Panel discussions don't help victims

When I saw how many people were dying and starving in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city, I thought: What can I as a mid- to upper-class academic do to help? For some at the Center for Multicultural Affairs, the answer was obvious: hold a panel discussion entitled “Critical Responses to the New Orleans Catastrophe” featuring an art historian, a literature scholar and a member of the University Writing Program faculty. To me, one of the nice things about a disaster like Hurricane Katrina is that we as academics can use it as fodder for our intellectual curiosity.

Kudos to the Multicultural Center for wasting no time in putting their energy toward a project that can actually help those in need! We all know how influential university panel discussions can be on the political powers-that-be—maybe after this discussion things will finally change in America. My only disappointment is that the people left homeless after the storm aren’t able to come up and take part; that would have been really interesting and would make for a better panel discussion.

Carl Schimmel

Grad ’09

Column demonstrates lack of respect

Though I support the spirit of Andrey Fradkin’s overall message in the column entitled “Amending Article I” (Sept. 2, 2005), I do suspect that in the name of his greater, more inclusive cause, he dismissed what he himself was advocating—namely, respect.

Statements like “Christianity is based on faith in the truthfulness of a book” are contentious comments as well. Christianity is much more than a book, sir, and I urge you to investigate the balancing act upon which the Christian faith is based. Said book is merely an avenue by which to pursue faith, and though it has been interpreted and debated in theology (a recognized academic field, by the way) it is the job of any good Christian to analyze the scripture for herself—this struggle is imperative to any Christian if she seeks to grow in faith.

Logic to remove Article I flawed

Andrey Fradkin’s column, “Amending Article I” (Sep 2, 2005), is a triumph of intolerance. Article I calls for the defense of scholarship “against all false notions and ideals.” It also promotes “the teaching and character of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” and values the “Christian love of freedom and truth.” According to Fradkin, this private university cannot improve while daring to mention Jesus Christ in its mission statement. But his column is more than just a disagreement with Article I—it is a rabid, unprincipled attack straight from the playbook of PC Puritanism.

Fradkin suggests Article I, adopted in 1924, is invalid since it came from a provincial, intolerant and miserable part of the country. One doesn’t have to be from the South to find that both offensive and ridiculous. Few dispute the ugly history of racism; to imply that the principles put forth in Article I must therefore stem from such ills is shocking. Such sneering intolerance and elitism is precisely what you wouldn’t want to find at a first-rate university.

Most would agree that first-rate universities also frown on stereotyping. Yet Fradkin peddles the false stereotype that Christians are opposed to science: “cutting edge research has clashed with Christianity,” and Christianity reflects an “anti-academic sentiment.” At times the pursuit of scientific knowledge has clashed with a politically powerful Church, but not the core beliefs of Christians. Galileo, for example, expressed a deep Christian faith. Dr. Francis Collins directed the Human Genome Project that decoded DNA—he is also a devout Christian. And there are countless Christian men and women of science between Galileo and Collins. So much for Christianity’s anti-academic stereotype.

Finally, consider the logical progression of amending Article I. Why stop there? The Duke University crest—the one that says “Eruditio et Religion” would also have to change. The cross displayed in the crest’s center? Gone. Apparently a whole lot of Christian-cleansing (rhymes with ethnic-cleansing) must be done to render Duke acceptable among elites.

Christians (like me) and non-Christians, however, can easily recognize such false notions and ideals.

Tim Schultz

Grad ’11

Duke financial records reveal nuanced view

In his Chronicle column (“Open to public inspection,” Aug. 30, 2005) analyzing Duke’s financial records, Elliott Wolf asks good questions but reaches some inaccurate conclusions. This isn’t surprising given his primary source of information: IRS Form 990, which is filed annually by universities and other nonprofit institutions. It’s a form that even accountants struggle to understand.

Duke’s audited financial statements, which are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, offer a much clearer presentation.

For instance, Wolf points to Form 990’s listing of an operating excess of $291.3 million for the year ending June 30, 2004, which he suggests could have been used to reduce tuition or increase financial aid. That sounds reasonable. But it turns out that $276 million of this total is from so-called “non-operating activities,” which includes $187 million of gifts legally restricted by donors and/or gains from the sale of endowment investments which also have restrictions that, in most cases, prohibit their use for the purposes Wolf suggests.

Unlike Form 990, generally accepted accounting principles require a distinction between non-operating activities and operating activities related to education and research. A quick look at the supplementary information accompanying Duke’s audited financials reveals excess revenue from operating activities actually totaling $15 million in 2004 (not $291.3 million as Wolf identified) or about 1 percent of Duke’s total unrestricted revenue.

Wolf also used the Form 990 information to conclude, erroneously, that Duke turned a profit of $37 million on the sale of food and merchandise to students. The Form 990 does show that sales proceeds exceeded by $37 million the amount paid to suppliers for food and merchandise. But these figures do not include the salaries of the people selling the merchandise or providing the services, or the costs of operating and maintaining space occupied by these functions. In fact, Duke’s “auxiliary services,” which include dining, housing, parking, and many other functions that support students, had a surplus of less than $1 million on a budget of about $124 million. Again, this information is readily available in the audited financial statements.

Wolf goes on to cite as illustrative the investment returns from fiscal year 2000, a year in which Duke’s investment team achieved a breathtaking 58.8 percent return, outpacing any other major university. That remarkable performance resulted in a $980 million one-year growth in the University’s endowment. What he fails to consider is the subsequent drawdown of the endowment to support programs and the decline in the financial markets that took back $500 million of this gain over the next three years. This is why Duke bases its own strategic planning over time horizons longer than one year, to smooth out the inevitable peaks and valleys so Duke programs can be assured of consistent support over time. It is also important to understand that an endowment is not like a savings account. True endowment does not allow the principal to be invaded. Also, the University’s endowment is really the aggregate of more than 3,000 individual endowments for different Duke schools and programs, which frequently are restricted to those programs and not available for other purposes.

Ironically, Wolf criticizes Duke’s $55 million commitment to financial aid at the very moment when President Richard Brodhead has made raising the endowment for financial aid a top institutional priority. Duke is one of relatively few universities with a need-blind admissions policy of admitting the most talented students and ensuring they are able to afford to attend Duke. More than 40 percent of Duke undergraduates receive financial assistance from the University, with the average annual grant totaling $21,320 last year.

I applaud Wolf’s interest in the finances of the University and, in particular, in financial aid, but reliance on the Form 990 is not the best way to learn about and understand these issues. I encourage him and others to use the University’s audited financials for a clearer view of the situation. Duke posts these online at www.yearinreview.duke.edu/financial_report.

John Burness

Senior V.P. for Government Affairs and Community Relations

Editor’s note: The limit of 350 words was waived for this letter.

Tenting information meeting tonight

Tuesday night, there is an open forum to discuss the tenting policy and other Krzyzewskiville issues from 7 to 8 p.m. on the 5th floor of McClendon Tower. Anyone interested in attending basketball games this season is highly encouraged to attend. Items to be addressed include the future of Black Tenting, the length of White Tenting, grace policies, the trash problem and the timing of personal checks.

K-ville is a student organization, and its policies should reflect the desires of those who are a part of it. The open forum will serve as an opportunity for me to learn your opinions and ideas so that I may devise a policy which best fits your interests. I hope to make the K-ville experience one of the best of your college career, and I am asking for your help in doing so. I hope to see you tonight!

Lauren Troyer

Trinity ’06

Head Line Monitor