Category: Legislature

The Truth Matters

Posted on

Once again, some members of the UNC Board of Trustees aren’t shooting straight with the University community.

This time, it’s about origins of the ideologically driven “School of Civic Life and Leadership” that the trustees rammed through – with the support of politicians in the state legislature – without informing and adequately consulting the University’s faculty and administration.

Trustee Perrin W. Jones from Greenville has twice written articles, the latest on May 22, claiming that the idea for the new school “goes back years—and has involved faculty input from the beginning.” (Link below.)

That is what Abraham Lincoln once called “a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse.”

Here is what really happened.

Beginning in 2017, then-Chancellor Carol Folt and others at the University initiated discussions about a proposed “Program for Civic Virtue and Civil Discourse.”

But early conversations suggested that the goal was to create a new, donor-funded center that would explicitly embrace political, right wing ideas. Many faculty members strongly and vocally opposed that.

In 2019, Interim Dean Terry Ellen Rhodes announced the establishment of the Program for Public Discourse in the College of Arts & Sciences, to bring in various speakers and offer students a forum for debate.

Some faculty members still had questions and concerns, and a resolution to delay implementation of the program was presented to the Faculty Council.

The resolution failed, but that vote certainly didn’t represent faculty endorsement of the program. And the faculty clearly never endorsed creating a course-offering, degree-granting entity like the School of Civic Life and Leadership.

It certainly isn’t right to claim that what the faculty did then is an endorsement of what the trustees are doing now.

David Boliek, chair of the trustees, made clear the political purpose of the School of Civic Life and Leadership when he was interviewed on Fox News in February, introduced as someone “who helped create the school.”

He acknowledged “we have world-class faculty” at Carolina, but added, “We however have no shortage of left-of-center or progressive views on campus, like many campuses across the nation. But the same really can’t be said about right-of-center views. So this is an effort to try to remedy that.”

Now, legislators want to spend $2 million in taxpayer money on the school in each of the next two years – to promote “right-of-center” viewpoints.

Trustees and legislators shouldn’t be creating new degree programs and deciding what is taught at public universities like UNC, especially if the motivation is purely political. Whatever motivated the board of trustees, the process they deployed wound up shutting out the faculty and administration.

Further, we don’t know if a Faculty and Administration designed and implemented School of Civic Life and Leadership is a good idea or not.  Certainly, if its purpose is to promote a particular political agenda and viewpoint it is not.

Faculty members are reliable, professional and have been proven leaders for decades.  That is a major reason that Carolina is great. Any new program must include the faculty and administration from the beginning.

That didn’t happen here.

No “specious and fantastic arrangement of words” can prove this horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse.

Jones article: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2023/05/the-true-story-of-unc-chapel-hills-new-school/

Watch the Boliek interview on our March 2 post: https://coalitionforcarolinafoundation.org/the-gop-playbook-for-intervening-in-higher-education/

Carolina First

Posted on

In the 18 months since the Coalition for Carolina was formed, more than 22,000 people have joined our email and social media networks.

We are alumni, friends, family, faculty, students, staff and supporters of the University. Many of us live in North Carolina, and others live in Utah, Maine, Florida, New York, other states, and overseas.

Check out a partial list of our supporters here: https://coalitionforcarolinafoundation.org/

We are Republicans, Independents and Democrats.

We want what is best for Carolina.

Yet, one member of the UNC Board of Trustees continues to attack us on Twitter, on Facebook and in paid newspaper ads.

He claims that our coalition’s “sole purpose is to try to convince North Carolinians that Republican-appointed trustees are hell-bent on destroying the university.”

He is wrong.

What we want is for members of the Board of Trustees – whatever their party or ideology – to put Carolina first.

We want the trustees to embrace and work within the shared governance model that has served Carolina for decades.

We want trustees to advocate for adequate faculty compensation and badly needed repairs and renovations.

We want the trustees to protect tenure – and academic freedom.

We want the trustees to protect Carolina’s accreditation.

We want the trustees – and politicians in Raleigh – to stop meddling in the University’s day-to-day workings.

We want the trustees to stop ambushing the Chancellor and faculty with poorly conceived, ideologically driven new departments and schools.

We want good governance and a spirit of cooperation among trustees, the administration, faculty, students and, yes, alumni.

That spirit is the Carolina Way.

It serves the University far better than shrill partisanship.

Let’s put partisan politics last and Carolina first.

