An ambiguous decision

In yesterday’s editorial, we discussed the reversal of Duke’s decision to hold a weekly adhan, or call to prayer for the Muslim community, from atop the Chapel. While we disagreed with the institution’s reversal of their decision, we understood the complexities that went into making the call and how making the “right” decision is something very contextual and situational. Bearing this in mind, the board finds the response of many individuals around the country and here on campus reprehensible. Today, we focus on the communal and administrative response surrounding the events.

The call to prayer is the most recent controversy that has catapulted Duke into the national media spotlight. Like clockwork, these “scandals” seem to occur yearly. In these instances, the public backlash seems to disproportionately shape the direction of the administration’s decisions. Rather than allowing the community most directly affected by these core ethical conflicts—current students and faculty—to shape dialogue and the direction of change, the administration has traditionally pandered to the broader public. Be they alumni or devoted fans, the ties of those whose judgments are weighted most heavily are, at most, symbolic and, at the least, monetary. The question of whose voice is heard in these decisions is an important one that seems favored against the current community most affected.

Beyond the decision process, the lack of communication and transparency in the wake of the reversal raises concerns. The administration’s allusions to “serious and credible” threats are certainly valid reasons for concern—the safety of our students is of utmost importance. Yet, the lack of official affirmation and the ambiguity in where those threats came from or what is being done in response has created an environment of fear and uncertainty. With no clear communication—even something as simple as a statement from the Office of the President would suffice—students are forced to conjure up their own machinations as to why the decision to have a call to prayer was reversed. Even if unsure that it is the right call, the administration taking a united stance that would allow dialogue is more preferred than silence.

By being reactionary rather than forthcoming, the administration misses opportunities for moments of communal growth. Taking a firm, communicative stand and engaging the ethical issues at hand would foster campus wide consciousness and raise discussion surrounding important critical issues. Rather than tarry over and be driven by the public image of the University amidst outside protest—shifting the lens of what is right and wrong—Duke should carefully assess its actions and stand by its values and those at the margins most affected.

Entertaining whether or not the call to prayer and subsequent reversal should have happened is one discussion—yet another equally important conversation is engaging with the subsequent aftermath. Why were these threats made in the first place? And while taking a stance against allowing the adhan to play from the Chapel is not necessarily racist or Islamaphobic, using one’s own amplified platform—like Franklin Graham or Sean Hannity—to conflate the Islamic faith with Islamic extremists yields unproductive vitriol. It is heartening to witness administrators and students who stood in solidarity and support of Muslim students. We can only hope that any further discussion can replicate this sense of community, understanding and engagement.