On Thursday, trustee John Preyer read the following statement at a regularly scheduled trustees meeting:
“[In] May of 2024, a legal complaint was filed against the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, alleging violations of the North Carolina Open Meetings Act. The board disputes the lawsuit, but the lawsuit has been resolved. The board is committed to compliance with the North Carolina Open Meetings Act and will continue to meet in closed session only for the purpose enumerated in state law.”
According to a report in the The News&Observer, the reading of the above statement was a key stipulation in a now settled lawsuit. “ The issue at the center of the lawsuit, filed by Triangle attorney David McKenzie, stemmed from a special meeting the board held in May to discuss the university’s budget. During that special meeting, board Chair John Preyer suggested the board meet in closed session to discuss the finances of the athletics department,…”
In August, the Coalition reported on the existence of this lawsuit in a piece entitled Trustees Tried to Bully Bubba, But Got Called for a Foul. In that post we shared that we know of numerous instances where respected, veteran faculty members and administrators have been subjected to mistreatment by the trustees – in open session and behind closed doors. A number of good people have left. The turnover at the top has been tumultuous and damaging to Carolina.
We hope that this outcome will reduce the incidence of such bad behavior and encourage trustees to speak up if one or more of their number is out of line.
We vowed to keep an open mind about the new School of Civic Life and Leadership that was mandated at UNC by trustees and the legislature.
But the school looks more and more like what we were told it wouldn’t be: a center for right-wing views and something removed or exempt from normal university hiring practices.
We shouldn’t be surprised.
David Boliek, then chair of the UNC Board of Trustees, told Fox News in January 2023 there is “no shortage of left-of-center, progressive views on our campus, like many campuses across the nation. But the same really can’t be said about right-of-center views.”
The new school, he said, “is an effort to really remedy that.”
Background
Ever since the Board of Trustees, without notice to then-Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz or the faculty, resolved to “accelerate the creation of a School of Civic Life and Leadership,” our campus has been reassured that we can and should make lemons out of lemonade.
The permanent dean of SCILL, Jed Atkins, an author on the original memo that proposed SCLL to the trustees, has said repeatedly that “origins don’t equal destiny.” But how can something with scholarly and educational excellence emerge from beginnings so poisonous that the trustees had to hire an outside PR firm and enlist the editorial-page support of The Wall Street Journal to manage the fallout?
“Origins don’t equal destiny.” It’s a nice phrase, and we Americans are deeply committed to the notion of constant reinvention. Yet, from research we know that, in the absence of concerted effort, our beginnings – from zip codes to genetics – are often highly predictive of where we end up.
We don’t believe the School of Civic Life and Leadership will evolve into a vibrant part of our campus so long as the processes used to grow it are as suspect as those used to create it.
Origins do appear to be destiny, at least at SCiLL.
Two Views
Below are excerpts from two essays that shed light on the school: one by a newly appointed SCiLL faculty member and one by a longtime faculty member who is an outspoken critic of the school.
Jay Smith, a professor of history, doesn’t mince words in his criticism, which ran in The Daily Tar Heel. He takes issue with an article authored by a new SCiLL faculty member which asserts that college students are being coddled by DEI efforts, living on campus, and grade inflation. The author, Rita Koganzon, is now an associate professor at SCiLL.
Smith contends that the newly hired faculty at SCiLL have been coddled themselves by a shadowy hiring process. Indeed, the Coalition has heard from multiple faculty members in relevant, nationally ranked academic departments that faculty members in those departments have no idea how SCiLL’s faculty members, who are affiliated with their disciplines, were hired.
Koganzon wrote:
“Universities don’t openly describe students as children, but that is how they treat them. This was highlighted in the spring, when so many pro-Palestinian student protesters — most of them legal adults — facedminimalconsequences for even flagrant violations of their universities’ policies. (Some were arrested — but those charges were oftendropped.) American universities’ relative generosity to their students may seem appealing, especially in contrast to the plight of our imaginary waiter, but it has a dark side, in the form of increased control of student life. “If universities today won’t hold students responsible for their bad behavior, they also won’t leave them alone when they do nothing wrong. Administrators send out position statements after major national and international political events to convey the approved response, micromanage campus parties and social events, dictate scripts for sexual interactions, extract allegiance to boutique theories of power and herd undergraduates into mandatory dormitories where their daily lives can be more comprehensively monitored and shaped. This is increasingly true across institutions — public and private, small and large — but the more elite the school, the more acute the problem.”
