No reason to stop giving

Chancellor Holden Thorp’s decision to fire Butch Davis as head football coach was polarizing to say the least. Much of the anger was directed at Thorp, whom many fans used as a scapegoat for the football team’s woes.

By now, most of this unwarranted frustration has subsided. A small but vocal group of donors, however, cannot seem to let their misplaced gripes go, and they have suspended their giving to the University until Thorp resigns.

Some of these donors claim to be distinct from the group of disgruntled donors who raised a ruckus immediately after Davis was dismissed, saying their qualms with Thorp are not rooted in his decision to fire the coach. Instead, they claim to have larger concerns with the way Thorp handled the football scandal.

Yet they’ve failed to articulate specific complaints about Thorp’s actions, leaving us with the sense that they are of the same ilk as those who paid to fly “Fire Holden Thorp” banners over multiple football games after Davis was let go.

These donors’ antics are destructive. None of those with whom we corresponded offered feasible, constructive criticism. Though they had many vague complaints, they offered little in the way of what they thought Thorp should have done.

One donor provided anecdotal accounts of Thorp’s unpopularity among sports fans as reason for his dismissal, an argument that is circular at best.

Another cited the current “hardship” the University is facing as his reason for withdrawing his donations. For those who truly care about doing their part to contribute to the betterment of the University, this argument holds very little water.

Others claimed not to take issue with Davis’ dismissal but rather with the way Thorp went about it. Again, their arguments were made in broad strokes, invoking phrases like “people skills” and “character” but failing to say exactly what Thorp did wrong.

The worst were those who cited the public relations debacle that followed the scandal as their reason for disliking Thorp.

Let’s be clear: the people who committed the violations were the source of the embarrassment the University suffered — not Thorp, whose job is to address allegations in a transparent and honest manner.

Those who object to Thorp airing our dirty laundry should look to the source of the football team’s problems before chastising him for addressing them honestly.

The job of chancellor is not to cover up the University’s problems. His job is to fix them, and Thorp made an important step toward that goal by firing Davis.

Of course, there are some who don’t deny that Davis’ firing is and was the cause for their decision to cease contribution.

Not only did Thorp have cause to dismiss Davis, he probably should have done so sooner. As the scandal unfolded, it became clear that Davis was, at best, out to lunch and at worst downright negligent.

One donor explained his decision as follows: “If you want to get someone’s attention, you hit them in the budget.” To be sure, he and others have made a statement.

But since those who said the football situation would affect their giving represent only 0.23 percent of UNC’s prospective alumni and donor base, it’s unlikely they’ll impact university policy.

And the students whose scholarships depend on these donations will surely feel the loss. These donors are doing maximum harm with minimum impact.