“Then, they took the least conservative approach to addressing the problem and used Big Government to address something that’s really not there. It would be pretty funny if it weren’t so pathetic.”
Considering how often we’ve seen this happen — Project 2025, the SAVE Act, Private School vouchers, rigging the board of elections, gerrymandering *literally everything* gerrymanderable… is that really still the “least conservative” approach? Because it seems like it’s the one they use most often.
I went to UNC-CH for two years, 1971-2, and believe me even back in the early 70's there were conservatives on campus who were not shy about expressing their world view. Thankfully there was a full range of cultural and political dialog going on and you got to hear about it all. That's really what 'liberal arts' is all about. There were a few radicals both conservative, liberal, libertarian, even nihilistic a la Big Lebowski, but we didn't have to endure the conservative snow flakes claiming victimhood that we hear today.
I believe the reason colleges are so often accused of being liberal indoctrination centers is because conservatives can't imagine having such a large hold on an institution and choosing not to indoctrinate. Sauron couldn't imagine anyone choosing to destroy the Ring rather than wield it, either.
UNC is throwing around a lot of money between this, the football coach debacle and basketball arena. Is there any left for the rest of the system? Duke leaders are also ironic. As a NCSU graduate, I find the whole thing par for the course.
Hey just want to pop in with, maybe Lee Roberts was put in place to facilitate some special transactions? Cause SharpVue Capital is doing GOOD since he became a UNC executive...
Hey Thomas, like you I was born and raised in the shadow of a southern university (UVA) and have multigenerational connections to it. It's heartbreaking to watch UVA and UNC as conservative legislators in both states attempt turn them in to ideologically infused vocational training centers with lucrative sports teams. A college education should teach you how to think widely, and critically, for the benefit of yourself and the world at large. It should not be indoctrination. "You're welcome to think whatever you want as long as it aligns with our conservative agenda" is indoctrination.
And yeah, all of the limited government hypocrisy is on full display isn't it?
Unless former UNC-CH chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz lied publicly to the university's accreditor, SCiLL is not a creation of the General Assembly or Carolina's Board of Trustees. (See links for verification.)
I'm not sure whether he lied or not. I know that the Faculty Executive Council opposed the school and nearly 700 faculty signed a letter opposing it. I also know that the 12 members of the Board of Trustees are all appointed by the GOP legislature after they stripped the governor's power of appointment. And I know that the school is an embarrassing mess that's now opposed even by the people who initially supported it. And I believe it was an attempt to address a problem that didn't really exist except in the minds of conservatives who are always the victims and yet have all the power.
SCiLL's most ardent supporter for years was former provost Chris Clemens. Chancellor Guskiewicz defended it to SACSCOC and to the faculty. Of course many of them opposed it. Folks can criticize the school without getting its origin wrong; that arguably would strengthen the credibility of their criticism.
What happened is well documented. I've been reading about for the last few weeks. The idea came up in 2017 after conservatives took control of the Board of Governors and stripped Roy Cooper's powers of appointment to the Board of Trustees. It showed up at the Board of Trustees in 2019 as the Program for Public Discourse. When the BoT brought it up at a meeting in January 23 and passed it unanimously, it took every body surprise, including members of the administration. I read Guskiewicz letter and can't really make heads or tails of it. It's clearly a CYA document that basically says the board crossed all it its "t"s and dotted all of its "i"s. Regardless, it was heavy-handed move by a board that was in the midst of stripping programs it didn't like and adding one that it did. That's the origin story. If you can find any long board conversations and public discussions and hearings with faculty and students, I'd be glad to look at them. And as you said, the most ardent proponent ended up resigning over a dispute that included the way the new school is being handled.
What's missing from most news coverage of and commentary on SCiLL is a deep look at what they're teaching and what the enrolled students think of it. Promoting civility, shared understanding, and respectful discussion of difficult issues seems to be a worthy goal -- and much-needed these days.
Wait until November. It’s not only Hungry that will change
“Then, they took the least conservative approach to addressing the problem and used Big Government to address something that’s really not there. It would be pretty funny if it weren’t so pathetic.”
Considering how often we’ve seen this happen — Project 2025, the SAVE Act, Private School vouchers, rigging the board of elections, gerrymandering *literally everything* gerrymanderable… is that really still the “least conservative” approach? Because it seems like it’s the one they use most often.
JUs sayin’.
Another good article exposing the fallacies of conservatives at UNC. Nice title btw.
