Join Harvard’s Bold Lawsuit Against Trump: Why Duke Should Take a Stand on Institutional Neutrality

It’s been quite a ride recently with all the headlines hitting us left and right. One story that really stands out was about President Donald Trump and Harvard University. Back in April, Trump decided to cut Harvard’s funding, which was around $2.2 billion, because the university wouldn’t follow his ideological demands. In a bold move, Harvard slapped back by suing him.

In response, The Onion delivered a typical dose of sharp satire with an article titled “Nation Can’t Believe It’s on Harvard’s Side.” It’s hard to imagine that challenging Harvard Law would end well for Trump.

For a long time, Trump’s administration seemed to be waging a war on higher education, trying to push universities to adopt more conservative views. Many institutions have been feeling the pressure, with funding cuts affecting their ability to enroll international students and impacting research programs vital for innovation. Yet, Harvard’s brave stance has inspired others to speak up.

In June, 24 other research institutions rallied around Harvard, filing a legal support brief. They argued that when one university is harmed, it affects the entire academic community. They emphasized that terminating federal funding causes “grievous harm” that extends beyond Harvard alone. Some prestigious names on this list include MIT, Stanford, and Princeton.

However, one notable absence is Duke University. Given its strong reputation for research, the absence feels like a major oversight. Duke has also been dealing with significant funding cuts, affecting projects in areas like cancer research and public health. The institution’s leadership has mostly opted for a silent response, implementing cost-cutting measures instead of actively resisting the federal cuts.

This raises an important question: Should institutions adopt a stance of “institutional neutrality”? Some Duke professors recently suggested this, arguing it would prevent the university from taking sides on divisive issues. I find this idea troubling. While neutrality might seem wise, it often leads to inaction and a failure to defend the values we hold dear. As history shows, neutrality in tough times often results in a retreat on critical issues.

In May, over 100 university presidents, including Duke’s, signed a statement criticizing the government’s overreach in higher education. While this looks like a step forward, it can also be viewed as a half-hearted attempt at resistance, allowing the administration to maintain a facade of fighting back without making significant changes.

Duke’s motto, Eruditio et Religio, emphasizes the importance of knowledge and ethical leadership. Yet, how can it uphold these values while remaining silent amid attacks on academic freedom? Howard Zinn, a notable author and professor, famously said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” This statement resonates now more than ever. Duke has a chance to stand firmly for its mission and values during this challenging period, but sitting on the sidelines does just the opposite.

As we look forward, it’s crucial for Duke to align with its peers in defending academic freedom and the integrity of higher education. The choices made today will define the university’s role in championing knowledge and ethics for years to come. It’s not too late for Duke to take an active stance and join others in the fight for a brighter future in academia.

Source link