Category: Affirmative Action

UNC Takes a Step Backward on Racial Diversity

Posted on

UNC has taken a serious step back from its commitment to fairness and equal opportunity.

Black student enrollment in this year’s freshman class dropped from 10.5% to 7.8%, Hispanic enrollment dropped from 10.8% to 10.1%, and Native American enrollment dropped from 1.6% to 1.1%.

This is the first class to be admitted since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down affirmative action nationwide, because of lawsuits aimed at UNC and Harvard University.

Releasing the numbers to the media, UNC vice provost for enrollment Rachelle Feldman sought to downplay their significance.

“It’s too soon to see trends with just one year of data,” she said in a written statement. “We are committed to following the new law. We are also committed to making sure students in all 100 counties from every population in our growing state feel encouraged to apply, have confidence in our affordability and know this is a place they feel welcome and can succeed.”

WRAL News reported:

“Colleges had long been banned from having racial quotas. But until this year they were allowed to use race as one of the many characteristics considered when determining whether to admit a student….

“The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that race could no longer be one of the factors considered by colleges. It was a party-line vote, with all the conservative justices voting to strike down affirmative action and all the liberal justices dissenting.”

UNC should evaluate the situation to see if other non-objective factors, or other discretionary criteria, are impacting these numbers. 

The enrollment numbers are concerning. We have a moral obligation to see that the people’s university serves all the people.

Read more here: https://www.wral.com/story/unc-s-incoming-class-is-less-diverse-in-first-year-after-scotus-struck-down-affirmative-action/21610309/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=wral&utm_term=NC%20Capitol

Trustee Ralph Meekins Speaks Up Against Diversity Overreach

Posted on
Trustee Meekins speaks at BOT meeting

One voice of courage and conscience spoke up this month in the debate over diversity at UNC.

Trustee Ralph Meekins, a Shelby attorney, said, “I am totally against” the Board of Trustee’s vote May 13 to remove from the UNC budget $2.3 million for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and to redirect the money to campus public safety.

Meekins said the trustees acted “without hearing from proponents of DEI, who are most aware of all that DEI encompasses and all of the benefits that are offered to our student body and faculty when implemented effectively. UNC’s DEI programs oversee a wide range of activities on our campus, and I believe they are necessary on our campus.”

He added, “while many would agree that some DEI efforts have become problematic and excessive, I’ve seen them myself. The fundamental principles of DEI and the ongoing need for development and support for the core of DEI principles are still key to the success of our campus.”

The trustees’ action, he said, “sends the wrong message to our students, prospective students, and alumni regarding how UNC values and treats diverse populations on our campus.”

Meekins has been a trustee since 2019. His term ends in 2027.

In his statement, he predicted that the trustees’ vote “will be in direct conflict” with the Board of Governors’ new DEI policy.

He was right.

On May 23, UNC System President Peter Hans nullified the trustees’ action. Hans said the trustees did not have the authority to amend the university’s budget and divert the funds to campus safety.

Our Coalition deeply appreciates Meekins’ strong support for the principles of good governance. Unlike other trustees, he approached the issue in a thoughtful way. He recognized the value of promoting diversity and protecting students against discrimination.

UNC needs more trustees like him.

You can view his statement in the video above. Following is a full transcript of his remarks:

I’m going to read for the first time. I’ve never prepared a written document where I read from in this meeting…I’ve been here for five years, but I’m going to do it today. I do want to recognize the fact that we lost Ralph Frasier last week. He was one of the last living members of the first three African American undergrads who came here. He died last week. Three brothers from Durham were the first three admitted…African Americans admitted to our school back in 1955, but they had to file a lawsuit against the Board of Trustees to be able to do that. So, just to give some context.

But, on Monday, May 13, 2024, UNC our board convened to discuss the approval or disapproval of the all funds budget. Spearheaded by our CFO, Nate Knuffman, the proposed budget was meticulously crafted by the administration. Board members, alongside numerous collaborators, invested extensive hours and energy with the administration to refine the budget’s intricacies. Subsequently, the finalized proposal was presented to the Board of Trustees for their deliberation and vote. Instead of having an up or down vote, a motion was presented to remove $2.3 million established for DEI programs and to reallocate those savings to resources for public safety.