“I was most struck, however, by the irony baked into this latest broadside against university practices. Professor Koganzon is one of 11 faculty members recently hired to help staff the SCiLL. Unlike the joint appointees with homes in other departments, the new faculty have no formal affiliation with existing departments. This school was created — via Board of Trustees fiat, in flagrant disregard for the will and expertise of UNC faculty — for the express purpose of creating a safe environment for conservative thinkers. Although they may be fine people and scholars, the core faculty of SCiLL, lacking departmental affiliations, escaped the rigors of normal academic hiring practices. The school to which they were recruited is unconstrained by traditions of disciplinary expertise. It measures academic merit not by disciplinary standards but by one’s location on an ideological spectrum. We can only assume that tenure and promotion decisions in the SCiLL will reflect similar priorities.
“Though they would never admit it, the faculty of SCiLL benefited from affirmative action, but of the unjustifiable kind that works in reverse. Their candidacies for positions at UNC were made possible not by pure merit, which they may or may not possess, but by their membership in or adjacency to a well-funded conservative ecosystem saturated by euphemisms like ‘viewpoint diversity,’ ‘civility’ and ‘balance’.”
Our Coalition hopes that Lee Roberts will be the right leader at the right time for the University of North Carolina.
We are cautiously optimistic that our new chancellor will protect against interference by legislators and trustees that has eroded UNC’s academic excellence, integrity and independence.
His selection had been widely expected since April, when he was endorsed by two powerful legislators: Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore. They praised his handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus.
Their statements and the accelerated search process concern many people on campus and in our coalition.
But Roberts’ strong political support may give him the standing to resist outside interference. In his first media interview this week, he said his experience working with state leaders will be “useful and relevant.”
He has pledged publicly to be independent and nonpartisan. He has reiterated that intention in private conversations. He pushed back in May when some trustees targeted long-time Athletics Director Bubba Cunningham.
Roberts has the backing of UNC System President Peter Hans, who in January sent the Board of Trustees a letter cautioning them to, as one trustee put it, “stay in our lanes.” Hans reminded trustees that their role is to be advisers and advocates for the university, not to run it.
On Monday, his first day as chancellor, Roberts was interviewed by Korie Dean of The News & Observer. She wrote:
“Roberts said his experience working with state leaders will be ‘useful and relevant, both in budget discussions with the General Assembly and more broadly’.”
In the interview, Roberts also talked about the future of DEI programs, campus protests and his relationship with the Board of Trustees.
Holden Thorp, who was chancellor from 2008 to 2013, wrote on Facebook this weekend:
“In the current era of higher education, Lee Harriss Roberts is the best choice to lead UNC now. Traditional academics (including me) have tried to serve in the role the last 14 years and gotten our souls crushed by trying to adapt our academic values to the demands of the current moment. Lee has the skills needed to navigate these situations. For those who think this is a political takeover, maybe best to remember that the political takeover happened in 2010 (I oughta know).
“My quote: ‘That’s a hard job…. He has many of the tools you need to do it. The fact that I might disagree with him about policy on one thing or another, well, these things have been hashed out in North Carolina for the last 15 years and it’s clear where it’s going, and I think he’ll do a great job of leading the university in this environment’.”
President Hans’ Statement
UNC President Hans, who selected Roberts from four candidates identified by the search committee and recommended by the Board of Trustees, said in his announcement:
“Every era is unique in its challenges and the possibilities it presents, and as a result, every chancellor search is different. We have found the right leader for this moment in Carolina’s history because the questions facing public higher education are wide ranging, enormously complex and likely to become magnified in the years ahead.”
He added, “Leadership in Chapel Hill is not for the faint of heart.”
In the UNC System’s news release, Hans said:
“When I appointed Lee Roberts as interim chancellor, I said that Carolina would benefit from his calm, steady and focused leadership, and it has. He has a deep respect for the university’s traditions and excellence, but also a conviction that Carolina has room to grow and improve. He is someone with the right combination of reverence for this university’s history and restless aspirations for its next chapter.”
