The School of Civic Life and Leadership (SCiLL) has been a headache for the University since its inception. We’ve covered SCiLL extensively – from the school’s undeniable right-wing origins and its fast-tracked approval process by the UNC Board of Trustees, to its rapid faculty turnover and accusations of mismanagement that led to an independent investigation. SCiLL is frequently in the news – and that’s almost never a good thing.
Now is the time for answers: the University now has the report of findings from K&L Gates’s $1.2 million independent investigation of SCiLL, which began in September 2025.
The Assembly detailed the extensiveness of the investigation, saying:
“K&L Gates spent seven months interviewing dozens of people and reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents relating to “allegations and concerns” about the school, which is also known as SCiLL. The resulting report is more than 400 pages long, a professor who helped with the investigation said in an update to faculty in January.”
It seems there will be no public answers or accountability, though. On Friday, the University announced the investigation’s findings would not be made available to the public, with the News & Observer reporting:
“The university said it considered releasing the report, but ultimately decided not to in order to protect the people who shared their perspectives with K&L. Leaders also cited attorney-client privilege and the preservation of the university’s culture as central reasons for the lack of transparency.”
The Daily Tar Heel joined Monday’s UNC Faculty Executive Committee meeting where one committee member, Will Goldsmith, said that as the investigation was conducted, he was under the impression that the administration would share the report with UNC faculty. Goldsmith is not alone in his surprise that the report will not be made public.
Amanda Martin, supervising attorney of Duke University’s First Amendment Clinic, told The Assembly there is likely much the university could legally release.
“Even if it contains personnel information, that does not mean the entirety of the report is exempt from the public records law,” Martin said. “The statute is clear that an agency has an obligation to produce nonconfidential information even when it is co-mingled with confidential information. In this case that likely means there is a significant amount of information related to process and policy that needs to be released. I can’t believe out of 400 pages there’s no information that can be shared.”
With SCiLL’s history of controversy, turmoil and faculty turnover, you can imagine what made it into a 400-page report and why any concerns of its public release would only further the assumption that the report yielded troubling findings.
As Professor Martin asserts, it is likely both legally and logically reasonable that Carolina would release the report. Reports are not to be kept under wraps just because they contain troubling information.
In 2014, the Wainstein report uncovered academic fraud related to the UNC athletics program. Sensitive information was made public. Those enabling the impropriety were fired or reprimanded. The problems were identified and corrected.
Identifying the problems and correcting them are exactly why you undergo an independent review such as the costly SCiLL investigation. Now, all we’re left with is a few answerless public statements from administration officials instead of the information and accountability the Carolina community deserves.
We have many criticisms of SCiLL, but it is important to us to see Carolina succeed. SCiLL needed a course correction, and a public report and action and accountability from the findings would have been a good start. Ending an expensive, months-long investigation in silence and secrecy only serves as another setback.