Opinion: UNC’s history task force must fulfill its potential

On Tuesday, students, staff and faculty opened their UNC email accounts and found a message from the co-chairpersons of UNC’s task force on campus history. This update was detailed, informative and useful. It gave campus readers insight into how the process is moving forward and invited interested people to participate.

It was an example of good administration.

But this task force has also presented large holes that need to be plugged.

So far, the members of the task force have not publicly announced their meetings as required by North Carolina open meetings law, which contains broad definitions of what comprises a public body and what an official meeting is.

The task force is composed of more than two members and has the power to exercise advisory functions. The task force thus seems to fall under the law’s definition.

This means any time a majority of the announced five members of the task force meet to discuss its business, it is considered an “official meeting.”

The message from the task force promised a new website that would include information on meetings in future, but until this website is made, the group’s meeting schedule must be immediately added to the comprehensive list of open meetings on the UNC news website.

Not only would this bring the task force into total compliance with the law — an issue of vital importance — it would also build trust with the University community by opening the task force to valuable scrutiny in its day-to-day processes.

In an interview with The Daily Tar Heel, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Winston Crisp said he wished the task force was further along.

“Are we as far as I would have probably wanted us to be? I would say no. We can make no excuses about that,” he said.

Crisp’s candor is admirable, but it means the task force should take corrective steps. One of the reasons cited for the task force’s pace was the small number of members. Recruitment of more people to aid the task force’s work is urgent. Its email was a good step to correcting this issue.

It seems clear this task force was conceived in response to the activism of the Real Silent Sam Coalition. If this process is going to unfold in an ideal manner (and if the University would like to avoid further protests of whitewashing), activist voices must be included in the task force’s work.

That can’t happen without open meetings.

On the other side of the same coin, people who are passionate about the representation of history at UNC should offer their input to the task force. They can do this either by working on it, as the task force’s recent message solicited for, or by going to open meetings and voicing their perspectives.

The task force might not be a perfect vehicle to respond to activists’ demands for the contextualization of campus history, but it is one that can produce permanent results.

This matters a lot. The task force has the potential to update the visual geography of campus to name and detail the racism and exploitation that are a fundamental parts of UNC’s history. The results will undoubtedly be better if the people who prompted this process exert their influence.

What this task force does will be important. All stakeholders should treat its work with urgency and openness.