“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.