“Originally expected to conclude near the end of the year, the search sped up considerably in recent days, with Roberts being named just over a week after an undisclosed number of candidates completed interviews with the search committee and four days after the campus Board of Trustees submitted finalists to Hans.
“The accelerated timeline meant students and other campus community members were given fewer chances to weigh-in on the search than the committee originally announced, leaving some students to feel that their voices went unheard during the process.”
Why was the process sped up? Apparently, UNC System leaders wanted a permanent chancellor in place before students return this week – and before there are more protests.
Roberts’ Eight Months as Interim Chancellor
In The Assembly, “What Lee Roberts’ Interim Months Tell Us About How He’ll Lead UNC-Chapel Hill,” Erin Gretzinger quoted both criticism and praise for the new chancellor:
“Roberts has extensive political connections from his time as state budget chief under Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, but critics have noted his lack of significant academic experience and that much of his previous work was in behind-the-scenes finance roles. An alumnus of Duke and Georgetown universities, Roberts had no UNC System ties before his appointment to the Board of Governors in 2021.
“Still, in his semester as chancellor, Roberts secured support from conservative governing board members and politicians—and even impressed and surprised some skeptics.
“Faculty who spoke with The Assembly, including leaders who’ve worked with Roberts directly and others watching from a distance, conceded that he’s shown chops for managing the complex constituencies of higher education and a willingness to listen, even when he might not like what he hears.”
UNC has had 13 chancellors in the almost 80 years since World War II. Roberts is the fourth in the 16 years since 2008.
The turnover has come since Republicans took control of the General Assembly – and appointments to the Board of Governors and Board Trustees – in 2010.
Since then, there have been three chancellors. Thorp stepped down in 2013. The next two were forced out: Carol Folt in 2019 and Kevin Guskiewicz last year.
Chair John Preyer and his allies on the UNC Board of Trustees have a history of bullying, harassing and intimidating long-time UNC leaders – even forcing some to leave Carolina.
This time, the bullies got called out.
They planned a secret, closed-door meeting where they would pummel and pillory Bubba Cunningham, who has been our highly respected Athletics Director since 2011, over his department’s finances.
But they miscalculated.
Within days, UNC Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts defended Cunningham: “Our Athletic Director is one of the most senior, well-respected, well-regarded, admired athletic directors in the country.”
View Roberts’ comments here:
Then, as The News & Observer reported:
A social media post during an evening jog on May 13 first caught David McKenzie’s attention. The Triangle-based lawyer immediately hopped off the treadmill at Duke Faculty Club and grabbed his computer to learn more.
McKenzie had just read that the UNC Board of Trustees was planning to discuss athletics matters in closed session.
He said, “The closed session part really got my attention…. The smell test did not pass.”
Two days later, McKenzie filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court accusing UNC and its Board of Trustees of violating the state’s Open Meetings Laws.
He was right. Now, UNC has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle his claim.
And, “at the next Board of Trustees meeting, UNC must make a statement in open session acknowledging the lawsuit, reaffirming the board’s commitment to adhering to the Open Meetings Act and clarifying the matter has been resolved.”
“If they’re gonna take the public’s money, they gotta do things in public,” McKenzie told The N&O.
This wasn’t the first time that a respected, long-time UNC leader was targeted by Preyer and his allies on the board.
Their actions led Kevin Guskiewicz to leave after 30 years at UNC and five years as our 12th chancellor. As we reported when he left last December:
The last four years have been brutal….
Consider his first faculty meeting following his permanent naming to the position. He had to describe, if not defend, a ridiculous settlement with the Sons of the Confederate Veterans to keep a contested Civil War statue permanently off our campus.
Then came the tenure battle of Nikole Hannah Jones and the threatened firing of the Chancellor for supporting her and the faculty….
Fast forward to February 2023 when he was lambasted by the BOT and directed to “accelerate the development of a School of Civic Life and Leadership.”
We know of numerous instances where respected, veteran faculty members and administrators have been subjected to mistreatment by the trustees – in open session and behind closed doors. A number of good people have left. The turnover at the top has been tumultuous and damaging to Carolina.
We won’t name those individuals. Unlike Preyer & Co., we respect them and their contributions to UNC.
This latest incident makes us question whether these trustees have read their own governing documents about their limited authority and the state’s open-meetings law.
UNC has to pay $25,000 for their folly.