This motion was the first I had ever heard of such a change to the budget. Regrettably, I missed the majority of the budget meeting. At the time of the vote, I felt uneasy about making a decision without having been present for much of the initial discussion. As a result, I chose not to cast my vote either in favor of or against the motion to defund DEI.

I have since thoroughly reviewed the recording of the proceedings, and after considering the matter thoroughly, I am totally against the changes to the budget proposed on May 13, and I have several reasons for my beliefs on this point.

First, as I articulated in our last meeting on March 27, I believe our board should refrain from changing our DEI programs until the Board of governors adopts the new policy and promulgates the guidelines for implementation, which it has not yet done.

Second, if the board of Governors committee’s recommendations on DEI are adopted by the full Board of Governors next week or some other time, the directive will be if it’s the committee’s recommendation will be to direct any savings from cuts to DEI to student success and well-being initiatives. Therefore, I’m concerned that the board of trustees decision to reallocate savings to the public safety will be in direct conflict with the potential directive from the Board of Governors. As much as I agree with our board that we need to adequately fund our public safety team, we must be consistent with the policy of the Board of Governors. The proposed Board of Governors policy does not require the complete elimination of DEI programs, but calls for changes to be made and those changes to be determined by the chancellor of each school.

Third, as a result of the actions of the board on May 13, DEI funding was withdrawn without hearing from proponents of DEI, who are most aware of all that DEI encompasses and all of the benefits that are offered to our student body and faculty when implemented effectively. UNC’s DEI programs oversee a wide range of activities on our campus, and I believe they are necessary on our campus.

Fourth, and finally, while many would agree that some DEI efforts have become problematic and excessive, I’ve seen them myself. The fundamental principles of DEI and the ongoing need for development and support for the core of DEI principles are still key to the success of our campus. The Board of Trustees directed to do away with DEI entirely goes too far and beyond what the Board of Governors is likely going to require. And then this recent action, coupled with other policy changes and resolutions made by this board, I believe, sends the wrong message to our students, prospective students, and alumni regarding how UNC values and treats diverse populations on our campus.

Fortunately, as we heard from our chancellor this morning, in spite of this action that we have taken, the issue of how UNC Chapel Hill handles its efforts on diversity will ultimately be determined by our interim chancellor. I trust that he will await clarification from the Board of Governors regarding its DEI policy, as he said he would this morning, and also hope that he will adhere to its directives while thoroughly examining the matter, listening to all perspectives, and ultimately making an informed decision. It’s undoubtedly a challenging task, but I pray he approaches the changes to our DEE program with precision, using a scalpel and not a machete. Given his track record so far, I am optimistic that this will indeed be the approach that he takes.

Thanks for letting me do that.

Exposing the Right-Wing Attack on Diversity – at UNC and Across America

Posted on

We knew UNC was under attack.

Now we know it’s an attack on universities across the country.

It’s a well-funded, coordinated, nationwide campaign against diversity.

The New York Times has exposed the strategy – and the underlying bigotry – of the campaign, one conceived and carried out by a network of conservative donors, think tanks and political activists.  

Read the full article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html.

Target: North Carolina

The Times uncovered a trove of documents, including a fundraising proposal that “set a first round of targets, in states including Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.”

The story reported that, in June, the North Carolina legislature “passed a law barring public universities and other agencies from requiring employees to state their opinions on social issues.”

In February, the UNC System Board of Governors prohibited the state’s universities from asking applicants for employment, promotion or academic admission to describe their beliefs on “matters of contemporary political debate or social action.”

Read more about the board’s action: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article276434291.html#storylink=cpy.

UNC’s controversial new School of Civic Life and Leadership – which powerful legislators and trustees pushed through without adequate involvement by the faculty – wasn’t mentioned in the article. But it reflects the national campaign’s goal of countering what conservatives claim – falsely – is “left-wing bias” on campus.

Heather Mac Donald

A prominent figure in the Times article is Heather Mac Donald, a critic of affirmative action and anti-discrimination efforts who spoke to the UNC Board of Trustees’ External Affairs Committee in November.

Trustee Ramsey White is the committee chair. Mac Donald was introduced by Doug Monroe, acting president of the UNC Alumni Free Speech Alliance.

