To put it mildly, the Board of Governors has knocked its illustrious reputation (and that of the UNC system’s) down several notches in recent years.
Even so, replacing mismanagement by the board with micromanagement by the N.C. legislature is a pathway to disaster. Defenders of the UNC system’s excellence and liberal arts tradition, while not softening their critiques of the board, must not be complacent about legislative micromanagement.
It seems repetitive to list the series of disappointing and outrageous decisions the board has made in the last few years, but until the University’s direction changes, they are worth naming.
The decision to remove President Tom Ross and install Margaret Spellings based solely on politics, the axing of gender-neutral housing plans, the politically-motivated targeting of centers and institutes with progressive leanings, the slow creep of tuition upward, the limit placed on the amount of tuition that can go toward need-based aid and, through it all, a chronic lack of transparency have embarrassed the University system under a national spotlight.
Even given all this, the N.C. General Assembly, which has embarrassed the state more than the board, seems particularly ill-equipped to lead scrutiny of the Board of Governors. It is worth noting that these horrific decisions do not seem to be the motivating factor for the legislature’s turn toward meddling — in fact, the decisions that upset board critics the most fall in line with the legislature’s regressive agenda.
The legislature seems embarrassed by the messy nature of the board’s infighting more so than its policy mismanagement.
This is not to say the legislature could not improve the Board of Governors by making structural changes to make it more democratic. Empowering University stakeholders could only beget good.
But the legislature seems less interested in reforming the Board of Governors structurally than micromanaging its policy-making.
This should worry defenders of UNC’s liberal arts tradition even more than the board’s outrageous decisions. After all, members of the board have requested more robust funding for the University system than the state has granted in its budgets.
