Skip to main content

By Andrew Dobelstein
Representing the UNC’s retired faculty*

Introduction:

This report summarizes both the September and October Faculty Council meetings.  A somewhat unusual item was brought before the council in September and was carried over until October when it was finally resolved.

The Issue:  Program on Public Discourse

The initial draft of the Program on Public Discourse proposed program of study originated from a committee of two people charged by former chancellor Carol Folt to create a concept for a program that she named the Center for American Values and Civil Discourse.  The program would be part of the College of Arts and Sciences and would seek to support any course that explicitly incorporates structured advocacy, argumentation or debate. The support would come from incentives and infrastructure, which could be course development grants, faculty workshops, faculty learning communities or even graduate communication consultants. Participation in the program would be optional for faculty, and any courses developed or enhanced would be reviewed for approval by the administrative boards of the college. Initial support for these efforts had been committed in the form of a million-dollar seed fund from a private donor. However, neither the donor nor the source of this commitment was known.

Discussion of this initiative arrived on the Faculty Council agenda in an unusual way.  Professor Jay Smith of the history department had been following the development of this proposal and had serious questions about its origins and larger implications for the academic integrity of the university. In spite of the fact that the College of Arts and Sciences had given tentative agreement to move the proposal ahead, Smith developed a resolution to delay the implementation of the proposal, submitted his resolution to the Faculty Council Agenda Committee, as appropriate under the Code of Faculty Governance, and the Agenda Committee put the resolution on the September agenda, not anticipating much debate.

Concern:

Smith was following up on an op-ed published in the News & Observer, which contained 85 faculty endorsements. Smith and others had concerns about a lack of transparency surrounding the development of the program. Professor Smith submitted a public-records request that produced 236 pages of documents and emails exchanged among the proposed program’s faculty advisory board, an external advisory board and administrators.  According to Smith, these documents revealed that most of the proposed programming was about addressing an “impoverished” curriculum that lacked viewpoint diversity.  Smith noted that the curriculum is not based on nurturing or cultivating viewpoints. He noted the presence of Robert George and Paul Carrese on the external advisory board, and he argued that the Program for Public Discourse would be perpetuating a pattern whereby the rich conservative activists use their wealth to establish a foothold on American campuses,  He also raised questions whether various accrediting bodies would find either the program or the process of its implementation appropriate.

The proposers of the program responded to Smith’s resolution, pointing out that similar programs have been implemented at other universities without controversy.  At that point Secretary of the Faculty Vin Steponaitis opened the meeting for discussion of Professor Smith’s resolution.  A lively, animated discussion continued until the end of the meeting, and a resolution was finally passed to delay further discussion and action on Smith’s resolution until the October  meeting.

Oct. 11, 2019, meeting:

After preliminary remarks by the chair of the Faculty Council, the presentation of the Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prizes for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and a brief presentation of the  University’s new strategic plan,  the meeting continued with discussion of the proposed Program on Public Discourse and  Smith’s resolution to delay  further work on this proposal.  The secretary of the faculty resolved that Smith’s resolution be disposed of by the end of the meeting. The continuing robust discussion that followed suggested a strong sentiment that further delay would be necessary before some of Smith’s concerns could be adequately explored.

I reported the informal conversations I had with retired faculty members:  Advisory committees become less advisory when money is behind the advice; the proposed program represents a slippery slope; current faculty have responsibility for doing what they see is the right course to preserve and enhance the integrity of the university.

In the course of the discussion, a council member referred to an ongoing study by the administration and the council dealing with student concerns for free speech on the campus.  This study should be completed by the end of the year and reported out to the Faculty Council

Secretary of the Faculty Steponaitis asserted his privilege to call for a vote on the original Smith resolution that had remained before the Council since the September meeting.  The resolution failed by a wide margin, meaning that in effect the proposed program would continue to be developed.  In retrospect, judging from the discussion of the merits of the Program on Public Discourse, I am not sure that the voting members were aware that by defeating the resolution they were approving the project, rather than the other way around.

The meeting was adjourned.

____________________________________________

* Note:  In 2011 (Resolution 2011-1) the Faculty Council amended Faculty Code of University Governance to   expand the council to include a Division of Retired Faculty,  with authority to elect two retired faculty  delegates as voting members of the Council.  Faculty are eligible for election to this division only if they  satisfy the requirements for voting in that division, as stipulated in § 2-4(d) of the Code of Faculty Governance.  Andrew Dobelstein and Dona Falvo are the present representatives of the retired faculty to the Faculty Council.