RALEIGH (February 17, 2023) – More than half of North Carolina’s 100 counties have lost population since 2010. Those who live in fast growing metropolitan areas like Raleigh, Charlotte, or Wilmington seldom grasp the poverty and lack of opportunity that exist just a few miles from their homes.

Yet, instead of boldly focusing on these and other difficulties facing our nation, our public American universities, with their fabulous resources and their ability to help us comprehend society’s challenges, find themselves distracted by a hopeless affray with legislatures and their university board members over the indoctrination of students by “radical” professors and by diversity initiatives. In North Carolina we have additional diversions over the appointment of university board members and the moving of the university headquarters (at a cost of millions of dollars) closer to politicians intent on controlling it.

Little is new here. As Harry Truman observed, the only new thing in the world is the history you don’t know. 

Loyalty oaths and board policies

In 1949, the Loyalty Oath controversy began when University of California president Robert Sproul (rhymes with jowl) proposed that faculty sign an oath avowing they were not communists. Sproul, an affable extrovert with extraordinary administrative talent, had transformed the Bears of U Cal into the best public campus in America, with a professoriate festooned with Nobel Prize winners and National Academy members. President Sproul was reacting to largely unfounded political concerns during the Joe McCarthy days about communists in government. The newspapers of William Randolph Hearst constantly raised the specter of communist influence on California campuses.

Despite his supposed political shrewdness, Sproul mandated that professors affirm their patriotism by signing the oath. The Berkeley faculty rebelled against a perceived assault on their academic freedom. By the signing deadline, only half of the professors had complied. Scores of faculty members organized to oppose the dictate, among them some of the world’s best scientists and scholars, including psychologist Erik Erikson and physicist David Saxon, who 25 years later would become president of the university. What ensued was a bitter, five-year conflict that ended when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the non-signers, declaring the oath requirement to be unconstitutional. The University eventually settled and reinstated the non-signers.

Today the concern is that diversity, equity, and inclusion issues (DEI) have become sociopolitical barometers for faculty employment and student enrollment. The current issue is like California’s Loyalty Oath controversy in that they both limit, or may limit, academic freedom. The Loyalty Oath issue originated from conservatives outside the university, while the DEI initiatives have been largely propelled by liberal individuals within the universities themselves.

Some states are trying to legislate DEI offices out of existence, if that’s actually possible. Several states are also attempting to create separate colleges or schools within universities where conservative views will presumably be heard and respected, even as these new organizations add to already crushing administrative bureaucracies that have little to do with the university’s principal purposes of teaching and research. 

Solutions in search of problems

What problems are these solutions trying to solve? It’s not entirely clear whether conservatives on university boards and in legislatures a) believe professors are indoctrinating students or b) are infuriated by what the professors are saying and doing or c) are trying to achieve more balance in political discourse by creating campus counterweights to the liberal faculties and staffs. Maybe it’s all three.

On the first point above, there is little or no research evidence that such indoctrination occurs. This finding is widely dismissed by many convinced otherwise. Disregarding these results may reflect what psychologists call confirmation bias, an inclination to interpret or recall information in a way that supports prior beliefs. In any event, research consistently indicates that liberal students may become slightly more liberal as they progress through college and that conservative students remain conservative. Party affiliation of professors (most professors tend to be Democrats) or their broader political views have remarkably little overall impact on students. Peer influence and family values seem much more relevant to student views and attitudes.

However, studies also confirm that some students will self-censor in class discussions that deal with sensitive topics. This is true whether the student is conservative or not and may simply reflect a desire to avoid uncivil or uncomfortable conversations. Students who are reluctant to speak out nonetheless overwhelmingly agree that their professors encourage a variety of viewpoints and participation in discussions.

The second and third points above are obviously true. Regarding the third point–the establishment of centers by board members to counter the “radical” professors and promote balanced conversations—such solutions seem both wasteful and not likely to accomplish their goals. New courses and curricula face an uphill struggle when they come from outside the academy, for good and powerful reasons. Very few academic initiatives that come from outside the institution will thrive without three components: strong faculty support, adequate funding, and clear student and market demand.    

The UNC-Chapel Hill proposal by its local campus Board of Trustees to create a new entity–a School of Civic Life and Leadership–faces multiple challenges. Its principal hurdle is the fact that the local board proposing this school is largely ceremonial. Its limited powers and duties are delegated to it by UNC’s system-wide governing Board of Governors, which has the statutory authority over budgets and personnel. The local board neither hires nor fires its chancellor. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial misses this point though it makes other good ones; the overall system’s Board of Governors and, ultimately, the legislature call the shots. And any threats by an accrediting agency concerned with minimal standards that don’t apply to the premier American universities and that has inappropriately insinuated itself in this debate are irrelevant. The local trustees at Carolina may not have the authority to start a new school, but they have every right to propose whatever they want. That said, the local board has not done the Chapel Hill chancellor any favors and they have further antagonized a superb Carolina faculty. 

These are distractions. Here’s the real problem: A nebulously defined conservative school, sponsored by a rotating lay board, with untenured teaching or adjunct professors residing at the bottom of the professorial pyramid and providing instruction in no discernible majors or disciplines, with uncertain job prospects for any graduates, and with anemic mainstream faculty support, could possibly be successful and could outlast the board members who promote it. But that’s not the way to bet. There must be better solutions. 

Clark Kerr’s wisdom seems eternally relevant: A board can be no better than its president, though it can be a good deal worse.

Universities and DEI, Part 2: What’s new? >>

Universities and DEI, Part 3: Draconian options and board duties >>

Banner images were generated by AI (DALL-E 2) with the instruction to “provide a Picasso-style painting of DEI.”

---

Dr. Art Padilla splits his time between his homes in Wrightsville Beach and Raleigh. He served as a senior administrator at the University of North Carolina headquarters and later at NC State, where he was chairman of the Department of Management. He has taught at UNC-Chapel Hill, NC State, and University of Arizona, winning several teaching awards and recognitions, including the Holladay Medal, the highest faculty honor at NC State. He recently completed the 2nd edition of his book Leadership: Leaders, Followers, Environments and is at work on his first novel for Penguin.