Duke’s administration should speak publicly about the University’s vital interests

The Trump Administration’s cost-cutting measures threaten Duke and other U.S. colleges and universities. Duke leaders are obviously grappling with the implications for research programs and other activities. We write to encourage them to speak out publicly in defense of Duke’s mission, explaining how the announced policies would harm programs that serve the national interest.

Several months ago, Duke Faculty for Institutional Neutrality and Free Speech circulated a petition urging the University to adopt a position of “neutrality” with respect to political developments that do not affect its operation directly. We are among the 140 signatories of that petition. Universities that adhere to institutional neutrality — and there are many — commit to not taking positions on political, social or economic issues of no direct relevance to their core activities. Their students, faculty and staff, including administrators, remain free to speak publicly on any controversial matter, but only as individuals. 

But exercising institutional neutrality in the sense promoted by Duke Faculty for Institutional Neutrality and Free Speech imposes no obligation to remain neutral on government policies directly related to the University’s own mission. President Trump’s unfolding policies linked to the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE), when fully implemented, will cause severe harm to Duke and every other university that receives federal research grants. For that reason, the Duke administration has every right, even if it wishes to abide by institutional neutrality, to point out the harms imposed by DOGE policies.

The announced cut to the allowable indirect cost rate on NIH grants (for research universities, a drop from up to 65% to 15%) will cost higher education many billions of dollars; it would devastate cutting-edge research programs. Likewise, the ongoing dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will drastically shrink research programs dealing with such issues as economic development and global public health. There are also efforts to raise the 1.4% tax rate on university endowments, which apply to universities with more than 500 students and have endowments valued at $500,000 per student or more. With its $12 billion endowment, Duke will see its operating budget shrink if its net endowment income falls.  

Not a day goes by without viral social media posts on wasteful, silly or ideological projects that should not have been funded. Though the grants in question are unrepresentative of federal grants to universities, the differences may be lost to the average citizen, whose trust in universities had fallen to historic lows even before the Trump Administration took office. To allow such posts to shape public opinion will make a dire situation even worse. Hence, there is an acute need for universities to educate the public on the national benefits of federal research grants, the rationale for indirect costs rates higher than 15 percent and the justification for taxing university endowments at a special rate.

Like other universities, over the past decade Duke has taken public positions on matters that did not directly affect its mission. This was unwise, we think; non-neutrality harmed our reputation, and it undermined our ability to teach and do research effectively. But now we face a situation requiring Duke and other universities to take clear positions on matters central to their core activities. We urge our administration and the leaders of other universities to defend our vital interests publicly.

John Aldrich is the Pfizer, Inc./Edmund T. Pratt, Jr. university distinguished professor emeritus of political science. Timur Kuran is a professor of economics and political science and the Gorter Family professor of Islamic studies. Michael Munger is a professor of economics and public policy and the Pfizer, Inc./Edmund T. Pratt, Jr. university distinguished professor of political science.