint at unspecified progress which fails to acknowledge the real experiences being reported. We are concerned that those affected by changes in policy, such as the employees in PTS, are not being included in conversations about these changes. We are further unsettled that those who have committed simply indecent and unkind acts here have not been held sufficiently accountable. Ultimately, Duke must be better about addressing these concerns before they reach such flashpoints, lest we never achieve the open and equitable community we aspire to be. Tomorrow’s editorial will turn to the responses so far of students and administrators.
Y
ou report in the Duke Chronicle that two years ago Duke VP Tallman Trask was involved in an altercation with a contract parking attendant. He allegedly rolled his car into a black female attendant and uttered racial slurs while departing the scene. Concerning the incident, Duke president Richard Brodhead issued a release stating: “Dr. Trask has been an extraordinary servant of this university for over 20 years, and no one who works with him closely would find it believable that he would use such language.” I could not help but think Brodhead should have said the same sort of thing about the Duke lacrosse players. Instead, he threw his own students under the bus without gathering the
facts, yet immediately defends his colleague in Duke administration. Here’s a suggestion for what Brodhead should have said in 2006 about the lacrosse players: “These young men have been performed admirably academically, and on the playing fields of Duke University. I and the school have no further comment until we have examined the facts.” That Brodhead said something entirely different about the boys—who were found completely innocent following an excruciating ordeal— demonstrates a gargantuan lack of judgment only his dismissal could have assuaged. Bernie Reeves Raleigh, NC
Interested in reading more Opinion? Check out the Opinion pages at www.dukechronicle.com/opinion
The Chronicle
www.dukechronicle.com commentary
The road less traveled
W
ith spring break just two weeks away and the halfway point of the semester in front of us, as much as we try to resist the urge, we start thinking about what comes next in our Duke careers. Now knee-deep into the semester, battling midterms, summer plans and campus activities, many sophomores are also starting to think about where they will be next semester and the possibilities of studying abroad. My column this week is for you. This time last year, the big questions about studying abroad were constantly at the back of
experiencing life in a different place, professional and/or academic reasons or a combination of the above. My reasons also fell into some of these categories, but there were additional factors that contributed to my decision: 1)Duke-less: I wanted to do a non-Duke program, with non-Duke students and without Duke classes. For me, part of the draw to studying abroad was doing a program where I would be with students from a variety of schools–not just Duke. Being away from “all things Duke” challenged me to create my own support network and build a community
S
In defense of DSG
ince the day I first stepped foot on this campus, it has been in vogue to criticize Duke Student Government. Whether on the campaign trail, in columns and op-eds or in proselytizing endorsements, everyone loves to tell us how to do our jobs better. While I will be the first to acknowledge that criticism of the government is a hallmark of a healthy republic, this election season has introduced a version of that rhetoric more insulting, more personal and more based on false statements than
Sofia Stafford
Brian Hopkins
LIFE AFTER ABROAD
IN SEARCH OF MONSTERS
my mind. How can I make the most out of my Duke experience? Will I join the approximately 47 percent of undergraduates that study abroad during their four years at Duke, or will I stay on campus to take advantage of every moment here? Where should I go for my semester abroad? Since my first year I assumed I would study abroad, and as a school that prides itself in providing a global education, it’s no surprise that so many students do study abroad. Yet, weighing the pros and cons of going abroad and deciding whether to go or not is challenging, and no one can answer those questions for you but yourself. There are definitely lessons learned abroad that your classes and campus activities cannot teach, but there is no doubt that you can stretch yourself right here on campus. The first and probably most important thing to consider is that no “typical” study abroad experience exists. Regardless of where you study, your experience will be different from the person next to you, in the same program, as it will be different from the experience of your best friend in a program across the world. It will also be just as challenging in different ways. As obvious as that might sound, it is similar to the notion that there is a typical college experience. We are hard-pressed to think about these experiences as a dichotomy, but in reality each is unique and shaped more by what you make of it than where you are. This was something that took me my entire semester abroad to learn and continues to be an important reminder for me in all aspects of my Duke experience. When it comes down to choosing where to study abroad, many Duke students concentrate in certain areas of the world. According to the Office for Global Education at Duke, during the 2014-2015 academic year, the top three places to study abroad were Spain, U.K., and Italy. Wanting to take the road less traveled, I chose Salvador, Brazil. Now, a few months into my semester back at Duke, I want to provide some thoughts that I found helpful to keep in mind when making my decision of whether and where to study abroad. When you ask someone why they studied abroad, you get a wide array of answers, but they all generally revolve around similar themes: wanting a break from the rigorous Duke we are all too familiar with, learning a new language or improving a language, studying and
within Salvador. This time apart also reminded me of all the aspects of Duke I take for granted when I am here: the small classes, incredible professors and engaged peers. I came back to campus with a clear mind, ready to dive into the rest of my time back in Durham. 2)Experiential: I was much less concerned with the academic courses and credit (although that always helps) than I was with being able to learn more outside the classroom than inside the classroom. This was certainly the case for my time abroad. I had the access to engage directly and grapple with the global health issues I was studying. The opportunity and time to do this would just not have been something we have at Duke. 3)Unconventional: One of my goals for my time abroad was to be uncomfortable and to learn to be comfortable with that feeling. Yes, it may sound odd and potentially crazy, but I think this is an important and inevitable part of a semester abroad experience no matter where you choose to go. I can confidently say that spending three and a half months in a city like Salvador, so different than what I am used to, helped me met this goal. I learned valuable lessons even from everyday activities. Much of my time was spent uncomfortable — maneuvering the transportation system, staying safe on the streets, avoiding food poisoning and attempting to communicate with others in a language in which I was not fluent. However, it is because of these moments of discomfort and learning to be okay with them that I appreciate my time abroad as much as I do. So, to all of you deciding whether to go and where to go abroad, I offer this advice from my own experience and from conversations with other study abroad students: know your own reasons and goals for studying abroad, and then decide what location and program will help you fulfill those goals. Realize that wherever you go, you will be challenged in different ways than your friends spending their semesters elsewhere and in different ways that you are at Duke. And, finally, recognize that with the immense privilege to experience and learn from different cultures around the world, wherever you decide to go, we all have the responsibility to do so with open minds and open hearts. Sofia Stafford is a Trinity junior. Her column runs on alternate Wednesdays.
What to contribute to campus dialogue? Send your letters to the editor to ar299@duke.edu
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 | 15
any in recent memory. So in defense of the organization I have served for four long years, I will address five of the most common criticisms levied against us and provide my recommendations for how best to remedy them. Most common among the numerous critiques is that DSG is, at its core, ineffective and irrelevant. Critics claim that we have no real influence over any policy or segment of the campus and do nothing to improve what little we do control. First, let me point out that bureaucracies, and by extension governments, are slow and ineffective by design. The nature of a republic is such that no one person or body can collect so much power as to inflict irreparable harm on the society it purportedly represents. Anyone that has spent time in a DMV office can attest to that. DSG’s design similarly hampers progress on big, dramatic initiatives. It also allows individual senators or vice presidents to work on projects outside of the traditional government structure. Those projects contribute substantially to the student body, and do not get as much recognition as they deserve. The fact that so many initiatives go unnoticed stems from the second criticism: that we do not communicate with the student body. That critique has two components. First, they argue we do not solicit input from students prior to making a significant change or starting a big project. Second, they argue we do not communicate the results of those projects once they are complete. On the first point, I remind you that students contribute to important decisions by electing their representatives each year. You may note correctly that elections, especially upperclassmen elections, suffer from a profound lack of candidates, but allow me to address that concern later. On the second point that DSG does not effectively communicate its accomplishments back to the students, I will concede it as a significant weakness of our organization. For the past few years I maintained a personal belief that it was the responsibility of the student news organization to report on DSG’s accomplishments and convey them to the student body, but given their recent obstructionism and antagonism towards us, I no longer have confidence in their ability to do so. Rather, we must streamline our platforms and processes to make them more accessible to individual students. Related to that issue is the third criticism that we lack transparency. I protest this accusation; DSG is the most transparent organization on campus. Our meetings are open to the public and now recorded each week, our executive board meetings are open to any and all
students, our budget gets published each spring, and our minutes, agendas and legislation are all available for access online. I can count on one hand the number of individuals I have seen sit in on a senate or an executive meeting that they did not have to attend. Transparency is not the problem. Rather, critics use “lack of transparency” as a scapegoat to mask their own unwillingness to research our initiatives independently. The fourth and final external criticism is that DSG focuses far too much effort
on internal and procedural issues rather than those that actually impact the student body. While our meetings do appear to the outside observer as a complicated ballet of parliamentary procedure, the fact of the matter is procedure serves as the lubricant to the well-oiled machine that is the government. Although it may frustrate and at times stymie an individual, procedure ultimately protects the organization from making impulsive decisions without careful deliberation. The fact that these criticisms persist year after year leads to one simple conclusion: more people should run for office. Several individuals have spent countless hours over the past few weeks espousing how bad of an organization we are yet remain unwilling to participate in any solution. They call DSG insular and a mere training ground for politicians but then claim it’s not their responsibility to run for office. Every person on this campus is highly intelligent and could figure out how to operate in DSG in a matter of weeks. Government should be comprised of dedicated members of each and every community. Our recent demographics survey demonstrated disparities between DSG and the student body in certain racial and socioeconomic categories. If more people ran for office, we might have a chance at narrowing that gap. The final criticism I feel compelled to address here is that the organization prevents younger voices from being heard. It is the responsibility of each senator to take it upon his or herself to be vocal and demonstrate initiative in Senate. It is not our responsibility to make sure everyone feels comfortable enough to speak. Now, you might point out here that I was a signatory to a letter in January alleging that the exec board strong-armed senators into voting for a controversial resolution. You might also point out that I am the longest serving member of DSG, and a member of the exec board this year, so is it perhaps hypocritical of me to say that young senators need to be more vocal. Here is what I say in response: just as it is a senator’s responsibility to be vocal in meetings, it is our responsibility as members of the executive board to be vocal without crossing the line of strongarming. That line is narrow, and represents a complicated balancing act, but one of which we must always be cognizant. As we lay to rest the second election of this spring and move toward elections for senators and vice presidents, I encourage each and every student to consider running for office. Only once we have competitive elections can students fully appreciate the reality of the concerns facing their student government. Brian Hopkins is a Trinity senior. His columns run on alternate Wednesdays.