The Alliance had hosted Mac Donald the night before, where she delivered a wide-ranging and free-wheeling attack on higher education. (Photo above.)

Mac Donald told the trustees’ committee that affirmative action had led universities to admit unqualified and ill-prepared students – a charge that was immediately challenged by then-Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz, one trustee and the student body president.

You can read more about her remarks at UNC and watch the video here: https://coalitionforcarolinafoundation.org/a-new-assault-on-carolina-is-happening/

The Times said emails from Mac Donald and others revealed “unvarnished views on race, sexuality and gender roles.”

That’s putting it mildly.

In one email, Mac Donald said gay men “are much more prone” to extramarital affairs “on the empirical basis of testosterone unchecked by female modesty.”

Last year, she wrote this email about a “curse of feminism”:

“As I was taking my evening power walk in the hood here (upper east side) and seeing all the nannies of color walking school children back to their apartments, it struck me again the bizarreness of females deciding that their comparative advantage is in being an associate in a law firm, say, and thus that they should outsource the once in a lifetime unduplicable unrepeatable experience of raising a unique child to some one else, especially someone from the low IQ 3rd world, while they do the drone work of making partner. The child is evolving so quickly, absorbing so many influences, and yet they would rather absent themselves from its life to show that they are as good as males. such a distribution of labor is allegedly pareto optimal. Another curse of feminism.”

Neither Mac Donald nor the Manhattan Institute, where she works, “replied to emails seeking comment,” the Times said.

Where It Started

The Times said the anti-diversity movement “centered at the Claremont Institute, a California-based think tank with close ties to the Trump movement and to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.”

The group “coalesced roughly three years ago around a sweeping ambition: to strike a killing blow against ‘the leftist social justice revolution’ by eliminating ‘social justice education’ from American schools.

The strategy was to “partner with state think tanks, and with the hundreds of former fellows scattered through conservative institutions and on Capitol Hill,” identify diversity programs and personnel at public universities and then “lobby sympathetic public officials to gut them.”

“Our project will give legislators the knowledge and tools they need to stop funding the suicide of their own country and civilization,” Claremont said in one proposal to a foundation.

In their private emails, the university critics didn’t hide their true feelings:

“(E)ven as they or their allies publicly advocated more academic freedom, some of those involved privately expressed their hope of purging liberal ideas, professors and programming wherever they could. They debated how carefully or quickly to reveal some of their true views — the belief that ‘a healthy society requires patriarchy,’ for example, and their broader opposition to anti-discrimination laws — in essays and articles written for public consumption….

“In candid private conversations, some wrote favorably of laws criminalizing homosexuality, mocked the appearance of a female college student as overly masculine and criticized Peter Thiel, the prominent gay conservative donor, over his sex life.”

Where It Succeeded – and Failed

The anti-diversity campaign has spread to at least a dozen states, the Times said.

  • Florida and Texas passed wide-ranging bans on diversity programs.
  • Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas issued an executive 0order banning “indoctrination and critical race theory in schools.”
  • Oklahoma’s Gov. Kevin Stitt issued an executive order similar to North Carolina’s ban on discussing social issues.

But Governor DeSantis’s presidential campaign failed, and “conservative campaigns against left-wing education began to lose traction in some parts of the country.”

Congress Gets in the Act

The Times reported that the next platform for the anti-diversity campaign will be the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which is chaired byNorth Carolina 5th District U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx.

She says her committee will be “investigating many schools in terms of … where is their focus these days.” https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/03/congress/foxx-reacts-to-harvard-ouster-00133650

“This is just the beginning,” pledged Representative Elise Stefanik of New York. “Our robust congressional investigation will continue to move forward to expose the rot in our most ‘prestigious’ higher-education institutions and deliver accountability to the American people.”

Fight Back

What can you do?

  • Join our coalition.
  • Share information about what’s happening.
  • Make a financial donation to our Coalition. Help us reach more people.
  • Let UNC’s trustees, Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts, members of the Board of Governors, UNC System President Peter Hans and members of the General Assembly know how you feel.

Together, we can stop the attacks on free speech.

We can combat racism, bigotry and discrimination.

We can protect the values that make Carolina great.

Little wonder why Kevin Guskiewicz might leave

Posted on

We have been granted permission by Higher Ed Works to republish the following post in its entirety.

