On Jan. 27, only several days into his term as President, Donald Trump issued the now infamous executive order temporarily banning travel from seven Middle Eastern countries to the United States. At Duke and many other college campuses, the reaction has been nothing short of unanimous—that Trump’s executive order is morally reprehensible and indefensible.
Let me preface this column by saying that I personally disagree with Trump’s Muslim ban. As a student at Duke, I have seen how this university thrives on the free exchange of ideas by students of all races, religions and nationalities. Nationally, Trump’s policy robs the United States of one of its highest ideals as a shining “City on a Hill,” a nation where people from all backgrounds can pursue a better life. In addition, the order has directly or indirectly affected many students and faculty members at Duke. The genuine fear that many people feel either for themselves or those they know is troubling. While national security represents an essential objective of government policies, this ban is not the right way to protect the United States.
This column does not seek to analyze the Muslim ban as a mechanism of public policy, however. Instead, it seeks to explore how the ban relates to Duke and the culture of higher education more broadly.
Aside from the specific issue of Trump’s immigration ban, the debate surrounding the propagation of unpopular opinions on college campuses has been a contentious one. Oftentimes, a true dichotomy has emerged between the campus’s role as a safe space and a place of intellectual exchange. Just recently, conservative blogger Milo Yiannopoulos was unable to deliver a presentation at the University of California-Berkeley due to violent protests. And while it would be unfair to state that Cal Berkeley was directly responsible for the violence that ensued, it would also be inaccurate to characterize the university’s reception of Yiannopoulos as welcoming.
This debate extends naturally to Trump’s executive action on immigration given its immense polarity across the country. According to a CBS News poll, 45 percent of Americans approve of the travel ban, and while this does not represent a majority of the population, it is a significant minority nonetheless. Duke’s collective opposition the ban, however, strongly diverges from the bifurcation of national public opinion. Since the signing of the order, the Duke Student Government unanimously passed a resolution against it, myriad protests have emerged and the Editorial Board of this publication has even issued a strongly worded condemnation of Trump’s actions.
For many, this homogeneity of thought is a good thing and represents the Duke community coming together in the wake of such a clear injustice. In their minds, Trump’s executive order is so appalling, so dehumanizing, that it does not even deserve the robust debate of a standard political issue. Those who oppose the ban have been outspoken in their harsh criticism, while the few who approve of Trump’s action remain reticent to state their support.
One of the greatest benefits of attending a school like Duke is the opportunity to engage with these questions with fellow students from all over the world. However, on issues such as Trump’s immigration action, substantive dialogue fails to exist at Duke. In that environment where popular opinion of Trump’s action is so overwhelmingly one-sided, we all lose, especially those who oppose the ban most forcefully.
This absence of the dissenting voice applies to issues other than Trump’s immigration ban. Duke’s lack of political diversity in general represents a profound contrast to the rest of North Carolina, a swing state and hotbed for political debate and democratic discourse. Of course, this phenomenon is not unique to Duke, as nearly all colleges and universities are more progressive than their surrounding areas. Even so, Duke’s shocking lack of ideological diversity represents a pillar of the university’s culture and one of its greatest shortcomings.
Conservatism will never become the dominant ideology at Duke, or most any college campus, but the college nonetheless holds an essential responsibility to ensure that all voices, including those from the right, have the free and open opportunity to contribute to the campus dialogue. The University of Chicago’s recent condemnation of safe spaces and commitment to free speech represents an enviable ideal in this regard. Chicago’s statement, and those like it, do not tell students what to believe, but insist that open debate remain a fundamental tenant of any institution of higher learning.
At its core, the college experience is about grappling with big ideas and challenging rather than coddling one’s own beliefs. Trump’s executive order on immigration is controversial, and its human effects will be felt both at home and abroad. However, such distinctions should not exempt issues like the executive order from the thorough evaluation of public debate, and even if that debate does not change anyone’s opinion on the issue, the school and its intellectual life will be better for it.
Ian Buchanan is a Trinity freshman. His column, "let freedom ring," runs on alternate Thursdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Ian Buchanan is a Trinity sophomore. His column, "let freedom ring," runs on alternate Wednesdays.