One year ago, the dining plan contract fee increased $70 — from $19.50 to $90. This came at the end of a long, protracted dispute between DSG and Campus Services. The fee increase was suggested for the purpose of reducing the Duke Dining deficit, which had then ballooned to $2.2 million. Finally, after the administration allegedly agreed to adhere to a list of stipulations, the fee increase was agreed upon. The most important stipulation was that the increase was to exist for only one year.

Unfortunately, that’s not happening. Early last semester, Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta announced that the $90 dining fee will remain in place until at least 2013. The main argument behind the administration’s sudden change of heart is that the leadership in place now is not the leadership that was in place then. Whereas the agreement was proffered between DSG representatives and former Vice President for campus services Kemel Dawkins, this summer led to the dissolution of Campus Services altogether and the responsibilities of the defunct office were routed to Student Affairs.

While representatives stated publically at the conclusion of the fee negotiations that Dawkins gave them his word that the fee would be in effect for just one year, the administration is now saying that there was no written agreement from the negotiations – only a verbal promise from an administrator no longer employed by the university. DSG asserts that the intention was draft a written contract last year, but nobody signed it.

There is no doubt that DSG failed to take the necessary precautions to protect the student body – while the administration likewise failed to find methods of closing the deficit that are more amenable to the student body. If DSG is not going to apply adequate pressure to make that happen, it is hard to blame Student Affairs for going forward with a permanent fee increase. Though we would like to think that the administrators spend a majority of their time working to make campus better for us, the fact remains that Duke is running a massive deficit in many areas and it is their responsibility to close that deficit by any means possible. You know, except for dipping into the endowment. That would be impossible.

I digress. The fact is: this isn’t as big of a deal as it seems. A $70.50 fee increase sounds pretty stark, but it is important to place it in context – Duke tuition goes up several thousand dollars a year. The more important takeaway, for me, is that DSG settled for nothing more than a transient personal promise from an administrator who was not guaranteed to be at the university when it came time to enact the promise. While the fee increase – relative to tuition – is not very large, the tuition is not something we have any avenue of fighting. This fee increase is the opposite – it is something that DSG has more than enough power to negotiate, and the fact that DSG failed to protect the student body speaks rather poorly of the DSG officials involved, and the general health of our student government.

Jay Cost is one of my favorite writers. He’s a professor of political science, and writes about politics in a manner more akin to V.O. Key than Jim Geraghty or Eleanor Clift (or any of that crowd, really). This week, he wrote an exquisite piece highlighting the popular conception that Obama has “let us down” and noted how that shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s a very good piece, I enjoyed it quite a bit. Hope you do too.

“The Real Barack Obama” by Jay Cost.

Thanks for reading. Have a good first day of classes, everybody!

There are a lot of different definitions of the word “conservative.” I agree with some of them. I disagree with many more. In this writer’s view, though, real conservatism is a philosophy best encapsulated in two key words. Responsibility and restraint.

Conservatism means a government that takes its responsibility to preserve the individual liberties of its citizens as a sacred vow, not an empty promise. A government that understands that, truly, its own value is in the freedom it gives its citizens.

Conservatism means a government committed to fiscal restraint, a government that recognizes its responsibility to tomorrow’s citizens to keep a reasonable, balanced budget. A government that understands that the freedom of the checkbook is – while perhaps not as well-defended by its citizens as freedom of speech and freedom of expression – as essential to a free and productive society as the air we breathe.

Conservatism means a government that sees itself not as the leader of its people, but as the servant of its citizens. A government that understands and sees the truth in Mark Twain’s famous quote; “the government is merely a servant — merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

Conservatism is a government free of tyranny – neither that of the majority nor that of the minority. A conservative government acts in the face of pressing need, and not a moment sooner. A government that practices restraint chiefly and action judiciously, one that allows neither undue favor nor an injustice of disfavor.

And while these all hold in the broad political sense, on the individual level, conservatives should understand themselves the personal value of these two concepts. A conservative shouldn’t expect others to do that which they’ve agreed to do – a conservative should know their responsibilities, and attend to them with the utmost care. A conservative should avoid preaching governmental fiscal restraint if they can’t restrain their own checkbook – hypocrisy is a dangerous road.

Conservatives should as well take note that as citizens of the United States of America, there’s a certain responsibility we share to our country. Though it is oftentimes difficult, it is the responsibility of a citizen to recognize that it’s possible to appreciate what we have while disagreeing with the people who run the institution. Far be it from us to back down on our principles. In fact, we do have a responsibility to speak out against that with which we disagree. But disagreement does not necessitate boorishness, or rude, childish outbursts. And though we disagree, a conservative should realize that the goal – a better tomorrow – isn’t a controversial one.

We may disagree with progressives and centrists all we want. We all know that policy disagreements are the mother’s milk of a healthy democracy. But it does a stark injustice to our philosophy to disrespect our debating partners. We all want what’s best for society – disagreements can be had in good faith, and in our culture of personal restraint, we should aspire to do so.

Will a government of this nature – or a person of perfect conservative form – ever exist? I doubt it. Conservatism, to me, is an ideal. It’s a faraway concept, one of a perfect unity of ordinarily disparate concepts. But, much as we can’t truly use infinity in our mathematical computations, sometimes the limit approaching your ideal is just as good as the ideal itself.

And in my view, it’s always good to have something to work towards.