The debate over privatizing UNC Student Stores inspired people across the community to challenge the administration. To this day many students and faculty are upset about the decision and felt left out of the conversation — but what happened last year happened, and it seems unlikely any minds will be changed now.
Given the uncertainty of finances in the future, the University needs to draft policy, and make said policy public, that clearly spells out where the boundaries of privatization at the University are.
This editorial is not going to make an absolutist argument for either side. Both sides claim to provide more opportunities for students, and there is no shortage of writings defending either side. See coverage of the issue from this time last year if you want that.
Instead, the point of this editorial is to say we need to draw the line somewhere. What is the University willing to privatize — what does it deem ethical to privatize — in the future?
Few people would disagree that the University needs to be run efficiently to free up money for academic purposes. That argument was the spirit of many in favor of privatizing Student Stores, and it has merit. Money that is needlessly spent or misused is less money that can be placed into a scholarship fund. And with increasing financial strains coming from the North Carolina General Assembly, the administration has to be creative with how it makes up for decreased funding.
To those who disagree with privatization, the full blame does not always fall on administrators. Forces well beyond their control are leading to funding issues on campus. Both sides of the privatization argument have valid concerns and fears. This debate is not unique to UNC — a quick Google search on privatization shows thousands of articles discussing the topic.
What makes UNC different is that this place heralds itself as “the university of the people,” praising its deep roots in public education and democratic control. This great tradition is something that ought be coveted by all Tar Heels, but it shouldn’t become a simple slogan to make the University look better — it needs to be actively maintained. Yet due to economic pressures, it is becoming increasingly necessary to balance the public with the private.
Will there be a world where private corporations begin sponsoring the academic research of this campus? Or where individuals can use their economic buying powers to control what professors can or cannot say?
Let’s be clear, all of this seems far down the road. No one on this campus seems to currently want a world in which non-academic actors can dictate the academic sphere. That’s why now is the time to build strong, entrenched safeguards. It may seem unnecessary, but there is a future world in which ultra-fiscally conservative administrators might sell the University to the highest bidder. Planning for it while there is some consensus that this would be bad for the University’s core mission can kill this attitude before it arises.