Trustees volunteer a lot of time to UNC. They deserve appreciation for their service.
However, when they disrespect other university leaders, established processes and the law, their behavior must be called out and challenged.
During the summer lull, we are watching two important developments at UNC: the search for a new chancellor and the dismantling of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.
Chancellor Search
The next chancellor will need to raise $1 billion a year, UNC Board of Trustees member Jennifer Lloyd said. “We have to be sober about that fact here: No matter how great the chancellor candidates, at the end of the day, the chancellor has a tangible deliverable goal on private giving.”
The Chancellor Search Advisory Committee met June 11 and plans to meet again in August.
Beth Moracco, Faculty Chair and member of the search committee, said, “The ambitious goal is to have someone named by the end of the calendar year.”
Many observers expect Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts to get the permanent position.
Brian Murphy at WRAL News reported, “Prominent Republican lawmakers, such as House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger — who are influential in the process that determine university funding — publicly called for Roberts to get the permanent job after his handling of campus protests in April.”
The UNC System’s legal affairs division this month released guidance on the future of DEI programs at all 16 UNC campuses.
Korie Dean at The News & Observer wrote:
“The four-page document of guidance does not explicitly instruct university chancellors to eliminate DEI offices. But it clearly indicates that those offices and jobs within them are at-risk as the leaders work to make necessary changes to comply with the new system policy on ‘equality within the University of North Carolina,’ which replaced the former DEI requirements after the board’s vote in May….
“The guidance makes clear that merely changing diversity-related job titles, so as to remove their ties to DEI, is ‘insufficient’ and will not be enough to comply with the new policy. Instead, the responsibilities of employees and their job descriptions should also be altered, with a focus on ‘student success,’ to comply.”
UNC is falling behind its peers, including Duke University, in faculty salaries.
The chart below from the American Association of University Professors shows that:
Since 2010-11, average faculty salaries at UNC have fallen steadily – from sixth in the nation among our public and private peer universities to 11th, 12th and even 13th place.
Not only do we lag behind private universities like Duke, we also now trail public universities such as Virginia, Texas and Michigan.
The gap in actual dollars has grown dramatically.
In 2010-11, the average faculty salary at UNC was $109,200, compared to $138,100 at Duke. This year, the gap has more exploded by more than double: $138,200 at UNC compared to Duke’s $213,300.
Our average salary today is where Duke’s was in 2010-11.
This decline has come since a change in political control of the North Carolina General Assembly in 2010.
It is concerning, because the quality of our faculty determines the quality of the University and the quality of education that students receive.
Pay, of course, is not the only factor in recruiting and retaining excellent faculty members.
But, at the same time salaries have been lagging, faculty members at UNC have found themselves increasingly shut out of key academic decisions, such as the establishment of the School of Civic Life and Leadership.
And outside interference by trustees and legislators has exploded.
UNC fans like to see our athletic teams ranked in the top 10.
We should demand to see our faculty in the top 10 in salaries, respect and shared governance.
On Thursday 23 May, the UNC Board of Governors voted 22-2 to replace the Regulation on Diversity and Inclusion (§300.8.5) of the UNC System Policy Manual and Code. The new Regulation aims to strike a balance between what is referred to—in this Regulation and in contemporary discussions—as institutional neutrality, on one hand, and academic freedom and freedom of speech on the other. The need to achieve a reasonable and proper balance between these principles is not new. The new Regulation has been drafted in response to G.S.§116-300, which is new. Indeed, G.S.§116-300 reaffirms statutes and freedoms already enshrined in state and federal law, including the Constitution of the United States. One novel departure is clause (3a), which states: “The constituent institution shall remain neutral, as an institution, on the political controversies of the day.”
Institutional neutrality is championed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which offers this definition: “Institutional Neutrality is the idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues unless those issues ‘threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.’ ” FIRE’s definition is grounded in the Kalven Report, which states: “These extraordinary instances apart [identified just below], there emerges, as we see it, a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.”
