Faculty Council failed to pass resolution to delay Program for Public Discourse

The Faculty Council met in Kerr Hall on Friday to discuss an amended resolution regarding the Program for Public Discourse, a controversial program that some faculty have accused of having conservative influences. The proposed resolution was that the implementation of the program should be delayed pending a complete discussion of its structure and intentions. 

After just over an hour of discussion, the council failed to pass the resolution to delay the implementation of the program.

The program will be housed within the College of Arts and Sciences. Its stated goal is to build the UNC community’s capacity for civil argument, discussion and conversation. The program will not have a major or minor of its own, but instead will link current and new courses in various departments with a thematic focus.

Typically, if a new program is developed within just one college of the University, there is not an extended discussion involving the entire Faculty Council, said Lloyd Kramer, chairperson of the faculty council.

However, Kramer said this particular program sparked an important conversation about academic freedom at the University, which is a matter that can be deliberated by the council.

“Everybody says they believe in academic freedom, but they have contrasting views on what this particular program means for their academic freedom,” Kramer said at the meeting.

Faculty members who oppose the program argue that having outsiders on the program’s advisory board and bringing in money from outside of the University to fund it threatens the academic freedom of the faculty involved, Kramer said. 

Kramer said that, on the other hand, those who have been involved in the evolution of this program feel as though their academic freedom is under attack by the faculty who oppose the its creation.

Jay Smith, a professor in the history department who proposed the resolution, opposes the program as it stands because it appears to allow outsiders, undisclosed donors and non-UNC faculty to shape the curriculum.

“Faculty are supposed to control the curriculum,” Smith said. “That members of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors are on the advisory board for the Program for Public Discourse means that they can influence the direction of the curriculum. That is not their role.”

Smith said the major donor to the program, the Dowd Foundation, has a clear ideological bias. The foundation, he said, is part of a network of right-wing organizations that have previously criticized institutions of higher education for promoting anti-capitalist ideas. Smith said he believes its bias could threaten the integrity of the program.

Sarah Treul, a professor in the department of political science and a member of the program’s advisory board, advocated for the program and spoke about its potential benefit to the University.

“As a political scientist who both encourages and, of course, encounters ideological diversity in my classroom literally every day, I can assure you that the students of Carolina want the framework for constructive conversation and deliberation,” Treul said. “...Quite frankly, I think the reflexive opposition of some faculty here on this campus illustrates precisely why we need a program like this here at UNC.”

Treul asked for the faculty’s understanding that the external advisory board will only provide additional voices and opinions. 

Molly Worthen, a professor in the history department who has been involved in the program since this past summer, clarified the role of the external board.

“They are really outsiders who are doing much more listening, it seems to me, than shaping of anything, and I am particularly struck by that role as it has been played by the BOG and BOT members," Treul said. "And I spoke last month about how I went in very skeptical and concerned about their presence on this body, but persuaded, at least provisionally, based on my experience so far, that having them involved has been a net good not only for the program but for the University."

Worthen said that it would be a good thing for the University if the scrutiny of the program's funding leads to a broader conversation about the moral conundrum of private funding at UNC. 

"We are increasingly in the position of seeking private money," Worthen said. "And it is naive to think that there isn’t an ideological set of goals attached to almost every foundation or private donor who is involved in this University.”

university@dailytarheel.com