Politicizing College Accreditation

Posted on

The legislature, specifically the NC Senate, appears to be trying to make college and community college accreditation a political issue, which it never should be. Accreditation is a highly focused, disciplined process for all schools that receive certain federal contracts as well as those whose students receive certain scholarships, particularly Pell grants – federal needs-based scholarships that fund full-time and part-time college and vocational school students. The proposed Senate bill ( use this link if you get an error as they sometimes block referrals from our website https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/S680) may sound innocuous, but it isn’t. Its key tenets are:

  • It requires UNC system schools and community colleges to change accreditors every accreditation cycle (about every 10 years).
  • It requires that the new accreditor to be chosen from “a preferred list” that is compiled by the Board of Governors.  
  • It allows one party to sue a person who raises an accreditation issue that leads to a college being found to be “out of compliance” for accreditation if that person is determined to have made a false statement (a reasonable sounding process that in past instances has chilled whistleblowers who fear that their truth will be labeled lies).

It is always risky to change accreditors, but when politicians are trying to drive an accreditor change and dictate the list from which a new creditor can be chosen, it becomes dangerous.  

In addition to the fundamental actions imposed by the bill, cited above, let’s delineate a few more concerns raised with inadequate accreditation:

  1. Potential loss of $1.5 billion in federal financial aid funds: this is the amount Carolina alone receives in federal financial aid funds; the total system received much more. This does not include research funding of other institutional grants which may rely on a recipient being accredited.  
  • The process becomes politicized when politicians are the driving force behind changing accreditors.  Lack of political influence is a core piece of all significant accrediting agencies so this alone would pose a problem to most reputable and highly quality accreditors.
  • Threats to Academic STANDARDS:  Accreditation helps ensure a certain academic quality across different colleges and universities; and therefore, protects students, faculty and the value of degrees for those who have already graduated. If politicians force colleges to change accreditors without a valid reason or sufficient evidence, it threatens academic quality and undermines the integrity of the institution.
  • Impact on Reputation:  Changing accreditors can create a perception that an institution has failed to meet the standards of its previous accreditor, which can have a negative impact on its reputation. This will not only effect enrolled students, but past graduates.
  • Loss of Institutional Knowledge: Accreditation requires a deep understanding of a college or university’s operations, policies, and procedures. When an institution changes accreditors, it loses that institutional knowledge and expertise that it has built up over many years.  New agencies would take much longer and place a much more significant burden on administrators when they have to acquaint new accreditors with their policies and practices.   This adds administrative costs to the schools.
  • Students who transfer to another institution or who seek additional educational degrees risk not being accepted if their degree comes from a school that has a lower standard of accreditation.   

According to the Urban Institute, “The accreditation system in American higher education began in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a way for colleges and universities with high academic standards to distinguish themselves from institutions that claimed to be colleges but had curricula similar to many high schools (Harcleroad 1980).”  Accreditation is intended to be an objective process that evaluates academic quality based on agreed-upon standards. One concern of all accreditors is that the institutions not have undue influence by political decision-makers or influencers as politicization undermines objectivity and credibility in the scholarly process and erodes academic freedom.

What happens when an accrediting agency has a concern regarding the actions or activities of a member institution? The accrediting agency contacts the institution and asks for clarification, initially in the form of a relatively standard letter.   This is what happened when UNC’s accrediting agency, SACSCOC, sent a letter to Chancellor Guskiewicz earlier this year asking for more information about the recent action by Carolina’s trustees regarding the proposed School of Civic Life and Leadership.   Chancellor Guskiewicz responded, providing detail about how the university intended to assess and, if approved by the faculty, create the new program.   That satisfied, and therefore concluded, the SACSCOC query here.

When the institution responds the agency decides whether the answer was sufficient to satisfy the question. If it is sufficient, there is no further action — as was the recent case with Carolina.   If it is not sufficient, there will be further conversations between the accrediting agency and the school.  Sometimes additional information is needed and at times penalties are imposed.  It is everyone’s goal – the accreditor and the school – for the accreditation to stand.

Chancellor Guskiewicz’s response to the recent SACSCOC letter satisfied the agency that proper processes were being followed at this time.  However, that did not satisfy our legislature.  Almost as soon as Senator Berger learned that SACSCOC intended “to send a letter” asking for clarification about the proposed new program – standard procedure when an accreditor has a question – he introduced bill 680, (Revise Higher Ed Accreditation Processes). This was his reaction to a presentation by the head of SACSCOC to the Governor’s Commission on the Governance of Public Universities in North Carolina. 

