Duke University Amidst National Campus Turmoil
My former school, Duke University, seems to have largely navigated the national campus unrest following the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7th and the subsequent Israeli military actions in Gaza.
There haven’t been any significant incidents of anti-Semitism or notable faculty harassment toward supporters of Israel. Instead, the conflicts have mostly been verbal exchanges among students, along with some peaceful protests in Duke’s vibrant quads.
The university has maintained a diverse campus, partly due to its race-neutral admissions policies that admit a considerable number of Asian students. Perhaps because of this, President Vincent Price hasn’t faced the same backlash as other university leaders who have been targeted by some members of Congress.
In April, Price was among more than 200 university presidents who signed a Joint Resistance Letter. This document addressed concerns over governmental interference in higher education, stating, “We speak in one voice against threats to American higher education.” It was a bold statement, though perhaps somewhat safe.
In contrast, other academic leaders, like Harvard’s Alangerber and Wesleyan’s Michael Ross, have been much more vocal against the Trump administration’s alarming demands, which, they argue, jeopardize federal funding for research projects. Bard College President Leon Botstein has pointed out that Trump’s campaign against universities follows a “classic anti-Semitic routine.”
However, Price’s cautious approach—favoring a “profile of prudence” instead of a “profile of courage”—hasn’t gone unnoticed at Duke. The national cuts to university research funding have already led to a loss of around 600 jobs at Duke alone, with another 3,000 positions possibly at risk.
Then, on July 28, a letter was co-signed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alleging that Duke’s practices included illegal racial preferences in various areas including recruitment, scholarships, and financial aid, although they provided no evidence to support these claims.
The Department of Education is conducting its own investigation into allegations that Duke has given advantages to certain groups.
On July 30, the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal research funding for Duke. The university had reported spending $1.5 billion on research last year, with nearly 60% of that coming from government sources.
Some on campus are suggesting that powerful Duke alumni are behind this. For instance, conservative alum Stephen Miller had a column in the Duke Chronicle back in the day where he criticized the university, accusing it of being overly liberal and fostering an “indoctrination” of students.
Duke’s endowment is strong, at $11.9 billion, and it also has a $3.6 billion fund. Still, constraints on how these funds can be used could hinder important projects, like the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine.
Reactions from alumni and faculty have varied, with some expressing outrage. William Lawrence, a former faculty member, criticized the government’s actions, describing the allegations of discrimination as baseless and harmful.
More than 100 alumni joined forces to send President Price an open letter opposing the government’s actions. The letter emphasized the need to recognize the worth and dignity of all members of the Duke community.
Despite the various tensions, Price’s reserved response to the Trump administration’s actions is, perhaps, understandable. Nonetheless, some firmly disagree with this approach.
Reflecting on the past, when Duke began to confront its own history of racism in the 1960s, student protests about the slow pace of change come to mind. Today, the administration faces new challenges.
It seems that the only effective response may be to stand firm against these demands, as past experiences—like the Silent Vigil in 1968—demonstrate. Then, students called for recognition and rights for non-academic workers, advocating for increased representation of Black students and faculty.
As one alum remarked, “Bullies will only escalate their demands until the principles of academic freedom are compromised.” Loyalty to one’s school can mean different things to different people. For Duke’s alumni from the 1960s and 70s, it’s about encouraging the university to uphold its values.
In today’s context, being loyal might mean standing up against something that feels like governmental overreach. With threats of funding cuts looming, Duke cannot afford to remain neutral.
As undergraduate Leo Goldberg noted, “By jeopardizing the livelihoods of faculty and staff, our university is signaling a dangerous acquiescence.” Higher education is at a critical juncture, with pressures mounting from various fronts.
Mark I. Pinski, a North Carolina journalist and author, contributed a column for The Duke Chronicle during his days as an undergraduate student.
