BY MICHAEL C. BEHRENT
On Thursday, April 28, members of local AAUP chapters held a press conference at which they presented the report by the AAUP’s Special Committee on Governance, Academic Freedom, and Institutional Racism in the University of North Carolina system, which was released that morning. The report shows how in the seventeen-campus University of North Carolina system, political interference is the common denominator of the erosion of shared governance and academic freedom and the persistence of systemic racism over the past decade.
But, as the faculty who spoke on Thursday made clear, something else was at stake in the report: reclaiming a faculty narrative about the university’s purpose. In North Carolina, the voices that have dominated discussions about public higher education in recent years have rarely been those of faculty. Politicians have denounced the university system as being too ideological and too expensive. Lobbyists have secured seats on the governing boards. Administrators subordinated to governing boards have talked about enrollment as if universities were little more than glorified hotels.
The AAUP report reminds us of a key fact: universities depend on professors as professionals. The AAUP has always argued that higher education succeeds only when professors are treated as professionals. When professors are reduced to mere “hired hands,” when they have no role in ensuring their institution’s academic integrity, when they lack academic freedom, and when they are subject to political retaliation, it is not just professors who suffer—universities are harmed as well. One of the most striking points of the recent report is that systemic racism in the UNC system was exacerbated by the way in which political actors—with the supine acquiescence of administrators—have relentlessly undermined shared governance.
This point was made in various ways by the faculty who spoke on Thursday. Nicole Peterson, an anthropology professor at UNC–Charlotte, where she is also the AAUP chapter president, stated, “I came to the UNC system in 2010 because I believed that it was one of the best systems in the US, if not the world, for teaching and research.” She came to realize, however, that “we are not quite reaching our potential, and this new report backs up that feeling with evidence. It shows that our reputation, and our state’s reputation, is suffering.”
Peterson emphasized how systemic racism was tied to the undermining of shared governance: “The report clearly shows that issues around faculty governance, academic freedom, and racism are not isolated issues.” She added,
For example, the board of governors [which runs the UNC system] ignored faculty governance and communication procedures to make a backroom deal about the Silent Sam statue; after decades of having to walk past a reminder of a long history of racism, faculty and students were distraught by the resources the board used to support its new home. The report documents a similar board overreach as well as political interference in the Nikole Hannah-Jones hiring and tenure case. Despite being overqualified, Hannah-Jones was opposed by a board that responded politically to the topic of her research around racism. Both of these examples stunned faculty in their reversal of long-standing expectations around faculty governance and allowed racism a stronger foothold in our public university system.
Michael Palm, a communications professor and AAUP chapter president at UNC–Chapel Hill , described how his years at this institution coincided with what the report calls a “new era . . . of political interference,” when faculty rights and shared governance began to be systematically disregarded.
I was here when the BOG [board of governors] decided to close the Center for Poverty, Work, and Opportunity, despite its unwavering support from and faculty in the law school and across campus. I was here when the Chancellor tried to stop one of my colleagues from teaching a class about college sports, for no other reason than it made UNC look bad. I was here when the BoG refused to reappoint a law professor to the board of UNC Press, for no other reason than he had made public comments that were critical of UNC. I was here when UNC administrators barreled ahead with a reckless plan to reopen campus during the pandemic, ignoring recommendations from the Orange County Health Department and then lying about it …And, I was here when UNC-Chapel Hill’s BoT refused to grant tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones.
Finally, Victoria Ekstrand, a journalism professor and First Amendment scholar at UNC–Chapel Hill, observed that, as the report demonstrates, political interference and poor governance have obstructed the “marketplace of ideas” and “a university that serves democracy.” Pursuing this theme, Ekstrand continued:
What happened to our school last year, however, shut down or at best, seriously delayed that open marketplace and that productive debate. It began when administrators delayed discussion of my colleagues’ decision to recommend tenure for Nikole Hannah-Jones. It began when administrators decided to read the emails of my colleagues using constitutionally questionable polices to do so. It began when journalists who sought the truth were delayed from seeing public records. It began when administrators were afraid to talk to me and my colleagues about what the truth was regarding Nikole Hannah Jones’ case. It began when administrators failed to renew my colleague Eric Muller’s position at UNC Press because of his candor about what ails our campus. It began when we failed to recognize or to fully understand the guardrails that protect academic freedom and the First Amendment on campus.
People talk a lot about feeling silenced these days. They talk a lot about cancel culture. But what we all need is more time talking about the chilling effects in our speech environments and how those chilling effects have eroded trust – the trust we need to run an institution accountable to the citizens of this state.
The report on the UNC system and the AAUP press conference both made it clear that uprooting systemic racism and protecting academic freedom depend on robust shared governance. If the university is nothing more than a venue in which partisan forces can pursue their narrow interests, the academic profession is undermined; without it, the mission of higher education declines.
It is striking that the initial reaction from administrators and politicians in North Carolina completely missed this point. They defended the UNC system’s high level of enrollment—as if this were the report’s theme. What they fail to see is that, by effectively endorsing the deprofessionalization of the professoriat, they are undermining the UNC system and making it an unattractive place for professors to work. One hopes that, as the report is read and attracts attention, UNC administrators will offer a more constructive reaction to the critical issues the report raises.
Michael C. Behrent is professor of history at Appalachian State University and president of the North Carolina AAUP conference.
