Trustees back administration plan for new faculty-approved curriculum

By Ramsey White 

Ramsey White is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a degree in Journalism and Mass Communication. White worked in the development departments at the Morehead-Cain Foundation and at the University of North Carolina. She is now an active volunteer focused specifically on children’s causes, both with her children’s schools and her community broadly. She has co-chaired the chief fundraising event at Landon School, Durham Academy and University Presbyterian Preschool, two times each in the last decade. Currently, she is an active volunteer at Landon School and Holton-Arms School in various roles.

This January the Board of Trustees urged the University administration to accelerate the creation of a new School of Civic Life and Leadership, endorsing a curriculum six years in the making in conjunction with faculty who previously approved the pro-democracy concept.

Unfortunately, numerous news media outlets and well-funded political organizations have mischaracterized the origins of the proposed school. As a proud graduate of the Hussman School of Journalism and Media, I am pleased to clarify the facts.

First things first: the trustees did not introduce the idea for the school. As University administrators explained during our January board meeting and at a subsequent meeting of the Faculty Council – both of which were public – the proposed new school is an outgrowth of the University’s Program for Public Discourse and its IDEAs in Action curriculum, arising from campus discussions dating back to 2017. In tandem with Carolina Next Strategic Initiative 5, “Promote Democracy,” their aims are to promote open, civil debate on campus and to equip students for success in our diverse nation and world. 

The Program for Public Discourse was presented to the faculty several years ago, after senior administrators and faculty explored similar programs elsewhere. The Faculty Council discussed the proposal twice, in September and October of 2019, and voted in favor of it both times.

The program is known for its speaker series, but it was always envisioned to include a curricular component to promote free and open democracy. The faculty discussed the concept, and how their teaching experiences might contribute to it, in three roundtables in the fall of 2019.

Learning from other models 

As the program here was taking shape, Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz and Provost Chris Clemens (then in other campus administrative roles), joined by then-Faculty Chair Leslie Parise and then-Provost Bob Blouin, visited Arizona State University to learn about a similar initiative there. The group also received a briefing on a kindred program at Princeton University.

The Covid-19 pandemic soon intervened, however, and the curriculum’s development was put on hold. Then last fall, Jim White, the University’s new Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, requested funds to finally move the full program forward as originally envisioned.

In November, the Board of Trustees attended an off-site gathering to discuss campus issues, including the University of North Carolina System’s 2022 study of Free Expression and Constructive Dialogue at public universities across the state, which had been presented at our July meeting. We discussed possibilities to help address the polarization the study found, as well as the initiatives previously researched at Arizona State University and Princeton University.

In December, University administrators prepared a draft $5 million state budget request for the long-awaited new school and an outline of its curricular program, including the hiring of faculty. They then shared their budget memo with trustees, since part of our role is to advocate for greater University funding by the state’s taxpayers.

More than a month later, our bipartisan board endorsed the concept without objection and urged the administration to work with the faculty to accelerate plans for the school. Although the endorsement resolution might have taken some by surprise, the school proposal did not.

Trustees’ legal authority 

UNC-CH belongs to all of North Carolina’s almost 11 million people, who represent a wide array of diversity of all kinds – including not just age, race, gender, and religion, but also philosophical perspective and political ideology. We trustees were appointed to represent them all.

Some have questioned the board’s authority to adopt its resolution endorsing the school. For those who might not be aware, here are the relevant laws and policies that govern the board:

• North Carolina’s Constitution directs the elected General Assembly to provide higher education to the state’s citizens.

• The elected legislature established a Board of Governors to supervise the statewide university system and empowered Boards of Trustees to oversee individual campuses, including ours in Chapel Hill.

• By law, campus trustees are to “serve as advisor[s] to the chancellor concerning the management and development of the institution.”

• The chancellor, in turn, “shall be responsible for carrying out policies of the Board of Governors and of the board of trustees.”

• The chancellor also is charged under the statute with recommending educational programs and personnel, again subject to BOG and BOT policies.

• At the campus level, trustees help shape and approve the University’s budget, pursuant to system BOG authority.

• Per the BOG’s Policy on Academic Program Planning, adopted in 2009 under former system President Erskine Bowles, the system administration, local campus administrators, and faculty are to work together to develop academic program planning and procedures that are “nimble, efficient, and responsive to … the needs of the people of North Carolina.” This is not the domain of the faculty alone, nor has it ever been.

• Under the same BOG policy, “a major consideration in the planning and evaluation of new degree program proposals [is] student demand for the program.” We know from recent surveys of UNC-CH students that many of them clamor for more and better opportunities to engage thoughtfully and respectfully with peers of wide-ranging perspectives and divergent opinions on the important issues of the day – a capacity that will serve them well as adult citizens in our diverse and complex world.

• Pursuant to SACSCOC Accreditation Principle 4.2.b., UNC-CH should “ensure a clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making function of the board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.”

This is exactly what we are doing: setting important University policy on behalf of the people of North Carolina. The upshot is our bipartisan UNC-CH Board of Trustees is exercising its duties and responsibilities in full compliance with the authority granted to it by longstanding state law and clear university system policy, consistent with its accreditation requirements. Claims to the contrary are incorrect.

Meanwhile, caustic criticisms of the six-year-old school proposal and its supporters, while accepted in the spirit of open intellectual inquiry, have misstated key facts and omitted others. This has been a regrettable disservice to our beloved University and its diverse student body.