Understood properly, institutional neutrality is sensible, especially for public institutions such as those comprising the UNC System. However, clause (3a) omits crucial circumstances where a university may take a position on social or political issues. Indeed, the Kalven Report states that the university has an obligation to do so: “From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, 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.” These cases are rare, but not singular. The very topic of the limits or restrictions of speech on campus is both a political controversy of the day and one whose outcome substantially impacts the functioning of the UNC institutions. Note that FIRE recognizes the same exception where “those issues ‘threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.’ ”
For G.S.§116-300 to respect these established facts and parameters about freedom of speech, clause (3a) should state, “The constituent institution shall remain neutral, as an institution, on the political controversies of the day, except where it is necessary to protect the functioning or mission of the constituent institution or the values of free inquiry” or words having those effects. While it is not the purview of the Board of Governors to amend legislation enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly, the Board is in a position to communicate the omission in clause (3a) to the North Carolina General Assembly for a friendly amendment. In anticipation of that friendly amendment, the Board of Governors should swiftly amend §300.8.5 of the UNC System Policy Manual to reflect the exception recognized by FIRE and in the Kalven Report.
This omission has one other consequence. Section VII of the newly adopted §300.8.5 overlooks the important exception of protecting or fulfilling the mission of the university. As stated in G.S.§116-1, the mission of the UNC System “is to discover, create, transmit, and apply knowledge to address the needs of individuals and society.” G.S.§116-1 also states that “Teaching and learning constitute the primary service that the university renders to society.” Student success—that is, successful teaching and learning—depends on students feeling that they belong at the institution they attend. One component is the assurance that their persons and viewpoints will be treated equally. Sections I–V of the newly adopted §300.8.5 encode that. Another component is the assurance that the constituent institution they attend is a supportive and welcoming place for all learners. That assurance is accomplished through various expertly led programs at constituent institutions. While it may be that certain changes will be necessary in order for UNC institutions to maintain institutional neutrality, these activities are overlooked in Section VII of the newly adopted §300.8.5 of the UNC System Policy Manual, which should also be swiftly amended accordingly.
A headline in The News & Observer summed it up: “UNC System board approves policy gutting DEI efforts at NC public universities.”
The Board of Governors – with little public discussion and without hearing from people who will be affected – voted May 23 to repeal diversity, equity and inclusion requirements that were adopted in 2019.
We at the Coalition for Carolina oppose this retreat from UNC’s commitment to fairness and equal opportunity for all.
We will continue to advocate for programs and policies that promote diversity and protect against discrimination.
We’ve seen several excellent articles and commentary on the issue. They are summarized below, with links for further reading.
What the BOG Did; Why Students Protested and Two Members Objected
“The board approved the new policy, which emphasizes equality and nondiscrimination over the previous policy’s ideals of diversity and inclusion, as part of a dozen unrelated items on the consent agenda. A board committee took the first step to approve the policy at a meeting last month, doing so in less than five minutes and with no discussion ….
“Some students and other protesters gathered to denounce the decision, saying the system is ignoring the needs of minority groups on its campuses. Two protesters were arrested….
“Two (board) members, Joel Ford and Sonja Nichols, voted against the measure…. ‘As a Black woman … I just always want it to be a situation where all the voices are heard,’ Nichols said.”
“The governing board of North Carolina’s public university system is woefully lacking in ideological diversity, and its members are far more reflective of the Republican leaders who appoint them than of the state and system they ought to represent.”
“In other words, as has so often happened in the past, a powerful public body consisting overwhelmingly of older white men – a group that makes up perhaps 10% of the North Carolina population and that has benefited enormously in countless ways from the racism and sexism that permeated our society for centuries – confidently assured those still waiting to enjoy proportionate access to success and to the corridors of power that they simply need to be patient and allow ‘neutral’ and ‘colorblind’ rules to pave the way.”
“NC State likely spends more on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs than any other university in the 17-campus UNC System – $3.4 million in 2022-23. Yet that amounts to ‘less than one fifth of 1 percent of the total University budget,’ officials pointed out. For universities with multi-billion-dollar budgets, that’s budget dust.
“Yet the UNC System Board of Governors – and especially the Board of Trustees at UNC-Chapel Hill – are hellbent on erasing those requirements. That only underscores – yet again – just how political North Carolina’s public university governing boards have become.”
“The new policy goes into effect immediately and directs university chancellors to ensure their campuses comply with the new directives by Sept. 1. The UNC System’s legal affairs division is expected to issue guidance for compliance to campuses…. Any changes are meant to be made by the beginning of the upcoming academic year ….
