Duke University recently canceled its plan to have Muslim students voice a weekly call to prayer from the Duke Chapel bell tower after public outcry condemned it. Most notable was the response of Christian evangelist Franklin Graham, who called on university donors and alumni to withhold financial support. Graham wrote on his Facebook page: “followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their Sharia Islamic law.” Duke subsequently moved the call to prayer outside the chapel. Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations at Duke, said, “what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect,” and also cited security concerns.
About 700 of Duke’s 15,000 undergraduates identify as Muslim, and a weekly jummah prayer service has been held in the Chapel basement for the past several years. The university’s press release conveyed appreciation for its Muslim community and welcomed active, visible expressions of the faith. The fact that biased and hateful assertions influenced the administration’s decision suggests it is only willing to support Muslim students as long as their activities do not stir too much controversy. Security is a valid concern, and the students may have chosen to relocate for that reason if the decision was in their hands. But the administration maintained full authority over the change of plans, which has undermined the religious express of its students.
It seems that Duke has chosen a middle-ground approach by still allowing the call to prayer to take place in a different location. Though the transplantation may not significantly impact the logistical practice of the ritual, it does send a message that overall, the practice of Islam cannot encroach too far into the space of the university’s traditions. Those who participate in the call to prayer are still excluded from that particular space on the basis of their faith alone, and this exclusion reinforces a hierarchy of religion.
Duke claims to have changed its plan because the original did not achieve the main objective of unity, which may be true. Unity, in the abstract, is an admirable goal, but not when it requires appeasing intolerant individuals. The idea that all Muslims are violent and murderous is simply wrong, and should not have the power to influence the religious expressions of an institutions’ students. Some events, ideas and practices may cause division rather than unity, but such disturbances are necessary in order to call attention to inaccurate, vitriolic beliefs like Graham’s, which contribute to the oppression of certain individuals or groups. There is a clear difference between Duke students who practice Islam and violent Muslim extremists who commit terrorist acts, and supporting the former in no way supports or excuses the actions of the latter.
Duke had an opportunity to take a stand against anti-Muslim hatred, but instead opted to preserve the status quo. Though it is not the responsibility of a university to take a stand on all political issues, it is a university’s responsibility to stand up for all forms of equality among the students it educates. Donors are vital to any institution of higher education, but the principles of equality and acceptance are far more valuable than money.
Though Friday prayers will likely continue as usual at Duke, there has been no progress advancing religious equality. The kind of unity Duke has achieved is one in which the critics have temporarily been silenced, but their bigotry still has power. That invisible hand of oppression will eventually have to be addressed.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 2 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
