The secular question at Duke

The recent events regarding the Adhan on the Chapel Tower brought international focus to Duke University and sparked debates about tolerance, Islamophobia and the nature of donors to private institutions, among others. One debate that failed to come to fruition is the nature of secularism and Duke’s funding for religious activities.

As evinced by the large turnout from people of all faiths at the Adhan ceremony, it seems as if the Duke student body has come together to show its support for freedom of religious belief and expression. But these concepts are not the only ones at play in this affair. As a private university, the money used for everything at Duke does not come from taxes, but rather donations from individuals, tuition money, fees, etc.—although Pell grants are publicly funded, as are state grants, subsidies and public finance of research, this is a whole other topic. Some of this money goes to funding organizations and events to which those payers are actually fundamentally opposed. For the Adhan case, this would namely be the usage of university-funded audio equipment for religious ceremonies.

My point here is not to say that there is a difference between supporting someone’s right to freedom of religious expression and actually promoting that religion, I am trying to show that there is a funding process at Duke University that strikes me as odd. Several cases come immediately to mind—organizations that support opposing viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bringing in controversial academic speakers and musical and other performances by entertainers some students find abhorrent—such as one that would ask the student body where his “virgins at”. While I am sure these “opposed students” see the need for a right to hold meetings and express myriad views, I doubt that they want to give their money to these events.

One could argue then that they are not giving the other organization money outright—that it is going to a fund that can be distributed to whatever student organization, but I think this argument is very weak. One person’s money is coming from their pocket and being used by an organization to which they are fundamentally opposed, the fact that it goes through an arbiter seems irrelevant. This would be the same for any topic on which one could take a side—the relevant example for the Adhan services as well as any other religious ceremony would be atheists funding religious activities.

I do not have a solution to this problem. One was offered last year in the form of the 40% Plan, but that was decidedly struck down through popular vote. This might mean that the student body actually accepts the transfer of their money to movements or activities they oppose. While this process still seems odd to me, I don’t think it should stop being part of debates about life at Duke.

Daniel Stublen is a Trinity senior.