DukeEngage should avoid growth

In two short weeks, students will finish the academic year and leave campus. Although many students will spend their summers lazing in the sun, enjoying the company of friends, taking a class or participating in an internship, others will embark on a trip sponsored by DukeEngage. The recent release of the program’s new strategic plan warrants another look at DukeEngage’s role in students’ lives.

A recent series in The Chronicle assessed the progress of DukeEngage since its creation in 2007. Initially conceived as a way to cast the Duke brand in a positive light following the lacrosse scandal, DukeEngage has developed into a signature program for the University. It boasts a growing application pool and is popular among prospective students.

The success of DukeEngage, however, has failed to shield it from criticism. The program has been chastised for promoting “voluntourism”—a term used to describe the short amount of time students spend in the program, which can prevent substantial interactions from occurring between students and their host communities. Perhaps more significantly, development projects of this sort always face a serious ethical dilemma—how can a program that uses service as a way to promote personal development for students both offer them an enriching experience in civic engagement and avoid treating members of the host communities as means to that end?

Programs like DukeEngage can never completely wriggle out of this dilemma. They can, however, attempt to better balance the dual goals of personal development and community enrichment by selecting students who are likely to incorporate service into other aspects of their life. The University could also ensure that each DukeEngage program site meets the highest possible standard of quality.

The sheer size of DukeEngage caused us to question in an earlier editorial the program’s ability to achieve either goal, and the 2017 strategic plan for DukeEngage has done little to allay our concerns. The plan emphasizes growth, but it does not provide sufficient information on how it will improve or maintain the quality of current project sites. Moreover, students continue to face serious challenges integrating their summer experience into their curricular work, a problem not likely to be solved through expansion. DukeEngage would be better served by a “less is more” approach, which would emphasize program quality, depth of experience and social impact.

As a university guided by the principle of “knowledge in the service of society,” Duke ought to ensure that its signature programs serves society in the most effective way possible. We have advocated that DukeEngage become more selective in the past and still maintain that reducing the number of participants is one way to sustain the quality of the program. Although immersion programs can sometimes have an impact on students who are new to community engagement, the goals of the program would be better served by selecting students that have a background in service.

DukeEngage has largely succeeded in improving Duke’s brand and offering students an opportunity to participate in service projects across the world. The program remains, however, far from perfect. DukeEngage ought to prioritize program quality instead of seeking to swell its applicant pool.