Tweet
Seems DeSantis' nuttery is heading north. From The Daily Tarheel,
When UNC law professor Eric Muller first read the editorial headline, he said his eyes fell out of his head.
On Jan. 26, the Faculty Executive Committee member was in a Zoom meeting when he saw a screenshot of a Wall Street Journal editorial titled “UNC Takes on the University Echo Chamber.”
“I thought: how on Earth? How on Earth could the Wall Street Journal know this,” Muller said.
The UNC Board of Trustees passed a resolution on Thursday to “accelerate” the creation of a new program — the School of Civic Life and Leadership.
Provost Chris Clemens said at a Monday Faculty Executive Committee meeting that he didn't know the resolution was coming from the Board — "I was surprised," he said.
Proposals for new schools, degrees and curriculums have historically come from faculty leaders and their vote is required for approval.
Muller said no member of the faculty knew of this “major development.”
'Flabbergasted'
According the resolution, the trustees' requested to accelerate the development of the School for Civic Life and Leadership with the goal of promoting democracy and benefitting society.
“The board doesn’t have any ability to propose a class, to propose a degree, or — for God’s sake — to propose a school,” Holden Thorp, who served as UNC’s chancellor from 2008 to 2013, said.
He said the BOT’s resolution is an example of the “worst governance” he thinks he’s ever seen.
Mimi Chapman, chairperson of faculty, said she was “flabbergasted” in response to the exclusion of faculty input in the decision, which she said she considers to be an attack on shared University governance.
.
.
.
'Shared governance'
Chapman said the faculty had no involvement in the creation of the resolution. She said she received no notice of the potential School before seeing the Wall Street Journal editorial.
“And of course, a key principle of shared governance is that the faculty is in charge of the curriculum,” she said.
According to the campus-wide email, any proposed degree program or school will be developed and led by members of the faculty. Chapman said omitting faculty from decision-making would infuriate them.
Vann also said she had no previous knowledge of the resolution before it was voted on in open-session Thursday. She abstained from the vote.
“It’s not a question of democracy, but rather one of shared governance,” Vann said. “And it is not shared governance if you do not include faculty voices, and you do not include student voices.”
She said that any decision that does not involve all stakeholders in its development is not in the best interest of the student body. Power structures are not working in the ways they are supposed to if everyone isn't part of the conversation, she said.
'Dismissed and devalued'
Chapman said the lack of communication regarding the resolution will make faculty feel “dismissed and devalued” at a time when faculty retention is already low.
Muller said the resolution process was disrespectful of the faculty and noted the faculty deserved consultation on the merits of the proposal before the resolution passed.
Thorp said that the BOT’s development of the resolution is ironic considering trustees want UNC to excel in national rankings, yet they “alienate” the faculty allowing the University to succeed.
“It’s further erosion of trust between the faculty and the administration,” Thorp said.
.
.
.
In a tweet following the meeting, Thorp said it was significant that administrators were "surprised" by the resolution.
"No functional board would do this," he wrote. "Dark, dark times in Chapel Hill."
When UNC law professor Eric Muller first read the editorial headline, he said his eyes fell out of his head.
On Jan. 26, the Faculty Executive Committee member was in a Zoom meeting when he saw a screenshot of a Wall Street Journal editorial titled “UNC Takes on the University Echo Chamber.”
“I thought: how on Earth? How on Earth could the Wall Street Journal know this,” Muller said.
The UNC Board of Trustees passed a resolution on Thursday to “accelerate” the creation of a new program — the School of Civic Life and Leadership.
Provost Chris Clemens said at a Monday Faculty Executive Committee meeting that he didn't know the resolution was coming from the Board — "I was surprised," he said.
Proposals for new schools, degrees and curriculums have historically come from faculty leaders and their vote is required for approval.
Muller said no member of the faculty knew of this “major development.”
'Flabbergasted'
According the resolution, the trustees' requested to accelerate the development of the School for Civic Life and Leadership with the goal of promoting democracy and benefitting society.
“The board doesn’t have any ability to propose a class, to propose a degree, or — for God’s sake — to propose a school,” Holden Thorp, who served as UNC’s chancellor from 2008 to 2013, said.
He said the BOT’s resolution is an example of the “worst governance” he thinks he’s ever seen.
Mimi Chapman, chairperson of faculty, said she was “flabbergasted” in response to the exclusion of faculty input in the decision, which she said she considers to be an attack on shared University governance.
.
.
.
'Shared governance'
Chapman said the faculty had no involvement in the creation of the resolution. She said she received no notice of the potential School before seeing the Wall Street Journal editorial.
“And of course, a key principle of shared governance is that the faculty is in charge of the curriculum,” she said.
According to the campus-wide email, any proposed degree program or school will be developed and led by members of the faculty. Chapman said omitting faculty from decision-making would infuriate them.
Vann also said she had no previous knowledge of the resolution before it was voted on in open-session Thursday. She abstained from the vote.
“It’s not a question of democracy, but rather one of shared governance,” Vann said. “And it is not shared governance if you do not include faculty voices, and you do not include student voices.”
She said that any decision that does not involve all stakeholders in its development is not in the best interest of the student body. Power structures are not working in the ways they are supposed to if everyone isn't part of the conversation, she said.
'Dismissed and devalued'
Chapman said the lack of communication regarding the resolution will make faculty feel “dismissed and devalued” at a time when faculty retention is already low.
Muller said the resolution process was disrespectful of the faculty and noted the faculty deserved consultation on the merits of the proposal before the resolution passed.
Thorp said that the BOT’s development of the resolution is ironic considering trustees want UNC to excel in national rankings, yet they “alienate” the faculty allowing the University to succeed.
“It’s further erosion of trust between the faculty and the administration,” Thorp said.
.
.
.
In a tweet following the meeting, Thorp said it was significant that administrators were "surprised" by the resolution.
"No functional board would do this," he wrote. "Dark, dark times in Chapel Hill."
Comment