By Paul Fulton

WINSTON-SALEM (November 21, 2023) – There’s little wonder why UNC Chapel Hill Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz is entertaining a new job.

Guskiewicz is reportedly a finalist for the presidency at Michigan State University.1 Though he is a nationally renowned expert in neuroscience and concussions, a MacArthur Genius Award winner and a deft administrator, that’s a step down from the chancellorship at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Maybe we just don’t want geniuses running Carolina.

Just look at the environment as Guskiewicz, who became Interim Chancellor in 2019, navigated the University through one of its most tumultuous periods, including:

  • The pandemic, with ever-shifting signals on whether it was safe for students to return to campus.
  • The General Assembly stripped the Governor of any appointments to university boards of trustees and eventually appointments to both state and local community-college boards. 
  • The aftermath of the removal of the Silent Sam statue on campus, including an abortive deal to give the statue to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  • The UNC Board of Governors didn’t accept a single one of his and a former Board of Trustees Chair’s recommendations for appointees to the Board of Trustees.
  • Foot-dragging by the Board of Trustees on tenure for Nikole Hannah-Jones as a Knight Chair in Race and Journalism, and her subsequent rejection of Chapel Hill.2
  • A surprise resolution by the Board of Trustees to create a conservative School of Civic Life and Leadership, blindsiding the chancellor and the faculty.3 This was followed with orchestrated coverage by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, as well as $4 million and orders from the General Assembly to hire 10-20 faculty members from outside the university.
  • A new law requiring state universities to switch accreditors every time they renew accreditation.4 This is costly, time-consuming and adds no value.
  • A new law that says the state will match donations only for distinguished professorships in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) in the future. The new law explicitly precludes state matches for distinguished professorships in journalism and law.5
  •  A public scolding from the now-Chair of the Board of Trustees for pursuing a case to defend what used to be considered the law – consideration of race as one of many factors in admissions.6
  • Departures of a number of key faculty, including Kelly Hogan, Suzanne Barbour, Deen Freelon, William Sturkey and Andrew Perrin.7

MORE BROADLY, consider what’s become of public education in North Carolina. Guskiewicz can be seen as a casualty of a toxic environment that has politicized public education from top to bottom:

  • The state ranks 50th for the percentage of its GDP (gross domestic product) it invests in K-12 public education. In other words, we’re plenty able to invest more in public education, yet we don’t do it to the extent any other state does.
  • Before adoption of a new state budget in October, we ranked an abysmal 46th in starting teacher pay and 34th in average teacher pay.
  • As a result, we saw a 50% drop in the number of education majors across the UNC System from 2010-22.
  • Public schools across the state started this school year with 3,500 K-12 teacher vacancies – and an accompanying increase in classrooms with non-certified teachers.8
  • And the new state budget includes a plan to expand vouchers that give students tax dollars to attend private K-12 schools from $95 million in 2022-23 to $520 million by 2032-33, which will likely divert funds from public schools. The budget also removes any income limits for these subsidies for private schools.9

AMID THIS ENVIRONMENT of political and ideological interference, it’s no wonder Guskiewicz is considering other options.

Yet as noted above, he has steered the University through some of the most trying times in its 234-year history. He has shown courage and independence in the process.

He likes to speak of the university’s “low stone walls” – a metaphor for how researchers from different disciplines readily collaborate in their work.

There is real beauty in that.

It’s exemplified by the critical research of virologist Dr. Ralph Baric and the work of alumna Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who oversaw the rapid development of a vaccine for Covid – a development not just for North Carolina or the United States, but for all of humanity. 

A week after the U.S. Supreme Court banned use of race in admissions this summer, he announced the university would cover tuition and fees for any student from a family with household income under $80,000.

That’s a laudable effort to stay true to the University’s tradition of access for students from all income levels – even if members of the Board of Governors didn’t like it.10

Though no one could blame him, if and when he does leave, it will undoubtedly open an opportunity for still more political meddling by Republican legislators and the Board of Governors.

I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen. But recent experience tells me it will.

I WAS A REPUBLICAN all my adult life, until both parties became too extreme and I saw the micro-meddling by Republicans in the NC General Assembly in our world-renowned University of North Carolina System.

