Duke's prerogative

Last week, Duke announced and then reversed a decision to allow the Muslim Students’ Association to hold a weekly adhan, or call to prayer, amplified from the top of the Chapel. The decisions have generated lively debate and have catapulted Duke once more to the limelight of national media.

As a private institution, Duke has the prerogative to organize or prohibit student activities somewhat independently of legal considerations. Although the University has no actual obligation to enforce them, the freedoms of speech and religion are values that are cherished at Duke. Supporters of the initial decision may argue that the space of a secular university can be used to support any religion—just like we grant space to Christian missionaries, we can grant space and stereo equipment to Muslims. Opponents may say that specifically lending the Chapel tower and its amplification system constitutes an especially great degree of support that prioritizes one religion above others, thus threatening Duke’s secular nature and religious plurality. We agree that allowing use of the iconic Chapel tower to loudly project a religious message is a much more public form of endorsement than simply granting permission and space. Such support for Islam, then, seems to go beyond what Duke has done in the past for most religions.

However, we still disagree with the reversal. The Muslim voices at Duke deserve prerogative that is proportional to their presence and impact. There are about 700 Muslim students at Duke, which is a substantial number. But we believe that endorsements by Duke should not only reflect the numerical presence of a certain community, but also the larger cultural and social context of the University. Affirming the freedom of Muslims to express themselves in traditionally integral ways, even in mediums of great gravity, is a useful message in the face of current Islamophobia. Even if Duke’s principles of pluralism and freedom do not compel it to allow the amplification of the adhan, choosing to allow it would give Duke the moral high ground in the reality of current events.

Furthermore, we must acknowledge Duke’s institutional emphasis on Judeo-Christian thought. Even the presence of a monumental Christian chapel as the symbol of the University, as well as a significant Judeo-Christian plurality on campus, can make Muslim students feel marginalized and uncomfortable. The causes of this discomfort doubtless vary greatly between individuals, making the forces of marginalization seem intangible when in fact they are quite strong on the aggregate. Duke should use its private prerogative to take steps in correcting this marginalization, even if it involves granting a disproportionately strong platform to a community that traditionally only had a weak one.

Since both sides of the debate claim Duke’s founding principles to stand by their side, we cannot make a strict moral call. We consider the question to be one of contextual prerogative rather than universally “right” action. We therefore suggest that, if similar situations arise in the future, Duke should consider each on an individual basis, in line with their bearing on the social context of Duke and the global context of current events.