By James Moeser, Chancellor Emeritus, UNC Chapel Hill
I came to North Carolina in 2000 to be the ninth chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Unlike most of my predecessors, I was not a Tar Heel born. Susan and I are adopted Tar Heels.
What drew us to Carolina in the first place was the great national reputation of the university, the first public university in America, and unquestionably one of the truly great public research universities in America. Once here, what truly amazed us was a unique campus climate, something we had never seen in other universities in other states. It was a climate of excellence in research and teaching combined with a robust commitment to public service. Our most distinguished faculty were (and still are) engaged on campus in faculty governance, and their infectious commitment to public service was transmitted directly to our students.
When I left the Chancellor’s office in 2008, I said that I was assuming the most exalted title that the university could confer on anyone – professor. I teach a first-year seminar in the Department of Music, and I have an office in the Institute for Arts and Humanities, a place where I get to work with faculty from all across the university. This is a great listening post to hear what the faculty are thinking and saying.
I am very concerned about what I am hearing from my faculty colleagues right now. They are dispirited, discouraged, and very concerned about the future of the university. They are still as committed to public service as ever, they still take great pride in their teaching and research (and the numbers for research productivity bear this out – the university is stronger than ever). All of that remains unchanged, if not even more impressive, today.
What has changed, however, and changed dramatically is the faculty’s confidence in the future of the University of North Carolina. What accounts for this rather sudden pessimism? One might assume that it is all about the economy – the meager salary increases and budget cuts year after year for the last five years. Across the university system, we’ve seen that 76 percent of faculty members who received and reported offers from other institutions over the last two years accepted them and left.
But we have seen hard financial times before, and I can tell you that what I am hearing now goes beyond a concern about budgets and salaries. Our best faculty love this university with an amazing intensity. Indeed, the concern I am hearing arises from the deep loyalty and affection that faculty have for the university. They are concerned about the university itself, concerned that its core values of academic freedom, the freedom to follow the truth wherever it leads one without fear of censorship or review from higher authorities, may be in question and under attack. It is the fear that politics and political agendas have begun to play a role in decisions about the university.
I was particularly struck by a letter to the editor in the Sunday, Feb. 22 issue of the Raleigh News & Observer, from Professor Joseph Ferrell, the longtime secretary to the faculty council. This was his letter:
“Regarding the Feb. 20 Point of View ‘ A betrayal of past, promise’: It is a sad commentary on the current intellectual climate when the dean of Carolina’s law school feels obligated to say that he does not speak for UNC when he passionately and eloquently defends the right of inquiry that lies at the very foundation of the university.
“I am confident that he speaks for the vast majority of our faculty, staff and students in upholding that right.”
Joe Ferrell was referring to an eloquent piece written by Jack Boger, dean of the UNC School of Law, in which he drew upon UNC’s great history of advocacy and free speech, one of the noblest legacies in all of American higher education.
My point here is not to re-litigate the closing of the Poverty Center at UNC Chapel Hill, the Center for Biodiversity at East Carolina University, or the Institute for Civic Engagement and Social Change at N.C. Central University; or the abrupt dismissal without explanation of President Tom Ross. Rather, it is to focus on the collateral damage to the university from these actions and from statements from people in high places that suggest a lack of support for academic freedom, a lack of understanding of the real purpose of a public university.
I saw this last year in Winston-Salem, where in my role as the interim chancellor of the UNC School of the Arts, I interviewed the finalists for the chancellor’s position. To a person, each candidate asked me something like this: “I’ve been reading a lot about what is going on politically in this state regarding the university system. Is this a good time for me to be thinking about moving to a position in North Carolina?”
I did my best to convince them that they should come. I told them that this is a state full of wonderful, decent people with good values. I told them that the UNC system was held in universally high regard across the state.
Joe Ferrell speaks of the “right of inquiry that lies at the very foundation of the university.” That is the right to speak truth to power, to question the assumptions and the motives of those in power, and yes, to advocate for action and change. It is that tradition that has made Carolina one of America’s truly great universities. It was, indeed, the pioneering work of people like Howard Odom and Frank Porter Graham, viewing the racism and poverty of the South through the critical lens of scholarship, that allowed North Carolina to surpass all other Southern states. It was the courage to do that work, often unpopular at the time, that led North Carolinians to love UNC.
Charles Kuralt famously asked the question, “What binds us to this place as to no other? It is not the well, or the bell, or the stone walls, or the crisp October nights and the memory of dogwoods blooming. . . . No, our love for this place is based on the fact that it is, as it was meant to be, the University of the People.”
Now, I believe, it is time for the people to come to the aid of their university, so that it may continue as a place of free expression and free inquiry, with a positive climate in which great faculty and students can thrive for the benefit of all North Carolinians.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Contact information can be found here for the University of North Carolina Board of Governors and here for the N.C. General Assembly.
Brian Grant says
Thanks for your comments Professor Moeser. I share your concerns for the future, and have written my representatives in the General Assembly on this repeatedly. I wish there was more I could do. I think the UNC system is fantastic and something every North Carolinian should be proud to support.
Barbara says
What will be next? The English Department – where authors like Charles Dickens portray the poor? Or Marine Science because it warns about climate change? Or Political Science because they mention politics?
The BOG doesn’t need a reason, apparently,
for beheading the university system.
Steve Hutton says
Is this the same James Moeser who censored an article written for the University Gazette on collective bargaining by a grad student? Is this the same James Moeser who asked General Counsel to develop a legal strategy for censoring the article? Who persisted defiantly even when the Employee Forum consulted the ACLU? Who resigned and left it to Holden Thorp to negotiate a resolution? Maybe that’s why “staff” doesn’t appear in the last sentence.
Gary Harper says
There will always be dissent within a system when its members attack each other. If matters cannot be handled internally and privately within the system then the system needs to be fixed. When I see members of the university speaking out publicly about what is wrong with it I feel ashamed. Especially, when those members later move on and accept huge settlements while those left behind have to suffer with the damage control. It’s simply shameful.
Ben Howell says
Very confusing piece of writing and vague. Just because you’re in a “great listening ‘post” and there have been mangement decisions to close certain advocacy political centers sounds liken that’s got him upset. Carolina has long been way too liberal for my liking but “censorship”? Doubtful! Politics will always play a part in management. The only glitter that will dull will come from casting the university into the public eye and causing perceptions of the public to change. That’s what the faculty is upset about. It’s that hard to define thing called pride due to the African studies dept debacle. Don’t know why there is even such a department – oops, censorship, guess that shouldn’t be said.
Matt Friedman says
I am not from, North Carolina, but I am proud to have attended the University (MRP ’83). I have been saddened and bewildered so much in the past couple of years by the bogus classes and athletic scandals. When I was at Carolina those were problems other schools had. Yet, despite the sadness I have always seen not just a glimmer, but a ray of hope. I have always believed that at its core the university would find a way to redirect its course and root out its problems. Now I see that even greater threats come from the outside. The stifling of the expression of ideas hurts the university, the state and the nation. This is not to say that all ideas are correct and that even the finest of scholars are free from error, but the suppression of thought is beyond chilling. The University has always been the grandest institution in the state. I urge the state’s elected leaders to let the University shine again and remove the heavy veil of fear.
Anna Morosoff says
Dr. Moeser,
There is certainly great concern. Please, tell us also HOW can we help. Donating money? Not a good idea in my opinion. Voting powerful people out office? We can try. I am afraid our beloved University is going very much the way the rest of the Country is. This makes it no longer a free institution of higher learning and research, but a tool in the hands of our corporate owners.