I’m now unaffiliated with any political party. The largest group of voters in North Carolina – voters who favor public education – is unaffiliated as well. There’s a reason for that.

Republicans are clearly now a minority political party. Yet they are clearly in charge of public education in our state.

Is this what we want? I don’t want either party dabbling in public education. It was not that way when I was on the UNC Chapel Hill Board of Trustees or the UNC System Board of Governors. 

And it should not be that way today.

Paul Fulton, of Winston-Salem, is a former president of Sara Lee Corp.; former dean of the Kenan-Flagler Business School at UNC; former trustee at UNC-Chapel Hill; former member of the UNC Board of Governors; and Chair of Higher Ed Works. 

Follow this link to access this content on the Higher Ed Works website.

1 https://www.wral.com/video/unc-chancellor-weighing-departure-for-michigan-state-university/21152165/; https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article281934423.html.
2 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/07/nikole-hannah-jones-rejects-tenure-offer-unc-job-howard-u.
3 https://www.higheredworks.org/2023/02/case-study-in-unc-board-overreach/.
4 https://www.higheredworks.org/2023/09/florida-style-bill-would-make-colleges-switch-accreditors/.
5 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/career-development/2023/10/30/new-state-funded-nc-distinguished-professorships.
6 https://www.higheredworks.org/2023/08/unc-students-deserve-to-believe-they-belong/; https://www.higheredworks.org/2023/08/merritt-what-we-learn-is-not-limited-to-the-classroom/; https://alumni.unc.edu/news/169345/.
7 https://www.higheredworks.org/2023/08/exodus-from-chapel-hill/.
8 https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article278765479.html.
9 https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H259v7.pdf, pp. 187-197.
10 https://www.higheredworks.org/2023/07/unc-chapel-hill-under-the-bog-microscope/.

A New Assault on Carolina is Happening

Posted on

We are seeing signs of a more extreme political assault against UNC – and indeed all of higher education.

Trustees Welcome a Harsh Critic

Heather Mac Donald, a fellow from the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, spoke last week to the external affairs committee of the UNC Board of Trustees. She told the trustees that eliminating affirmative action “will greatly improve the ability of UNC to fulfill its mission of knowledge. What you must understand, if I may be so bold as to say so, is that racial preferences harm their alleged beneficiaries.”

She claimed that affirmative action had led universities to admit unqualified and ill-prepared students – a charge that was immediately countered by a trustee, the Chancellor and the student body president.

Here is a fact check about the most recent UNC-CH 4-year and 6-year graduation rates:

  • Overall student body: 83% (4-year); and 92% (6-year); 
  • Underrepresented students: 77% (4-year); and 90% (6-year);
  • First generation college students: 77% (4-year); and 89% (6-year).

Most institutions would be thrilled to have our 4-year graduation rates as their 6-year rates. 

Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz told Mac Donald, “There’s one thing I just want to be clear about, and that is that every student at Carolina has earned their way to Carolina.”

Trustee Ralph Meekins said, “UNC was not admitting students that were not qualified.”

Student body President Christopher Everett, an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees, responded to Mac Donald at the full board meeting the next day.

He showed slides highlighting several campus leaders and successful students who are students of color.

“The individuals that I just shared with you all are nothing less than extraordinary, and we earned our spots at Carolina, not because of the color of our skin, but because of the contents of our hearts and the will to make our university a better place,” Everett said. “We are not average. We don’t need handouts. And we definitely did not flunk out when we came to Carolina.”

Korie Dean reported in The News & Observer, “Everett said he hoped the board, when making decisions about guest speakers in the future, would see him and the other students he presented and choose speakers who did not ‘question our worth.’ Everett’s remarks were met with hefty applause from meeting attendees.”

We at the Coalition for Carolina whole-heartedly agree.

Read Dean’s story here: https://www.newsobserver.com/article281684893.html#storylink=cpy

Watch Mac Donald’s presentation to the trustees here: https://www.youtube.com/live/ichgkU_a4Bw?si=hvlVy4v8zWTiCzsV

We don’t know who invited Mac Donald to the committee, but Ramsey White is the committee chair. Mac Donald was introduced by Doug Monroe, acting president of the UNC Alumni Free Speech Alliance.

