Hark the Sound? Will Tar Heel Voices be Heard?

By Mimi Chapman

Over the holiday weekend, I was interested to see this article from the Associated Press in which three faculty members express concern about what our commitment to diversity actually means in light of the Students for Fair Admissions decision and, perhaps even more importantly, the Board of Governors’ decision to do away with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives across the UNC system. They rightly, in my view, raise difficult questions our current climate prompts: Should we be recruiting students from diverse backgrounds to a place we’re not sure will support them? Exactly what level of scrutiny are each of us under in our teaching and scholarship as they relate to DEI?

The content they discuss is important. It is equally important that they are commenting at all. Since our Board of Trustees adopted the Kalven Report in the summer of 2022, our campus leaders and our faculty have become quieter and quieter. The Kalven Report, written in 1967 in response to protests at the University of Chicago, purportedly protects campus speech while squelching the ability of campus leaders to speak out on “issues of the day.”

Yet, in my observation, Kalven is not empowering anyone. To be sure, Kalven is keeping leaders quiet.  But when campus leaders don’t speak, an implicit message is sent to everyone: Stay in your lane. Unless your research directly speaks to any given topic, refer requests for comment to media relations.  Be quiet. People are apparently getting the message.  Reporters tell me they have a hard time getting faculty to answer their calls, much less talk on the record. In truth, I’m more cautious myself. This article is the first in a long time where I saw faculty members clearly articulating their confusion, concerns, and their thinking about how the demise of DEI colors their work.

Leaders at every level may be having frank conversations with their faculties and others about pressing issues, but if so, they’re happening behind closed doors, which means our alums and other concerned citizens aren’t as informed. The moral leadership Tar Heels of previous generations took for granted seems to have taken flight.

Contrast this state of affairs with this piece by Michael S. Roth, president at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, who writes clearly about the non-neutral role of higher education. Right now, he is focused on the potential protests that may again be a feature of campus life this fall. But I’ve heard President Roth speak before and, although today’s issue is student protests, his approach to the academy as a non-neutral institution is not new. He writes, “Higher education institutions have never been neutral.” Nor should they be, he goes on to say. 

We have a new Chancellor at Carolina, and everyone is cautious. Carolina is nothing if not polite. As a faculty, we are not typically unwelcoming to people no matter how they wind up here. Now that Lee Roberts is our permanent leader, the stakes are higher as are expectations for him. As much as I like what I know of him, I also find myself watchful. Under what circumstances will he speak out? What is the reaction when someone else on his leadership team does? He’s said he sees UNC Chapel Hill as one of the most important economic drivers of the state. What about the institution as moral agent? Only time will answer those questions.

President Roth, as eloquent and principled as he is, works in a very different context than we do here at Carolina. He answers only to his board, which seems firmly in his corner. He operates in a state that, painting with a broad brush, shares his views on the role of higher education. Chancellor Roberts does not have this luxury. Yet, as my colleagues point out in the AP article, people are making plans – plans for whom to recruit or what institutions could reasonably recruit them. People look to leaders for examples of what they can or cannot say. When leaders are quiet, everyone is more likely to be as well.

We need Tar Heel voices, however controversial they might be, and we need our leaders to model speaking out. It is a challenging environment to be sure, and we call on our trustees to let our new chancellor lead – in both word and deed. Kalven, initially written in 1967, is an old dead letter. It should not be allowed to turn speech on our campus moribund as well.

Mimi Chapman, Ph.D. is a co-founder of the Coalition for Carolina. She is a Carolina alum – Ph.D. 1997, a Carolina Parent of a 2022 grad, and a Distinguished Professor in the School of Social Work.

---

Other News:

We’ve received several responses to last week’s post about the Campus Y.  All  of the responders passionately support the Y remaining open and highly accessible to student groups. 

The response below from former Campus Y president Marty Edwards is representative of the fondness and passion the Carolina community has for the Campus YWCA.

“As a former president of the Campus YWCA, I strongly encourage the Campus Y Building to continue to be a home for student organizations that are serving the community locally and beyond Chapel Hill. While I was a student, the Y was a home on campus for me. The paid staff were wise and kind influences as I was looking for a place in college to volunteer — helping organize Freshman Camp, hosting speakers, helping organize the International Handicrafts Bazaar, to name a few of my activities. Others were learning through volunteering about international affairs, the environment, and issues related to farm workers. Faculty served as mentors and friends. Of course time brings change, but the values promulgated by Y staff and student leaders encouraged intellectual growth, self-confidence and a sense of community with people who shared strong values.
I sincerely trust that the Y Building and the programs housed there will continue to serve such a valuable service to UNC-CH students.”

Marty Edwards