Carolina Value: keeping tuition and fees as low as possible

By W. M. “Marty” Kotis III

Kotis is the CEO and owner of Kick Ass Concepts, a commercial real estate developer of properties in the Carolinas and the manager of multiple hospitality businesses. Kotis earned a B.S. degree in business from UNC-Chapel Hill’s Kenan-Flagler Business School in 1991 and an M.B.A. from UNC-Greensboro in 1995. Kotis also served on the University of North Carolina system’s Board of Governors.

North Carolina’s Constitution requires the state to provide the benefits of the university to the people of the state as free as practicable. At the same time, state leaders take pride in providing an education not only low in cost, but also high in quality. Our aim, therefore, is to provide a university education of great value.

To achieve this central goal at UNC Chapel Hill, our Board of Trustees is keeping in-state tuition flat for the sixth straight year. Tuition is higher for the one in five students from out of state whose families typically do not contribute to the state tax revenues supporting the university.

We have also kept fees low for all students, on the premise they should pay only for related costs and not generate revenue for other purposes. In fact, our student fees are the lowest in the state’s university system.

Our efficiency efforts not only ease the burden for students, they also help keep UNC-CH attractive at a time when the cost of a college education is spiraling upward, and as some universities’ enrollments are dropping. UNC-CH was one of only four universities in the UNC System, out of 16, to see enrollment increase in 2022.

For the 18th consecutive year, U.S. News & World Report recently ranked UNC-CH as the best value among America’s public universities, the nation’s fifth-best public university, and America’s 29th best university overall.

At the same time, we trustees have a duty to oversee the management of UNC-CH as a valuable long-term asset of North Carolina’s almost 11 million people, a job we take seriously. Signing the front of a paycheck gives one a keen appreciation for the need for cost controls. By design, many members of the board have business experience, which helps us manage costs actively and honor our fiduciary responsibility to the state.

We have eliminated a persistent $100 million budget deficit while navigating complex administrative practices. The knowledge that we are evaluating schools and departments helps each become more mindful about spending. Meanwhile, we are expediting long-overdue repairs and renovations. In other words, we’re overseeing the university as we would our own households.

Our volunteer board is engaged and committed to working hard, solving problems, and advancing the university’s core missions of teaching, research, and public service. This sometimes requires asking tough questions and turning down requests. That’s partly a matter of oversight and accountability on behalf of the people of North Carolina.

It’s also a matter of sustainability, as a lean and efficient operation attracts and maintains public support for our programs and initiatives. North Carolina taxpayers should feel confident that we’re spending their money wisely and effectively for the benefit of our growing state.

This approach is good for students, too. Thanks to our focus on low tuition and fees, combined with generous financial aid for students in need, 64% of our undergraduates leave Chapel Hill with no student debt. The 36% of graduates with student debt have about $10,000 less than the national average.

Carolina’s winning equation is: high quality + low cost = great value. At Chapel Hill, that’s the winning formula that we, as trustees, are proud to uphold.

University’s budget now prioritized for efficiency and accountability

By John P. Preyer

When Chairman David Boliek and I joined the Board of Trustees in 2019, we were astonished to learn during our orientation that the University had not one annual operating budget, but 18. Given our experience running businesses, we couldn’t imagine how a $4 billion enterprise could function effectively, much less efficiently, without unified budgeting.

Preyer, Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees (1990, Political Science), is the President of Restoration Systems, an environmental company specializing in wetland, stream, nutrient, and habitat mitigation, headquartered in Raleigh.

Without an all-funds budget, the University was divided into multiple academic fiefdoms operating largely independently, with schools and departments doing their own thing without sufficient regard for overall campus priorities.

Such an exceedingly decentralized approach made it difficult, if not impossible, for the Chancellor and other campus administrators to prioritize spending prudently, oversee it properly, and make adjustments when warranted.

It also created a nagging structural budget deficit that eventually ballooned to more than $100 million during the COVID-19 slowdown.

In short, we were spending money like it was magic cash, instead of finite, hard-earned contributions from the state and other donors, including half a billion dollars a year in citizens’ taxes. That’s no way to treat donors, big or small, and it’s not how we should run America’s first and best public university. We needed change.

More solid footing

With the approval of the UNC System’s Board of Governors, UNC-Chapel Hill’s trustees have fixed this.

With our new delegated budgeting authority – and the cooperation of the Chancellor and the University’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations – the Board of Trustees can now better set campus spending priorities, invest wisely and, if needed, cut strategically where necessary.

Our goal is to achieve better operating efficiency in how the University fulfills its mission to educate future leaders, conduct research, and serve the people of North Carolina.

This is a long-term game-changer for the University, and it shows how we’re implementing the Board of Governors’ financial objectives for all system schools while making UNC-Chapel Hill stronger.

Helpful business experience

Those of us with business backgrounds have relevant experience in hiring people, meeting payrolls, prioritizing capital expenditures, borrowing money, and adjusting operations to fit market demands. Anyone who has prioritized spending in their family budget knows that hard choices often must be made, or else you can quickly overspend your way into trouble.

Ensuring the financial health and efficient operation of the University provides more bang for the buck for the public and all our donors, and best serves the people of North Carolina.

A vibrant and efficient UNC-Chapel Hill is our obligation to everyone. As we begin preparing the University’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-2024, we’ll now be better able to adapt to the evolving needs of our great university and its students now and in the future.

Better planning. Greater efficiency. More flexibility. Stronger accountability.

To me and my fellow trustees of the University we love and serve, that’s real progress.