The Alliance had hosted Mac Donald the night before, where she delivered a wide-ranging and free-wheeling attack on higher education. We respect her right to speak, even as we disagree. Here are highlights from her speech:

  • Many Black students are not up to the challenge, but universities are so “desperate to get their numbers of Black students up, even if doing so imposed a terrible handicap on those students”.
  • Admissions screening for resilience, leadership and community involvement is “preposterous and condescending” and that “no admissions officer has the capacity to evaluate.”
  • University leaders “are committed to a victimhood narrative.”
  • She attacked what she labeled as “the diversity/DEI bureaucracy” on campuses.
  • She attacked female campus leadership because “females way, way outscore on the trait of neuroticism”.
  • She says that not everyone needs to go to a four-year college and proposed that colleges may be able to cut enrollment by as much as 90%.
  • She mocked majors such as marketing. “Are you kidding? You should be reading Aeschylus, you idiot.” (Note: We are all for Aeschylus, but the University is a big tent able to accommodate study of ancient Greece and modern business.)
  • She concluded with her wish that UNC be reformed to conform to her ideology, but believes today’s universities are “irredeemable.” “It is hard to start a new institution that has that prestige…that’s why I like the re-founding idea of UPenn so much because you’ve got the legacy prestige, but you’re starting out on better principles… maybe UNC will give me reason for hope.” We certainly hope not.

Watch her talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twexKz0fT-s

The National Right-Wing Attack

In an article posted Thursday by Inside Higher Ed, “The Right-Wing Attack on Academia, With a Totalitarian Twist,” John K. Wilson writes:

“Today, conservative activists will launch a public campaign to enact new model legislation called the General Education Act. Behind this bland name is a proposal for the most radical assault on faculty and academic freedom in American history. If the model legislation were to be enacted, lawmakers would force public colleges to adopt a uniform general education curriculum devoted to conservative values, give a new dean near-total power to hire all faculty to teach these classes and then require the firing of many existing faculty members in the humanities and social sciences, including tenured professors.

“The GEA’s extreme ideas are not the babblings of some obscure blogger. They are a joint proposal from three leading conservative groups—the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, and the National Association of Scholars.”

Read Wilson’s article here: https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/11/16/new-front-right-wing-attack-academia-opinion

Where We Stand

At the Coalition for Carolina we believe a diverse Carolina is a strong Carolina and that all students, faculty, and staff from all background belong here. Our mission is to monitor these continued attacks, get out the facts and mobilize our 25,000-plus followers to support the University.

We’ll keep doing that.

Here’s what you can do:

  • Educate yourself. Watch Mac Donald’s presentations and read Wilson’s article.
  • Share your concerns with friends, colleagues and leaders.
  • Email, write and call UNC trustees and legislators.

Tell them to keep Carolina a place where discovery and education are paramount and political agendas are left at the door.

Next Trustees’ Chair: An Advocate – or Attack Dog?

Posted on

Members of the UNC Board of Trustees, especially the board chair, should first and foremost be advocates and champions for the University.

But John Preyer, who expects to be elected soon as the next chair, has in recent weeks attacked the faculty and administration.

First, Preyer has said he does not believe the University’s faculty council represents the true views of the faculty.

Second, at the July 27 board meeting, he questioned and chastised the Chancellor for saying that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Students for Fair Admissions affirmative-action case was “not the outcome we would have hoped for.”

“Why did we do that?'” Preyer asked. “‘Was that the right thing to do … trying to litigate a position that was found to be in violation of the law?'”

Let’s take each issue in turn.

Faculty Council

Why doesn’t Preyer respect the voting process and representative democracy?

Every year, the Office of Faculty governance staff looks at the faculty census and apportions the number of slots for the 93-member faculty council based on the number of faculty members in each school; for example, the School of Medicine has more representatives than the Hussman School of Journalism and Media.

All voting faculty are asked in a survey how they want to participate in faculty governance. 

A committee of current committee chairs and at-large members nominates individuals to different committees and to faculty council – always with an eye to three things:

  • people who are willing to do the needed work,
  • faculty members who have expressed interest in a committee’s subject matter
  • a mix of people, some with experience in faculty governance and some who are new to it.

Two people are nominated for each open position, and a faculty-wide election is held. 

That’s pretty democratic and representative, if you ask us.