“The policy states that campus leaders will have to report to UNC System President Peter Hans any ‘reductions in force and spending, along with changes to job titles and position descriptions’ that result from implementing the policy, and how any ‘savings achieved’ from those actions could be ‘redirected to initiatives related to student success and wellbeing’.”
WRAL-TV anchor Lena Tillett speaks with Chair of the Carolina Black Caucus Trish Harris and UNC Trustee David Boliek on questions including “how many people will lose their jobs?” and “which programs will continue?”
“The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees did not have the authority to amend the university’s budget and divert millions of dollars in diversity, equity and inclusion funding to campus safety, UNC System President Peter Hans said Thursday, effectively nullifying the trustees’ action.”
A group of concerned UNC Chapel Hill alumni expressed their “profound disappointment” in the Board of Governors’ vote.
They include graduates spanning over more than 55 years, including members of UNC’s Black Pioneers, former Congressman Mel Watt, incoming chair of the UNC Board of Visitors Alge Crumpler, former UNC Student Body President Dr. Justin Young, former UNC Associate Provost and Chief Diversity Officer Archie Ervin, retired Superior Court Judge Donnie Hoover and several current and former members of the Carolina Alumni Board of Directors.
Following is their statement:
This statement is to express our profound disappointment with the May 23rd, 2024 decision by the UNC Board of Governors to abandon a decades-long commitment to making North Carolina’s public universities accessible to all.
The move to eliminate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, staff and initiatives in the UNC System is a decision to walk away from the very resources that have historically contributed to the success of countless marginalized and underrepresented students.
The Office for Diversity and Inclusion’s mission at the state’s flagship institution, UNC- Chapel Hill, innocuously champions “inclusive excellence.” It seeks to “celebrate all members of the Carolina community, to broaden our collective understanding, and foster a sense of belonging by uplifting diverse identities, cultures, experiences and perspectives.”
Thursday’s BOG’s actions imperil this vision.
Furthermore, the Board’s vote, sequestered from the input of opposing voices, demonstrates a callous disregard for the thousands of alumni who have benefited from UNC’s diversity initiatives. Our university stands tall, buoyed by the accomplishments of these alumni whose exceptional talents bring honor to the UNC name.
The very commitment that the Board’s decision ended Thursday is the platform that has propelled our alumni to serve with distinction in numerous leadership roles within North Carolina and the nation at large.
UNC has emerged as a public and national model in democratizing education and serving the greater public interest as the university of the “people.” Why not honor the achievements of DEI programs such as the Carolina Covenant, an academic scholarship program, or Project Uplift, a 50-plus-year-old initiative —created to empower high school seniors to believe UNC’s inclusive values would support and welcome them in their higher education pursuits? Why not be proud of the accomplishments of Carolina’s Postdoctoral Program for Faculty Diversity, one of the nation’s oldest and most prestigious faculty diversity pipeline programs in the country?
As the Board of Governors, you are accountable to the people you serve. The UNC System owes it to the state and to the nation to honor its commitment to be of service to all students who have earned their way into some of the best higher education institutions in our nation.
Future generations of North Carolinians will see this decision as a “slap in the face” and will not feel welcomed, supported, and most importantly valued, because of Thursday’s Board’s action to eliminate the historical commitment to all N.C. citizens.
Submitted by Concerned Carolina Alumni who remain actively engaged in the University and its welfare.
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.
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.
In just four days last week, the current Board of Trustees once again showed that they are incapable of being entrusted with the state’s “priceless gem,” the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
To recap:
Dave Boliek used his position as a trustee to help win the Republican nomination for State Auditor. That’s wrong, and he should resign from the board.
The board – at the urging of Boliek and trustee Marty Kotis and without hearing from affected staff, students or faculty – voted to move all funding from programs that promote diversity and protect against discrimination to law enforcement.
The board announced that it would hold a closed-door session to examine the Athletics Department budget, indicating that they do not know the basics of open meetings law in the state. They had to back down after a judge ruled they would violate North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law. Chair John Preyer then tried to deny the plain facts of what happened.
Here are the details:
Boliek: Using UNC to Campaign
Boliek was wrong to use his official actions as a trustee to help his campaign for Auditor. That’s an abuse of his position.
