In 1967, the University of Chicago produced the Kalven Report. In it, Harry Kalven, a legal scholar, argued for the virtues of institutional neutrality — meaning almost absolute abstention from any social or political issues. Universities across the country have since used this policy to prevent weighing in on any number of issues, and recently, it’s taken the forefront as protestors have demanded that administrators divest from Israel.
Now, universities, terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing, appear to have embraced the same approach regarding President Donald Trump’s executive orders. And although Duke doesn’t have an official policy of institutional neutrality, it has so far followed Kalven’s tenets when it comes to both the ongoing aspects of the Israel-Gaza conflict and the current Trump administration’s decisions — which have proposed significant National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts, nearly eliminated the Department of Education and targeted schools with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. For example, Duke posted a graphic decrying the impact of scientific funding cuts on the university … without mentioning who enacted these cuts in the first place. Similarly, Duke has yet to release any statement defending their DEI policy or confirming that it will continue to exist, instead choosing to remain silent.
But even in the report that universities have consistently cited to avoid taking any stances that could be deemed partisan, it explains, “instances will arise in which the society ... threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.”
The current Trump funding cuts threaten Duke’s physical capacity and funding, yes, but they also threaten the national system of higher education that Duke has an institutional mission to defend. In his article titled “The End of College Life,” Ian Bogost, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, explains that hiring freezes can decrease course options. Funding cuts have affected construction projects, sports programs, study-abroad — and humanities departments will be next to go. Additionally, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s so-called quest for efficiency has left the stripped-down personnel carrying out financial aid allocation overworked and overloaded. As a result, Bogost concludes that Trump’s attacks on higher education “could upend the college experience for millions of Americans.”
It might be easy to mentally diminish the impact of these cuts. Yes, these actions are likely not an existential threat to universities like Duke, with an endowment of over 12 billion (although the vast majority of those funds are earmarked), but they are to small, regional colleges that are often the primary economic driver of their communities. There are 500 of these universities across the United States, serving 5 million students, and many of them are already in budget deficits, with no cushion to fall back on.
Duke, as a well-resourced university, has an obligation to prevent Trump’s threats to the higher education system, before it’s too late.
What can Duke do, then, without making itself a target for massive cuts and possibly endangering its students?
First, I think it’s not a question of if, but when. Eventually, the federal government will come for Duke — it will come for its DEI programs, its research funding and the academic freedom of its humanities. No silence will save an elite university like Duke, especially since we are already under federal investigation.
Second, there is no clear correlation between speaking up and having federal funds pulled: for example, Wesleyan, which has had by far the most outspoken president against the cuts, has yet to experience any federal funding impact.
Third, and most importantly, funding cuts are not necessarily permanent, simply because funding cuts are not legal. Already, judges have issued 46 temporary injunctions against Trump’s executive orders, granting preliminary relief almost 70% of the time. On April 4, a judge permanently blocked billions in NIH funding cuts to universities and medical centers. None of this is certain — these cases might lose on appeal. However, universities like Columbia have incredibly strong standing to sue, mainly because the federal government completely circumvented a lengthy legal process in stripping their funding.
The earlier we capitulate and appease Trump’s demands, the worse the problem will get. Columbia’s Middle Eastern studies department has already lost its independence, and nationally, some professors are “pre-emptively censoring themselves”.
But there are options for Duke to resist. Both the presidents of Princeton and Wesleyan have written op-eds rejecting Trump’s anti-intellectual demands. The president of Wesleyan, Michael Roth, is preemptively preparing to fight back by considering the development of a legal defense fund with Yale. Outside of higher education, the public schools of New York State publicly refused to comply with Trump’s demands to end DEI policies. And the more institutions that speak out, especially privileged, elite institutions, the more that will follow. We shouldn’t doubt the collective power of the thousands of universities across the country — their taking action would certainly impact public opinion and serve as a major legal obstacle to Trump’s cultural and political goals.
And even if none of this has convinced you, if you still believe that any individual public speech by universities is too large a risk, backroom options remain. As Todd Wolfson of the American Association of University Professors argued, there is “no reason why we haven’t seen a letter signed by 1,000 presidents.”
So it’s inexcusable that Duke has remained silent. Our neutrality is, as Roth explained, making “cowardice into a policy,” and it is not worth the future of higher education. And more so, our neutrality helps no one. It doesn’t help the system of free speech in academia or the regional universities that rely on government funding. Eventually, it will not help us. Because historically, national descents into fascism have not been marked by a single event, but by a pattern of appeasements and capitulations by institutions built to resist.
Adam Levin is a Trinity first-year. His column typically runs on alternate Thursdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.