Recall Chief Justice Felix Frankfurter’s four essential freedoms of a college or university in deciding Sweezy vs New Hampshire: Universities have the right (1) to determine who may teach; (2) what can be taught; (3) how it is taught; and (4) who will be admitted.  Pushing changes in accreditation harms these essential institutional freedoms.  Further, Carolina is currently accredited by the highest level and quality of external accreditation.  Changing accreditors from an accreditor like SACSCOC would likely result in a lower quality accreditation of our programs, which would damage past, present, and future generations.   

Because of the serious consequences noted above, we’ve decided to host a webinar with a panel to discuss the potential ramifications of Senate Bill 680.  We’ll send out invitations to the webinar once the logistics are complete.  In the meantime, we want to point out that this draft bill sponsored by Senator Berger also raises alarms and concerns because it seems eerily similar to the extremist action that Ron DeSantis took in Florida against their college accreditor, but with an even more severe twist given its allowance of litigation.

It is critical that we not stand still here.   Contact representatives and alert your neighbors to the threats this bill proposes.  The vast majority of colleges and universities in the southeast are accredited by SACSCOC.  If the North Carolina university system and community colleges seek a lessor accreditor we all stand to lose.

We’ve posted images of the entire draft bill on our website.  Follow this link to read the draft bill.

Please attend and give input at the Governor’s Commission meetings.  You can participate in person or virtually.  Follow this link for the schedule. 

Putting UNC’s Accreditation at Risk

Posted on

The NC Senate is working on a new bill that would force UNC System colleges and NC Community Colleges to change accreditors. Accreditation is the key determiner of a higher education institution’s credibility, value of degrees, and ability to secure federal funds for financial aid. Politicians trying to interfere in the accreditation process in any way is extremely dangerous. Below are images of the draft bill. You can also access it here (copy and paste this URL in your browser if you get an error as they sometimes block referrals from our website https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/S680):

March Madness In More Ways than One

Posted on

Remember the infamous “bathroom bill” of 2016 and the impact it had on NC?  Not only did NC lose NCAA games until it was repealed, but according to an analysis reported by CNBC, that partisan, political overreach cost North Carolina’s economy an estimated $3.7 billion! CNBC specifically reported this:

“Over the past year, North Carolina has suffered financial hits ranging from scuttled plans for a PayPal facility that would have added an estimated $2.66 billion to the state’s economy to a canceled Ringo Starr concert that deprived a town’s amphitheater of about $33,000 in revenue. The blows have landed in the state’s biggest cities as well as towns surrounding its flagship university, and from the mountains to the coast.

Well it’s March and it appears that the madness of social issues political overreach is happening again.  This year’s target is diversity, equity and inclusion.  Despite the politicos complaints about “conservative” viewpoints not being represented on campus, they appear to be very focused on targeting programs specifically designed to be inclusive of ALL points of view – INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE!

NC Policy Watch and The Chronicle of Higher Education broke news that NC elected officials are targeting  diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training and programs.  Here is what NC Policy Watch reports:

“This week the N.C. General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Commission on Government Operations requested documents related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) training programs through the UNC System and all of its 17 campuses.

The request, according to a Tuesday letter from Derrick Welch, director of Senate Majority Staff Government Operations, is part of the commission’s “inquiry into university employee training programs administered through the UNC System or its member universities.”

The letter, produced below, includes an exhaustive 10-point request for documents, descriptions and costs related to any DEIA related training.”

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

“With the request, North Carolina joins Florida, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, where state officials have issued similar directives to public colleges in 2023. The letters vary in scope, but they generally ask colleges to detail their spending on efforts to recruit and retain diverse students, faculty, and staff.

…

State officials in North Carolina and elsewhere have not made clear how they plan to use the information about diversity, equity, and inclusion, often shortened to DEI. But across the country, Republican politicians have proposed banning colleges’ efforts related to diversity. Critics argue that such offices and programs are a waste of taxpayer dollars and violate academic freedom.”

Have our legislators learned nothing from the fiasco all of us remember as the “bathroom bill”?  What is the purpose of this document inquiry? Why would our legislators risk another severe blow to the North Carolina economy and attack those most vulnerable?  Attacking the most vulnerable in our communities, and the  programs and policies that support them, may play well with a political  base, but our state has the clearest proof how it hurts North Carolina’s economy and our beloved Carolina in more ways than we can foresee.

Picking on the vulnerable is also something the worst of bullies do.  Pursuing these types of divisive policies is simply madness.  Even if it is March, this type of madness in governing moves us way out of bounds, and is way below our standards.