When board members at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill unanimously passed a resolution recently to accelerate the creation of a School of Civic Life and Leadership, some faculty members were shocked. The issue hadn’t been on the agenda or even, some professors said, on the radar — even though such initiatives are expected to be initiated and led by academics.
The resolution requested that the administration work to develop a school, with a dedicated faculty team, that would promote public discourse — an idea some conservative media quickly hailed as a way to create a safe haven of sorts for right-leaning thinkers on a campus full of leftists.
“Like many of you, I am flabbergasted,” Mimi Chapman, chair of the university faculty, said at a meeting of faculty leaders Monday, given that faculty members apparently had not been informed about the new school, much less engaged in its development. “It is deeply upsetting and unsettling.”
At a time when many are worried about culture wars and political interference in classrooms across the country, the board resolution triggered some strong reactions.
The university’s provost also told faculty leaders that he was surprised by the resolution, but sought to convince openly skeptical professors in the meeting that it had originated as a faculty idea, and was one they would shape and carry forward.
“Our vision is not about making a political statement,” Christopher Clemens, UNC’s provost, said of the proposed school that would teach public discourse, which he strongly endorses. Rather, it’s about “creating a school that will focus on preparing our students with the skills and capacities to help make democracy work better.” He said the idea had emerged from internal budget talks in December and he shared it with some stakeholders.
“We want to equip our students to open their ears, find their voices,” he said. “That is not a left issue. That is not a right issue. That is not a liberal issue. That is not a conservative issue.”
Still, the resolution drew praise from some conservative media outlets. A Wall Street Journal editorial published within hours of the vote cast the proposed school as a counter to academia’s echo chamber. Fox News called it “a rare win for free speech,” as the chairman of the university’s board of trustees said on the program that while there’s no shortage of left-of-center faculty members at UNC, the same can’t be said of right-leaning professors. “This is an effort to try to remedy that,” chairman David Boliek said, and allow “for both views to be taught at the university.”
In a phone interview, he said the idea that it was a politically-motivated move by the university was unfounded.
“I don’t think about right, left, whatever. What I think about is what is in the best interest of the university,” said Boliek, who introduced the resolution. “And this is an opportunity for us to be a leader.”
Still, on a campus where tensions simmered for years among lawmakers, the politically appointed governing boards, university leaders and faculty, it was another flare-up — and one that echoed battles in other states where academia has become a frequent target of politicians.
After protesters toppled the controversial “Silent Sam” monument on campus several years ago, many Chapel Hill faculty and students were horrified when the statewide university system agreed to turn the statue over to a Confederate-heritage group with $2.5 million for its maintenance. The deal was later overturned, but it left a lingering distrust between many on campus and system leaders.
Another controversy followed in 2021 when the university’s board of trustees delayed granting tenure to journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones when she was offered a chair at the journalism school. The board ultimately voted to grant her tenure, but she joined the faculty at Howard University, instead. Many faculty protested that the board should not interfere with faculty hiring and that the decision had been political.
“This is actually worse,” Holden Thorp, a former chancellor of the university, said in a phone interview. “The trustees of the university passed a resolution that wasn’t put on the agenda by the chancellor proposing something that they don’t have the power to do.”
The resolution set “a goal of a minimum of 20 dedicated faculty members” for the school and requested it include the ability to grant degrees. But trustees can’t create classes, appoint professors or create degrees, Thorp said; they can approve some of those things, but only on the recommendation of the administration.
“They put the chancellor in a very awkward position,” Thorp said. “I think he wrote the only statement that he could write without resigning.”
Kevin Guskiewicz, UNC’s chancellor, wrote in a message to the campus Friday that he appreciated the board’s encouragement and that he agrees “that our students are served by learning to listen, engage, and seek different perspectives that contribute to robust public discourse.” He also wrote that this is not new for UNC, noting existing efforts such as the Program for Public Discourse, which challenges students to debate topical issues.
But he made clear that he would work with faculty to study the feasibility of such a school. “Any proposed degree program or school will be developed and led by our faculty, deans, and provost,” he wrote. “Our faculty are the marketplace of ideas and they will build the curriculum and determine who will teach it …”
University spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions about the proposed school.
In the faculty meeting held virtually Monday, Guskiewicz told attendees he wanted to “correct some of the media reports you may have heard. Faculty cannot and will not be hired based on their political views or ideological beliefs for such a school.” They never have been at UNC, he said, “and never will be.”
Thorp said the trustees’ real goal may have been the media attention. “Trashing higher education because of its woke ideology is the best political talking point the Republicans have had since Ronald Reagan said government is the problem,” he said. “It’s pure gold.”
Boliek said in an interview that the resolution grew out of a desire to build on an existing program intended to counter national polarization.
UNC has a world-class faculty, Boliek said, but the idea of the proposed school “is to formalize curricula that really gives students the experience of being able to debate, share, learn and respect a diversity of viewpoints,” even in a society that’s full of rancor.
He said those skills would apply across the spectrum of professions. “Let’s say you’re selling widgets, okay? … And the person who is the buyer of the widgets may have a political view … And during a lunch, he or she expresses that political view and it is opposite of yours. Okay. So if you’re in sales and you’re working to get this person to buy widgets, I think it would be great for Carolina grads to be able to have the tools to be able to hear a divergent viewpoint,” and be able to engage in a thoughtful way, he said, without the meeting — and the sale — falling apart.
Boliek said the school might be “nested within the College of Arts and Sciences as a school, as a haven, a place where people can debate topics, and not feel like they need to censor themselves.” He said he had only heard from one faculty member who was concerned about the idea, but had heard from several others who were excited by it.
He said UNC would be seeking funding for the effort, but that he didn’t want to comment on the strategy.
Chapman said the vast majority of faculty at UNC are already very skilled at fostering constructive dialogue among students. “To me,” she said, “this is a solution in search of a problem.”