I went to UNC-CH for two years, 1971-2, and believe me even back in the early 70's there were conservatives on campus who were not shy about expressing their world view. Thankfully there was a full range of cultural and political dialog going on and you got to hear about it all. That's really what 'liberal arts' is all about. There were a few radicals both conservative, liberal, libertarian, even nihilistic a la Big Lebowski, but we didn't have to endure the conservative snow flakes claiming victimhood that we hear today.
I believe the reason colleges are so often accused of being liberal indoctrination centers is because conservatives can't imagine having such a large hold on an institution and choosing not to indoctrinate. Sauron couldn't imagine anyone choosing to destroy the Ring rather than wield it, either.
UNC is throwing around a lot of money between this, the football coach debacle and basketball arena. Is there any left for the rest of the system? Duke leaders are also ironic. As a NCSU graduate, I find the whole thing par for the course.
Hey just want to pop in with, maybe Lee Roberts was put in place to facilitate some special transactions? Cause SharpVue Capital is doing GOOD since he became a UNC executive...
https://higheredheist.substack.com/p/is-lee-roberts-leveraging-his-position
Hey Thomas, like you I was born and raised in the shadow of a southern university (UVA) and have multigenerational connections to it. It's heartbreaking to watch UVA and UNC as conservative legislators in both states attempt turn them in to ideologically infused vocational training centers with lucrative sports teams. A college education should teach you how to think widely, and critically, for the benefit of yourself and the world at large. It should not be indoctrination. "You're welcome to think whatever you want as long as it aligns with our conservative agenda" is indoctrination.
And yeah, all of the limited government hypocrisy is on full display isn't it?
UNC and UVA have disturbingly similar "leaders"...https://higheredheist.substack.com/p/uva-pres-scott-beardsleys-farm-a
https://behindthenarrative7.substack.com/p/we-are-being-taught-by-fools-harvard?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bpnge
Unless former UNC-CH chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz lied publicly to the university's accreditor, SCiLL is not a creation of the General Assembly or Carolina's Board of Trustees. (See links for verification.)
https://jamesgmartin.center/2023/05/the-true-story-of-unc-chapel-hills-new-school/
That’s one conservative member of the BoT defending their decision. Here’s the Carolina Political Review’s story about the center’s inception at the time. Sure sounds like the BoT to me. The Faculty Executive Council opposed it. The legislature gave it $4 million. https://www.carolinapoliticalreview.org/editorial-content/2023/3/9/announcement-of-school-of-civic-life-and-leadership-leaves-unc-faculty-and-student-government-shocked-while-conservatives-celebrate
So Guskiewicz lied to SACSCOC?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/snwceomedia/dth/f913100b-6dd6-4d78-be2b-469623382c05.original.pdf
I'm not sure whether he lied or not. I know that the Faculty Executive Council opposed the school and nearly 700 faculty signed a letter opposing it. I also know that the 12 members of the Board of Trustees are all appointed by the GOP legislature after they stripped the governor's power of appointment. And I know that the school is an embarrassing mess that's now opposed even by the people who initially supported it. And I believe it was an attempt to address a problem that didn't really exist except in the minds of conservatives who are always the victims and yet have all the power.
SCiLL's most ardent supporter for years was former provost Chris Clemens. Chancellor Guskiewicz defended it to SACSCOC and to the faculty. Of course many of them opposed it. Folks can criticize the school without getting its origin wrong; that arguably would strengthen the credibility of their criticism.
What happened is well documented. I've been reading about for the last few weeks. The idea came up in 2017 after conservatives took control of the Board of Governors and stripped Roy Cooper's powers of appointment to the Board of Trustees. It showed up at the Board of Trustees in 2019 as the Program for Public Discourse. When the BoT brought it up at a meeting in January 23 and passed it unanimously, it took every body surprise, including members of the administration. I read Guskiewicz letter and can't really make heads or tails of it. It's clearly a CYA document that basically says the board crossed all it its "t"s and dotted all of its "i"s. Regardless, it was heavy-handed move by a board that was in the midst of stripping programs it didn't like and adding one that it did. That's the origin story. If you can find any long board conversations and public discussions and hearings with faculty and students, I'd be glad to look at them. And as you said, the most ardent proponent ended up resigning over a dispute that included the way the new school is being handled.
What's missing from most news coverage of and commentary on SCiLL is a deep look at what they're teaching and what the enrolled students think of it. Promoting civility, shared understanding, and respectful discussion of difficult issues seems to be a worthy goal -- and much-needed these days.