Jan. 20 was an ugly day for elite institutions. On that day, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The order aimed to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within programs, policies and positions in the federal government.
On Feb. 14, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent an ultimatum letter to universities stating that it would start to take measures against race-based practices in “student, academic [and] campus life.” They would have two weeks to comply.
In March, Trump initiated investigations that would target DEI practices at universities with over $1 billion in endowments, affecting over 50 schools. Duke was one of them.
Many public universities that are reliant on federal spending were quick to fall in line with Trump’s new wave of executive orders. Their research and funding is more reliant on federal money compared to private universities. Student scholarships, financial aid and work-study loans are also reliant on federal money.
But Duke, an institution with a $12.1 billion endowment is a slightly different case. Duke is an elite university, and all that prestige means that Duke should be more resilient to the Trump administration’s threats to higher education. But it’s not.
Like other elite institutions, Duke overwhelmingly admits progressive students, students that are passionate about enacting social change and making a generational impact in politics and society.
At the same time, students here are very rich. The median family income is $186,000, and 69% of students here come from the top 20%. This average family income is likely much higher, with 19% of students here in the top 1%. These demographics look a lot different at a non-elite institution, let alone a public institution.
Both characteristics go hand in hand, with wealthier students having the financial sanctuary to feel comfortable enough advocating for progressive ideals and affording a school like Duke. There’s already a term coined for this group of students in higher education: the liberal elite.
David Brooks, an opinion writer for the New York Times argues in his article, “The Sins of the Educated Class”, that the core of progressivism has shifted away from the working class and towards the liberal elite. He argues that this is problematic, as elite universities reinforce privilege, which is contradictory to the founding principles of progressivism. There are a lot of good points Brooks makes in his article, including that students at elite institutions are rarely exposed to diverse political beliefs, students here overwhelmingly matriculate to anti-progressive fields such as finance/consulting (which minimizes progressive impact) and that there are limited low-income voices.
However, what Brooks ignores (as Duke does as well) is its role and ability to enact progress with the unique resources elite institutions have. Every year, Duke churns out 1,500 or more brilliant students who have undergone four years of a liberal arts education building them to lead, innovate, think across disciplines and be socially and globally aware. Since there are not enough jobs to maximize the potential of every Duke student, many of these students end up pursuing careers that offer good return on investment (ROI) and less-than-ideal social impact.
The role of a good university is to provide a good ROI. The role of an elite institution is more than that. In his book “Excellent Sheep”, William Dieresiewicz, digs a little deeper into what a liberal arts education is meant to do. He argues that a university like Duke is meant to teach students to “learn how to think,” and more specifically, “liberate us from doxa by teaching us to recognize it, to question it, and to think around it.” Basically, these types of institutions are meant to teach us how to think for ourselves, individualize ourselves and always question what we know and what we can know. Duke doesn't fail here.
At Duke, we have access to a wealth of resources — world-class professors, cutting-edge research, a vibrant intellectual community, diverse clubs, global experiences and a student body that brings a wide range of perspectives. Plus whatever else is on the university front page.
So, what’s with the title? How is Duke failing?
For a university that encourages us to think for ourselves, the university is doing a poor job in encouraging us to voice them. In times of political peril, it is imperative that the university stick to its role and continue to produce students that are ready to invoke change once they leave. But the university can’t do that if it attempts to silence students that try to make change while they’re here.
In September, Duke enacted stricter policies regarding “pickets, protests and demonstrations” on campus, enforcing that all protests first be registered through Duke Groups. The university also micromanages the protests, having a say on where, when, how loud and how long the protests are. The ambiguity of the new policies combined with the harsh consequences of violating them discourages students from gathering to protest at Duke. Consequently, protests regarding certain issues at Duke occur considerably less frequently than peer institutions. Yet, an intro public policy class at Duke will preach and exemplify the importance of protest in catalyzing cultural, political and social progress.
Here’s the dichotomy: The university is backing down in upholding the values it preaches when it expects its students to do the opposite in the real world.
In response to the Trump administration’s regulations on DEI, Duke has made no apparent decisions, neither to stick to what it’s doing or to roll back its DEI initiatives. The Harvard Crimson has reported how Harvard’s president, Alam. M. Garber recently made a reaffirming statement regarding the importance of diversity at their annual DEI forum, adhering to their commitment to DEI. The dean at Georgetown Law has targeted the Trump administration, stating that “the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach” in accordance with the First Amendment. Other institutions such as Yale and the University of Connecticut are looking for legal loopholes to protect their DEI initiatives. Duke’s silence means something.
This is not to say that Duke faces zero risk.
In 2018, the NIH (National Institute of Health) awarded $41 billion to universities and the NSF (National Science Foundation) awarded $11.2 billion. In January, the Office of Management and Budget sent out a memo suspending all financial assistance for any kind of research from both organizations. The point of the suspension was to provide the administration with time to investigate whether the research being done on issues such as climate change and DEI aligned with President Trump’s agenda. The memo was rescinded two days later, but the threat remains, and funding is still delayed.
Duke, like many public universities, also receives a considerable amount of money from the federal government. Federal institutions like the NSF and NIH funded over 64% of Duke’s research budget in 2024. For every dollar a researcher receives from a grant, Duke charges 61 cents to help cover overhead costs and construct the infrastructure necessary to support these projects. Trump wants to cut funding for “indirect costs” by bringing the rate down from 61% to 15%. There’s a lot at stake if Duke chooses to ignore the Trump administration's new wave of executive orders.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
There seems to be a general consensus among the anti-elite on the far right that elite universities are undeserving of their prestige and need to be more heavily scrutinized for their internal spending, race-based practices and curriculums. The current administration is bound to take further measures to suppress higher education, whether this be more funding cuts, restrictions on what can be taught and researched or regulations on how the university is to spend its money. What matters is that Duke doesn’t blindly adhere to every rule, risking the loss of its core values and liberal arts mission within the next four years.
So, how do we use our resources as an elite institution to allow our students to make change while not losing these resources under Trump’s crackdown on elite institutions?
We can’t, but at the same time, the university needs to lead its students by example. This situation isn’t just about DEI but about whether the university is capable of sticking to the ideals when they’re put on trial.
The only way for Duke to remain an elite institution is not by maintaining its mass of wealth but by using it to drive its students and faculty to make an impact in social justice. If we don’t stick to our commitment to global impact, then all we are is an institution that reinforces privilege — by accepting wealthy students and placing them in high-paying jobs with no progress towards distributive justice. If not an institution strong enough for the elites, what is Duke’s role?
Krisha Patel is a Trinity first-year.