Editorial: UNC Board's ideological bias exposed in courting Princeton's conservative center

Friday, Dec. 29, 2017 -- While it is the responsibility of the UNC Board of Governors to oversee operations of the various public university campuses, we question whether that spills over to imposing centers, institutes or courses of instruction with a specific ideological, versus educational, agenda. It is of questionable wisdom, not to mention fairness, for the board to complain of ideological bias and close some campus-based centers while at the same time actively courting another, clearly ideological center.

Posted 10:00 a.m. Dec 29, 2017 — Updated 10:00 a.m. Dec 29, 2017

CBC Editorial: Friday, Dec. 29, 2017; Editorial # 8253

The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company

While the University of North Carolina Board of Governors has spent a good bit of the last couple of years closing various institutes and centers on campuses around the state, it now seems to have become enamored with one at Princeton University.

Robert George is director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions – the center some key UNC board members are looking to replicate, most likely on the Chapel Hill campus. A delegation from the UNC system visited the program at Princeton – including; UNC President Margaret Spellings; UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt and board member and prominent GOP lobbyist Tom Fetzer.

The New York Times says George is “this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.” In 2009 he drafted the “Manhattan Declaration: A call of Christian Conscience,” a manifesto that called for resistance, even civil disobedience, against any legislation “that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.”

There’s little to disagree with in the sentiment George, a law professor, shared when he met earlier this month with the board. “The way education should proceed is by presenting and engaging with the very best that has been thought and said on competing sides of questions.”

Fetzer praises George for fostering an atmosphere that allows differing views to coexist and promoting civil discussion.

That Professor George may have passionate views certainly doesn’t mean he would seek to obscure those from a differing perspective. In fact he actively supports access to a broad spectrum of points of view.

We’re not as sure that openness for debate is shared by the audience for George’s remarks – a UNC board significantly populated with members who are former legislators, lobbyists or those with business connections with legislators such as Robert Rucho of Mecklenburg County. Rucho was the outspoken state senator who pushed tax changes as well as controversial, hyper-partisan legislative and congressional redistricting efforts.

This is a board that has, in a reflexive and unwise manner, closed down a variety of “centers” on several university campuses because it considered their activities inappropriately political or ideological. The recently closed Center for Civil Rights at the UNC School of Law is the most well-known example. These are decisions best and appropriately left to the local campuses, but usurped by the board.

Now the board seems to be getting in the business of promoting a center, that like the one in Princeton seeks to promote what would generally be considered a conservative ideology.

While it is the responsibility of the UNC Board of Governors to oversee operations of the various public university campuses, we question whether that spills over to imposing centers, institutes or courses of instruction with a specific ideological, versus educational, agenda. Princeton is a private university, the James Madison Program is privately funded.

It is of questionable wisdom, not to mention fairness, for the UNC Board to complain of ideological bias and close some campus-based centers while at the same time actively courting another, clearly ideological center. Does anybody on the board worry about this inconsistency?

It is particularly troubling to consider that such a center might be publicly funded or carry the endorsement of the state. As it is imagined now, it is not the place to spend the taxpayers, tuition or student-fee dollars.

This board is acting with the kind of fiat that we’re used to seeing from the General Assembly. Sure, the board has the power and authority. But there should be a sincere effort to demonstrate a need, and desire to build support – in this case from a campus, its students, faculty and administrators.

Should a private donor or donors wish to establish such a center on a campus, there already is appropriate criteria to review such offers, and see if they fit with a campus’ mission.

The role of the UNC board is clear: Provide leadership and support for the ambitious long-term plan for the system. The micromanaging and political grandstanding needs to stop now. There is much to do.

Suggest A Correction