You might argue that not everyone participates, thus weakening the process.  That’s true. But that is equally true in any election.

Why doesn’t Preyer respect this democratic process?

Affirmative Action (Students for Fair Admissions Case)

The campus fought the lawsuit for nine years because we believed it was mission-critical. The lower courts all ruled in favor of our admissions procedures. The first pillar of our strategic plan speaks to the need for a diverse and welcoming campus. 

So, no, the court’s decision clearly was “not the outcome we would have hoped for”! 

What outcome did Preyer hope for? Did he hope for our campus admissions team, the office of university counsel, and everyone else who worked so hard on this case to lose? Doesn’t he respect their dedication and hard work?

North Carolina has citizens of all creeds, colors, genders, and places of national origin. Serving the state means finding a way to include people from every swath of North Carolina on our campus. That is a worthy mission, one we should continue to fight for, in accordance with the law.

UNC-Chapel Hill was right to fight the case, and we are right to be disappointed that we lost.

A Time for Respect

The Board of Trustees’ bylaws say the board, “shall promote the sound development of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill within the functions prescribed for it, helping it to serve the people of the State in a way that will complement the activities of the other institutions and aiding it to perform at a high level of excellence in every area of endeavor.”

Will the man who might be chair respect that charge? Or will he use his position to continue the partisan politics attacks that in recent years have put Carolina’s reputation for excellence at risk?

Unlike the Southern segregationists who defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s school-desegregation decision in the 1950s, we will respect the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action decision.

We don’t agree with it, we don’t think it’s right, and we’ll work to change the court and the decision. But we’ll comply with it.

Preyer should respect the elected representatives of the faculty. He should respect the administration and staff. He should respect the University for standing up for diversity, equality and inclusion.

Who’s “Obsessed”?

Posted on

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal has an obsession with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

In a July 10 post, the Center breathlessly declared, “Chapel Hill’s DEI Obsession Was Mandated at the Top: The Martin Center has uncovered a startling email from the chancellor’s office.”

In tones that echo UFO conspiracists, the post said DEI plans at UNC “may be traceable to an email sent on behalf of UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz in July 2020. The Martin Center obtained a copy of the email via a public records request last month and was startled to find an explicit directive that every Chapel Hill school or unit ‘submit measurable deliverables around diversity and inclusion initiatives’.”

Our response: So what?

DEI initiatives promote fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups that have been underrepresented or discriminated against.

Thirty years ago, as President of Sara Lee Corporation, Paul Fulton – one of our coalition’s founders and Chair of Higher Ed Works – wrote:

“What does strategic diversity really mean? I believe it means creating an environment that is attractive to and embraces a culturally diverse work force. It requires a management and peer attitude that recognizes that each employee has the ability to contribute to the enterprise, and that each has different needs and will require different types of support to succeed.

“The real goal of managing for strategic diversity is to enable all members of the work force, no matter who they are, where they came from, or how different they might be, to perform to their full potential. At Sara Lee, we see this as a goal that is absolutely consistent with our financial goals, because we must have the participation of all of our people if we are to continue to be successful.”

The Martin Center continually attacks our university. We eagerly await the day they say something positive about one of North Carolina’s most valuable assets.

Chapel Hill’s DEI Obsession Was Mandated at the Top

Guskiewicz on SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

Posted on

UNC Chapel Hill shared this response to the June 29th SCOTUS ruling that struck down UNC-Chapel Hill admissions affirmative action practices.

Dear Carolina Community,

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et. al., our case about race-conscious admissions. While not the outcome we hoped for, we respect the Supreme Court’s decision and will follow its guidance.

Carolina is committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and to making an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond. We are passionately public, and that will always be true. Our strategic plan’s first initiative is to “Build our Community Together.” We will build that community with you and work to provide a campus environment where all of our students know they belong and can thrive.

I know that this decision may raise questions about our future and how we fulfill our mission and live out our values. But Carolina is built for this, and we have been preparing for any outcome. Our leadership team will need time to thoroughly review the details of this outcome and its potential impact before determining specifically how we will comply with this decision. In the coming weeks, we will communicate our plans with the campus community.

For more information about this Supreme Court case, you can visit admissionslawsuit.unc.edu.

Sincerely,

Kevin M. Guskiewicz
Chancellor