Examining the Flaws: Duke’s Inclusive Excellence Working Group Drafting Principles Under Scrutiny

On June 9, Duke University leaders shared the early findings of the Inclusive Excellence Working Group. They introduced new guidelines aimed at promoting Duke’s values of “respect, trust, inclusion, discovery, and excellence.” The university has long sought to build an inclusive community where faculty can teach sensitive topics with care.

At first, this sounds great—who wouldn’t support respect and inclusion? But there’s an underlying issue. Duke’s policies may unintentionally favor certain views on hot topics in society. This raises concerns about genuine neutrality, suggesting that the university’s vision of inclusion may not truly welcome all perspectives.

While the intent behind these policies might be good, they may limit open discussions, especially on controversial subjects. It’s essential for universities to be spaces where diverse opinions can clash and challenge each other. If discussions are constrained, the idea of inclusivity is undermined.

Duke’s definitions of its core values lack depth, leaving questions about whose backgrounds are included. The Office for Institutional Equity (OIE), which oversees the enforcement of these values, defines “gender identity” and “gender expression” in a specific way. For example, gender identity is described as a deeply personal understanding of oneself, while gender expression relates to how one outwardly shows their gender.

Notably, over 60% of Americans think differently about gender identity compared to Duke’s definitions. This divide shines a light on the challenges Duke faces in promoting a truly inclusive environment. Their policies may alienate those who hold different views.

A contrasting institution, Hillsdale College, does not define gender in a way that aligns with Duke’s. Their policy sticks to traditional understandings of gender, demonstrating how different institutions approach these issues differently.

By embedding specific philosophical beliefs into their policies, Duke risks stifling respectful disagreements. If discussions about differing views on gender become grounds for harassment claims, it presents a danger to open inquiry.

For instance, imagine a professor discussing traditional gender views in class. If a student feels that this creates an uncomfortable atmosphere, could the professor face consequences? Duke’s harassment policy uses ambiguous language, which only adds to the confusion. Terms like “subjectively offensive” make it hard to know what might trigger disciplinary action.

Recent events highlight these risks. In October 2023, Duke removed a pro-Palestinian slogan from campus, citing concerns that it promoted violence. This decision was based on subjective interpretation rather than an objective act of harassment, further emphasizing the dangers of vague language in policy.

If a university genuinely values different viewpoints, it should clearly define its stance. Should disagreement with certain beliefs be treated as harassment? Or should all ideas be welcome for debate?

Clarity in enforcement is crucial. When policies seem to favor some ideas over others, it threatens the university’s commitment to diversity of thought.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t to stifle respect and inclusion. It’s about ensuring that all voices have a place at the table. Duke needs to take a clear position on how it handles disagreements and revise its policies accordingly, so they genuinely reflect its commitment to inquiry and inclusivity.

For further context on how different institutions handle these issues, you can read more about the discussions surrounding these policies at NBC News.

Source link