I can’t start Monday without talking about the Chinese spy balloon. It provided a few days of comic relief, both watching Americans get outraged about it and the social media response to it. Half the country seemed to have taken it as an affront to our sovereignty and the other half saw it as fodder for late night comedy. One of the best responses came from the Gastonia Police Department when it asked citizens not to try to shoot the balloon down when it flew over North Carolina.  

Personally, I think it was just the Chinese trolling us after we announced that we are expanding our presence in the Philippines to keep an eye on their activity in the South China Sea and Taiwan. I have a hard time believing they picked up much from a balloon that they didn’t already have from satellites. If it were a real threat to our security, the military would have likely shot it down before it crossed the continent. The whole thing reminded me of Gary Powers and the U-2 spy planes that used to fly over the Soviet Union. We’re all trying to watch each other.

On a more local front, a friend asked me to be a bit more open-minded about the proposed School of Civic Life and Leadership proposed by the UNC Board of Trustees after I compared it to what Ron DiSantis is doing to public colleges in Florida. According to the chair of the faculty and student leaders, the new program was introduced in a surprise resolution without their input. Even the chancellor and provost were apparently caught off guard. Like so much the Board of Trustees and Board of Governors have proposed in recent years, the process seems heavy-handed with political implications. 

The Board cites a study called “Free Expression and Constructive Dialogue in the UNC System” released this summer by researchers from UNC. Conservatives claim that it paints a picture of a difficult, if not hostile environment, for conservative students, but that’s not what it says at all. In fact, I would argue that not much has changed since I was at UNC about 40 years ago. 

First, the study debunks the loud claims by conservatives that university professors are indoctrinating students. On the contrary, the study’s first finding reads, “Faculty do not push political agendas in class.” It goes on to say, “We find little evidence that faculty create a highly politicized atmosphere in UNC System classrooms.” and “We found that most survey respondents perceived their instructors to encourage participation from students across the political spectrum.” That pretty much shoots down the indoctrination bullshit coming from the right. 

The real problem, the study says, is that students create an unwelcoming atmosphere among their peers. Students, especially conservative ones, say that they self-censor because they fear alienating their fellow students. According to the study, “We find that a significant number of students have concerns about stating their sincere political views in class and have self-censored because they were concerned about the potential reactions, especially from peers.” The study notes that liberals outnumber conservatives by about three to one, so it seems pretty natural that conservatives would be the ones most likely to suppress their views.  

The study also finds that most students want more engagement “with those who think differently.” If that’s true, then it seems that there’s hardly an atmosphere that stifles free-thinking. Instead, there’s an environment in which people welcome diversity of thought.

The study notes that the most politically engaged students are the ones who have the least tolerance for diversity of opinion and the least engaged are the most open. About 75% of the students are not heavily engaged in politics.  That makes sense. It’s also always been true. If you don’t care about something, you don’t get emotionally invested. 

Among 18-25 years olds, those most passionate about politics are going to be a lot less welcoming of ideas contrary to their own, because, at that age, they still know everything. Those same people at 35 years old are probably going to have moderated their views or at least moderated their views of those who oppose them pretty substantially. That’s been my experience, anyway. Over the years, I’ve watch some the most dogmatic people from college become some of the most effective members of the legislature. 

As for the new center for civic life, I’m not inherently opposed to a program that would promote civic discourse. However, I do not trust the intent of the Board of Trustees and I do not approve of their heavy-handed process. These people have damaged the reputation of an institution I love. They tried to pay $2.5 million to neo-Confederates to store Silent Sam. They interfered with university business when they denied tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones. I believe they are too beholden to their overseers in the legislature and have a political agenda, not an academic or intellectual one. I’m not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

Both the Board of Governors and the Board of Trustees have politicized our university system. The BOG fired a competent and respected president for no reason other than he was a registered Democrat. Their hand-picked successor left because of the legislature’s meddling. They’ve pushed out chancellors and put in place ideologues with scant experience. In the wake of the Nikole Hannah-Jones debacle, UNC lost a highly-respected researcher. There’s no telling how many other talented people took a pass because of the environment the BOG and BOT have created. 

I suspect the real goal of the BOT is to create a more welcoming environment for conservatives, just as they’ve made it a more hostile place for African Americans. It won’t work. There’s a reason most of academia is liberal. The modern conservative movement has embraced anti-intellectualism, wearing ignorance as a badge of honor. From climate change to diversity to history, conservatives have been wrong about most of the big issues of the day, often ignoring and deriding the research that points out the errors of their ways. 

As for the conservatives in college who self-censure, I doubt seriously they’re staying quiet about their beliefs about taxes, trade, or free-market economics. No, I suspect it’s their position on abortion, race, sexuality, and gender identity. I don’t think a school of civic life will change that much. 

When I was in school in the early 1980s, the big debates on campus concerned building a free-standing Black cultural center, funding for the LGBT student club, and divesting from companies doing business in South Africa. Conservatives were against all of those measures. Activists committed to them had little use for those who opposed them. Conservatives who weren’t that interested in those issues, probably kept their mouths shut in public because they didn’t want to appear to be racist or homophobic. I’m not seeing a whole of difference in the findings today. 

The BOT can create their safe space for conservative students, but it’s not going to change much. The people who will be attracted to the new center will be people already predisposed to interacting with people with diverse viewpoints. The 20% or so of liberals who are activists won’t moderate their behavior much in college. It will take real world experiences to moderate their approach to politics. Same with the smaller number of conservative activists.

If the Board of Trustees really wanted to change the nature of the university system, they would work to change the perception among liberals and academics that conservatives oppose diversity, intellectualism, and democracy. They would be the ones leading the charge against the phony CRT debate. They would be pushing for real solutions to climate change that fit into their world view instead of accommodating the deniers. They would be promoting the idea that marriage is a conservative, pro-family institution and celebrate the inclusion of gay couples. And they would be the ones calling for liberalized voting laws that academic research shows increases participation in the political process but does not increase fraud.

But they’re not. They are going to create a safe space for conservatives where maybe they can feel safe in numbers. I think what they really want is affirmative action for conservatives.