The Silent Sam settlement snafu

-

The conflicts over the Silent Sam settlement are all over the place, and this posting will have to be updated later on, but it is worth remembering a couple fundamental governance points about this issue.
First: while the Legislature and the BoG have lawful authority here, in this case both the cause of these difficulties and their resolution entail unlawful (and arguably unconstitutional) acts of failure on the part of the BoG. I will be brief.

        The initial failing is that the Board did not sue the legislature for remedy when the monuments legislation (NCGS 100) was enacted. The purpose of the enacting legislation for the University and the authority of the Board (NCGS 116) is to enable the realization of the 
education provisions of the NC Constitution (NC Constitution Article IX) and by legal precedent the equal protection provisions of the US Constitution (14th Amendment). By failing to remove the confederate monument the BoG followed NCGS 100 and did not protect the University as a a public good that conforms with both federal and state equal protection and equal opportunity requirements. That is: the BoG should have sued the legislature for relief from the monuments legislation so that the BoG could fulfill its constitutional duties. 

            Similarly, in its settlement with the Sons of Confederate Veterans regarding the disposition of the Confederate Monument, the BoG again violated its lawful duty to protect the integrity of NC public higher education as a public good that conforms with both federal and state equal protection and equal opportunity requirements. That is: by supporting the SCV and the preservation of Silent Sam, it tacitly endorses opposition to constitutional provisions for equal protection and opportunity. 

The second issue is that irrespective of the BoG's lawful authority, this settlement still entails a violation of several SACSCOC accreditation governance standards: 

            SACSCOC standard 4.3 requires "the institution to clearly outline the active control of these functions by other entities and how the multiple levels of governance relate to the governing board’s responsibilities pertaining to institutional mission, financial operations, and/or institutional policies." The prerogative authority (or authorities) that control the disposition of the Confederate Monument are not clearly enumerated, and the BoG's assertion of its lawful authority is then in violation of accreditation governance standards. 

            SACSCOC standard 4.2.b requires that "the administration and implementation of the general direction set by the board are carried out by the administration and faculty in order to prevent the board from undercutting the authority of the president and other members of the administration and faculty, thereby creating an unhealthy and unworkable governance structure." The BoG has not established any policy regarding the disposition of University property, and by its actions it has undercut the shared governance prerogatives of both system and campus administrators, and the UNCCH faculty.   

            Finally, SACSCOC standard 4.2.f requires that "the board protects and preserves the institution’s independence from outside pressures." Given the points above, and the extant evidence of the BoG's handling of the Silent Sam controversy, the BoG's failure on this requirement should be easy to enumerate. 

So: broken laws and broken accreditation requirements would be my focus. The advantage of these emphases is that there are clear and practicable remedies for the failures. Moral indignation might feel good, but shared governance means having workable plans to fix and prevent these kinds of problems. 

Popular posts from this blog

-
  The Right Changes for UNC Steven Bachenheimer and Stephen Leonard The UNC Strategic Planning process has always been an occasion to recommit ourselves to the ideals for which public higher education in North Carolina was established. Today, it appears to have become the occasion for implementing radical changes favored by a handful of individuals in the state legislature, on the UNC Board of Governors, and in various Washington and Raleigh think tanks. Against all evidence to the contrary, and against the long and venerable tradition that has made public higher education in North Carolina a model for the nation and the world, the changes being promoted suggest that the widely available, broadly accessible, and readily affordable system of higher education we have is an extravagance North Carolina does not need. For example, Board of Governors member Fred Eshelman, described by pundits at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy as “leading the charge” for radical chan...
Read more

Protecting autocratic snowflakes from freedom of speech

-
Image
UPDATE, 2 November 17: There have been several changes to the Board of Governors (BoG) proposed policy (which has now been approved in committee and forward to the full Board for a vote tomorrow). These incorporate some of the concerns raised by the Association of Student Governments, the UNC Staff Assembly, and the UNC Faculty Assembly. The legal staff at General Administration is likely to be responsible for rolling back some of the really bad language and ideas. While some of those changes have mitigated problematic features of the legislation and the Board's interventions in the management of campus affairs, several very troubling issues were made manifest during the BoG Governance Committee meeting, viz: -- Steve Long, the Chair of the Committee, openly conceded that the policy did little more than recapitulate existing legislation protecting freedom of speech. As noted below, laws to enforce laws are almost always an indication that something pernicious is at stake. ...
Read more

No good work goes unpunished

-
Image
NC has what is arguably the best system of public higher education in the country, yet (for the fifth year running) there wasn't a single NC public university on the Chronicle of Higher Education's 2015 " Great Colleges to Work For ." (Kudos to Wake Tech for making some of the earlier lists for 2 year institutions, but the absence of NCCC system schools in recent rankings only reinforces the concerns raised here). This of course stands in sharp contrast with the great work that NC staff and faculty have done to make many UNC schools among the most highly ranked institutions -- from a student's perspective. What drives this gap? As I have argued elsewhere in this blog, there is a sense in which the UNC system is (one of) the best in the country despite the problematic policies and laws of the NC legislature and the UNC Board of Governors. There is a sense in which UNC staff, faculty, and administrators have insulated the University from the destructive effec...
Read more