The Daily Tar Heel
URL: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/11/not_so_activist_here_at_unc
Current Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:15:35 -0400
Not so activist here at UNC
| 
Tools
Possibly Related
- Everything in moderation: Have a better outlook this swimsuit season MAY 22
- The things that counted MAY 22
- A lack of transparency: Administrative silence sends a loud, negative message. MAY 21
- Pitching depth vital as UNC looks to make postseason run MAY 20
- A man without a party: To compete in the fall, Democrats must force David Parker out MAY 16
There’s no doubt that UNC has a history of activism. Last year, we celebrated 150 years of the Campus Y, and in October, a commemorative plaque was laid for the fight against the 1963 Speaker Ban Law.
So I’ve been surprised by the muted campus response to the Occupy movement. And I’ve been even more surprised by how few people have reacted to the plans to substantially raise tuition.
It’s not that big protests would have necessarily been the best course of action, but rather, it’s happening at other universities: Why not at UNC, if we are so committed to social justice?
Two weeks ago, thousands of students rallied before the University of California system Board of Regents meeting, demonstrating about higher education funding.
In Wisconsin, students were a strong part of protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s plans to limit collective bargaining.
Look at the Occupy movement in New York. Students were a major part of the protest in Zuccotti Park, and there has been a “student occupation” at the New School since the park was cleared.
There have been Occupy encampments on campuses across the country — including in Harvard Yard.
But at UNC, a “Strike the Hikes” march last month drew only a few dozen activists. Even a concerted push by Campus Y leadership for a student presence at the Board of Trustees’ Nov. 17 meeting raised a crowd of less than one hundred.
Occupy UNC was somewhat of a damp squib, and I’ve not seen more than a handful of students at Occupy Chapel Hill.
Perhaps I’m making too much of the differences, overplaying student engagement elsewhere, or underplaying some of what’s gone on here. After all, the same experience is probably true on most campuses.
But if UNC is as committed to social justice as service hours and other indicators would suggest, then why are students less vocal here than elsewhere?
Are we simply more moderate? More moderate than California or New York I can understand, but are we more moderate than even South Carolina students?
(USC’s Roosevelt Institute chapter enthusiastically invited students visiting for a policy conference to stay the night at Occupy Columbia; the UNC contingent declined.)
Is the issue simply not salient? Do fewer UNC students care about the Occupy movement (or tuition) than elsewhere?
Or do we think protest is passé?
I’ve heard a few comments to that effect from more activist friends — that UNC breeds a type of “organization kid.” After all, who needs to protest, when there are sustainable social ventures to be incubated, and when the chancellor politely answers questions at forums?
Or perhaps the lack of organized activism is because students don’t know how.
That’s how some member of the Campus Y executive board see the problem: They’re working to relearn the mechanics of organizing, and maybe it will work.
But whatever the reason, this campus today seems far away from its activist history.
Online Poll:
Do you think fracking can be done safely?
36 comments
Couldn’t agree more Mark. And never mind those haters: http://crdaily.com/2011/12/only-through-protesting-can-we-prove-our-support-for-social-justice/
Maybe it’s because there’s not enough substance to the Occupy movement to draw a significant following. Its supporters are not widespread elsewhere. Everywhere it goes, it lives on the margins. If there was some legitimate rallying point, you’d see a different result, but as it stands, the only thing that protesters have been able to cite as a cause for protest is a generalized feeling that the world is an imperfect sphere. Not exactly a world-shattering revelation.
All UNC students who want more disruptive protests on campus interrupting their busy schedules, raise your hands.
What? No one?
While the Campus Y is an organization that has a history of activism I think its important to recognize that a lot of recent organizing has happened outside of the Y. Students for a Democratic Society, Student Action with Workers and Feminist Students United are great examples of organizations who do activism outside of the Y. There were thousands of students that walked out when the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started a few years back and hundreds of students have rallied to support workers on this campus in a Sit-out last semester. So, think there are plenty of us at UNC who know the mechanics of campus activism. I also think that this article is ignoring the fact that we are located in the South and no matter how liberal we think UNC is, we can’t change the reality that efforts of organizing are quashed by the fact that this is a right to work state. Unions are stronger in New York, Wisconsin, and California. This has an impact on the organizing in North Carolina. The collective consciousness has a harder time embracing things like strikes and protest or any form of collective action. I’ve heard similar things from similar student organizers in red states like Oklahoma. Nonetheless, I think times are changing. More people are getting involved in activism than I have ever seen before and it is really encouraging. I appreciate this article as it is trying to pressure folks to get more involved but I think it would have provided a more insightful opinion piece if you actually talked to the people who have been organizing on this campus for a while.
If you have a schedule that’s “busy” because you’ve decided to prioritize corporate-influenced curricula over making an impact on the national/global paradigm it’s most-likely because you would like to grow up to benefit from the system. Some of us recognize that this system can’t benefit us all and would therefore very much like to see “more disruptive protests on campus,” perhaps like those that ripped through campuses some 40ish years ago and resulted in long-lasting change that unfortunately fell short of what it could have been. This is our chance to elevate it to what it could have been.
My hand is raised…
Protesting and effectual activism are not necessarily the same thing. I think a good deal of Tar Heels know that. We’re different and we should be proud of it.
Right because SDS et al have achieved so much in their idiotic “activism.”
Agree with JAG. I think UNC is smart enough to not repeat the humiliations of the Tancredo debacle, SDS, etc. Glad to see people recognizing the difference between attention and change.
@w, no kidding. That whole Tancredo debacle was an absolute black eye for the University.
Back to the contents of the letter:
“It’s not that big protests would have necessarily been the best course of action, but rather, it’s happening at other universities: Why not at UNC, if we are so committed to social justice?”
What a strange point. You admit that protests may not be the path we should take as a university, but then point out that they are taking place at other universities, and then suggest that UNC’s lack of substantial protesting is due to our not being fully committed to social justice? I thought you just said they might not be the best course of action?
The Occupy movement is not about social justice. It’s driven by the curiosities of self-styled free thinkers who naively believe that every time a person becomes frustrated with some aspect of life, there must be legitimate grievances that underlie that frustration.
If there’s no substance to what others are doing, why would we follow their lead? Simply because they’re our peers and we feel some sort of kinship? That’s like saying that because Texans generally favor beef brisket over good ol’ Eastern NC BBQ, Smithfield’s should close up shop and open up Lone Star Steakhouses in their stead.
If you truly think this university is run by “corporate-influenced curricula”, then why do you go to school here? Why don’t you drop out, or transfer to Warren Wilson or Reed College?
If you don’t think this school’s curricula are influenced by corporations (look at the BoD, look at the members of the “governing bodies” of this University, look at the corporate contracts that allow this university to run) you’re a moron.
Also, the school isn’t run by “corporate-influenced curricula,” its curricula are influenced by corporations (from those on the boards to those that control the textbooks). I think you’ve given pretty good evidence that you are, in fact, a moron.
Getting a good education without engaging the corporatocracy is damn near impossible, as is getting a computer, smartphone, etc. I recognize that a collegiate education (or the credentials claiming you have one) go a long way in this society. As such, I kowtowed to the bullshit and did what I had to do in order to be seen as “qualified” in this society. I chose it over Ivy’s because it was cheaper and less full of douches (I know it’s hard to believe, but there are schools far douchier than UNC). Got it?
As usual, several of the same voices jump on any story about activism. Not surprised really.
While it’s not politically correct, I’m a fan of that joke about arguing online and the special olympics. