INC NEWS - Secrecy at Duke (from column in today's Chronicle)

[John Schelp]

...secrecy [at Duke] can have more tangible impacts.  
  

Considering the ARAMARK debacle, Duke has had no
reason to admit publicly that it erred in bringing
ARAMARK here and has every reason to fear the outcry
associated with that admission. Although Jim Wulforst,
director of Dining Services, has been extraordinarily
courageous in his criticism and honesty, other
officials haven’t been as forthcoming.

Instead, The Chronicle is left to “obtain” documents
from anonymous sources and dig very deeply to see what
factors are really at play.  One such document, a
January 2003 internal memo from Wulforst to then-Vice
President for Auxiliary Services Joe Pietrantoni,
described “the general sense of disappointment with
ARAMARK at Duke since their arrival at Duke 18 months
ago.”  

But, had someone not stamped “CONFIDENTIAL” on top of
that memo, a public outcry might have saved us from
struggling with this for five long years. But instead,
three years after Wulforst secretly wrote what was
already on everyone’s mind, we are left to assume the
worst as to why more action wasn’t taken.   

Other excellent examples of the so-called Adams
Philosophy are seen in publicly available documents as
well.

In October, I wrote about a drastic decline in the
detail of some of Duke’s public financial reports
which detailed profits from housing, cable television
and other student services which were seemingly
diverted to athletics.  Duke officials gave
inconsistent explanations as to why such controversial
information was no longer being reported, and then
later simply removed the new, less-detailed version of
the report within 48 hours of the column running.

This is nothing out of the ordinary, and Duke has used
its status as a private institution to hide
information about the endowment, housing, dining,
parking, development and almost every other division.
Whether it’s course evaluations or internal budgets,
Duke applies the Adams Philosophy to the release of
information and dances with The Chronicle and many
others over what it will disclose.

This doesn’t make administrators automatically corrupt
or prove any malicious intent, but it does leave us to
speculate. And given that the Daily Tar Heel was able
to sue for the right to sit in on private hearings and
can request any document from any division under the
Freedom of Information Act, I don’t see any reason why
Duke shouldn’t hold itself to the same standard.  

But in the mean time, I’m enjoying the rush I get when
I see that big red stamp on something that I’m not
supposed to have. If the National Security Agency
can’t keep a secret, Duke definitely can’t.


Elliott Wolf is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs
every Tuesday.


Full text is here...
http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/31/43df6b5704b74