In recent weeks several students have come together under the banner of Duke for Endowment Transparency to call for a decreased level of secrecy in the management of the University's more than $4 billion endowment.

Citing what they view as the University's relative opacity, the students are calling for the Duke University Management Company, the entity in charge of managing the University's endowment assets, to regularly release to the public a detailed list of endowment holdings as well as an account of all proxy votes and sponsorships of shareholder resolutions made on behalf of the University.

Although these demands are too extreme, their intent is spot-on. The University should take reasonable steps to increase the transparency of its endowment holdings and move into line with its peer institutions.

Throughout at least the last two decades, endowment transparency has been a hot-button issue at the University-and for good reason.

The financial, and to some extent the general, health of the University is contingent on endowment performance. For this reason, the University is justified in pursuing a competitive investment strategy whose overarching objective is to maximize the returns on its investments.

That said, although the University is a private institution, it is not a private for-profit corporation. Accordingly, the mission of DUMAC has to do with more than just profit.

It is imperative that the University balances its legitimate concern for the future financial solvency of the institution with its equally important mandate to advance the spread of knowledge and to empower human potential.

Thus, DUMAC should not place any direct holdings in a regime that is in direct, grievous and clear violation of human rights through policies such as genocide or apartheid. DUMAC should also be reluctant to place direct holdings in companies that significantly damage the environment.

Five years ago the University Board of Trustees acknowledged the endowment's two-fold mission of profit and the betterment of humankind, when it officially adopted "Guidelines on Socially Responsible Investing."

As part of this recognition, the University also created an Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility.

After these initial steps toward greater transparency and responsibility, however, the University's efforts on this front have languished-especially compared to other institutions of higher education.

The ACIR, for example, has met only once since its inception. The one time that the ACIR did meet, in 2007, it confirmed University holdings in Sudan and directed DUMAC to divest.

Thus, although the ACIR can be highly effective in enforcing the established "Guidelines," it is right now a slow-moving, entirely reactive body that has not lived up to its potential.

To remedy this problem, the ACIR should meet regularly and have access to the University's investment profile of direct holdings. It should discuss these holdings in the context of the "Guidelines" and take proactive stances to ensure responsible investing.

Second, Duke uses multiple investment managers whom it does not identify, which effectively shields forms, including those filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other data from the public. Though the nature and sizes of investments are different at other schools, places like Harvard also have provided better access to forms, which has not caused undue damage to the endowment. When necessary, members of the Duke community interested in various causes could use information to generate support for divestment and lobby the ACIR.

The University has taken it upon itself to promote the ideals of freedom and human rights throughout the world. By opening up its endowment to a certain degree of scrutiny, the University can ensure that its investments help, and do not hinder, these essential aims.