On Monday, May 13, the day before the Republican runoff primary, Boliek said at the trustees’ meeting, “I think that DEI is divisive. I don’t think it’s productive. I don’t think it gives a return on investment to taxpayers and to the institution itself.”
The next day, Boliek narrowly won the runoff against Jack Clark. Boliek had finished second to Clark in the March 5 primary.
Boliek’s campaign website boasts:
“While board chairman, Dave led the fight at UNC to eliminate woke diversity and equity policies and create a new School of Civic Life and Leadership to help bring ideological balance to the notoriously liberal campus.”
Boliek is using his position as a trustee to further his political ambitions. We call on him to resign.
The Attack on Diversity
The Board of Governors is expected to vote this week to repeal the UNC System’s diversity policies. But the trustees didn’t wait. They voted last week to eliminate from the university’s budget all $2.3 million in funding for diversity programs – and to transfer the money to law enforcement. They also want to revisit their financial relationship with the town of Chapel Hill because of their views about the Chapel Hill Police not participating in police actions on campus.
Neither the trustees nor the Board of Governors have taken time or made the effort to consider the impact of their actions on students, faculty, and staff at the state’s 17 UNC System campuses. Diverse campuses benefit everyone.
Here is what UNC Student Body President Jaleah Taylor said:
“As a Black student, I am very supportive of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. I’ve seen the benefits of them on campus. And so I’m hoping that the Board of Governors does not vote to approve this policy, even though it’s probably very likely.”
We also recommend The News & Observer’s interview with a professor who studies diversity programs and concludes that they “ultimately benefit students and account for small portions of university budgets.” He says “the loss of DEI offices could significantly hinder the ability of universities to deal with incidents of discrimination and harassment on campus — a responsibility they are required to uphold by federal law.”
Also last week, a legal challenge forced the trustees to back down on their plans to discuss the UNC athletics budget in secret.
On Monday, May 13, the same day of the anti-diversity vote, trustees said they would meet in closed session the next Thursday to talk about alleged deficits in the athletics budget.
Chair Preyer, according to WRAL said:
“I think it is imperative that we carve athletics out of the approval today, and we have an extended discussion in closed session at our meeting on Thursday, so that we can all hear just how bad it is and what needs to be done to remedy it, and I think that’s best to accomplish Thursday in a closed session.”
But, on Wednesday, Triangle attorney David McKenzie filed a legal complaint saying that a closed session would violate the North Carolina’s Open Meetings and Public Records law. He also said the board held an illegal secret meeting to discuss the matter in November 2023.
His complaint said:
“The public has a vested interest in the discussions surrounding UNC’s affiliation with the ACC and the financial management of UNC Athletics. These critical matters should be conducted in open sessions to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability. Shielding such discussions from public scrutiny undermines public trust and violates the law.”
A Superior Court judge agreed and issued a temporary restraining order. The trustees had to cancel the closed-door session.
Preyer read a statement at Thursday meeting to, in his words, “correct and clarify” the board’s intent. In other words, he had to backpedal.
WRAL summed it up: “The chairman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees said it would not discuss the school’s athletic budget in closed session Thursday despite saying it would do just that during a special meeting Monday.”
At Thursday’s meeting, Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts defended athletic director Bubba Cunningham against trustees’ criticism: “Our athletic director is one of the most senior, well-respected, well-regarded, admired athletic directors in the country. He has broad respect from his peers and we don’t have a more capable, more experienced, more talented senior administrator here at Carolina.”
Cunningham is one of the few long-serving administrators still in place on campus. The trustees have chased off most of the rest.
Enough is Enough
These three events, all in less than a week, reinforce our total lack of confidence in the trustees’ current leadership.
Some trustees – notably, Ralph Meekins – have carried out their responsibilities in a responsible way. But some – this week it’s Preyer, Boliek and Kotis, next week it may be some other combination – are doing more harm than good.
They are an embarrassment to UNC. The chaos they cause impedes the ability of the interim chancellor, faculty and staff to manage day-to-day campus operations.
Most damaging, they undermine any hope that there will be a meaningful search for a permanent chancellor. Who would want to work with this board?
In January, UNC System President Peter Hans and Board of Governors Chair Randy Ramsey cautioned the trustees to, as one board member put it, “stay in our lane.”
Instead, the trustees gave us a dystopian version of romper room.
