Opinion: UNC should respond to activism with public action

The spray-painting of Silent Sam for the second time in three months is not the beginning of a discussion; it is the outcome of one.

Concerned students have expressed their grave concerns with institutional racism at UNC for many years, noticeably last semester in attempts to rename Saunders Hall, contextualize Silent Sam and question the review of centers and institutions by the Board of Governors.

Carolina Conversations was created to facilitate conversations around these and other topics, but it moves them to the University’s terms. There is no doubt that creating conversations is important, but the administration has continually touted this program while keeping actual reforms close to the chest.

As the administration works toward responding to the concerns of students, their primary goal should not be to create a conversation but to instead listen to the one already naturally occurring and take concrete action toward change.

Moreover, if these changes are already being made, they should be shared as publicly as Carolina Conversations.

We cannot easily identify where Chancellor Carol Folt stands on these issues and what she is actively doing to solve them. Leadership on these problems requires more than negotiating deals behind closed doors.

More than the statue is being protested when discussing Silent Sam.

Almost 50 percent of minority male freshmen graduate from UNC, according to a study in 2010. Tuition is increasing steadily, making socio-economic diversity less possible. Students were told to direct their comments about the cuts to centers to then-Student Body President Andrew Powell instead of attending a Board of Governors meeting themselves.

Programs have occurred, and perhaps progress was made, but why not email the students about those developments after Silent Sam is spray-painted?

It would be refreshing for Chancellor Folt and other leaders to speak on how they plan to bring change to the entire system, not just create more bureaucratic channels to discuss it.

For example, in response to a broad range of grievances from students, administrators have continually taken some action, but those small changes have been coupled with backhanded actions that could quell the conversation that created them.

And in the renaming of Saunders Hall, students were given a more contextualized history but also the hackneyed name of Carolina Hall, a 16-year moratorium on the renaming of buildings, and “Hurston Hall” signs torn down by police.

We are not saying the University is not working on these problems, but their primary solutions should not be bureaucratic.

Carolina Conversations was the attempt to join the conversation. But if the administration wants to do so, leaders must give students their real opinions and plans publicly. Without an honest attempt to change the problems created by structural racism at UNC, Carolina Conversations maintains the status quo.

It is akin to the now golden plaques on Silent Sam, shining anew in their hypocrisy after the washing away of the spray paint. Without leaders saying how they plan to actually change policies, it is hard not to see them as those that cleaned the monument. Trying to clean up a mess but only making the plaque more golden.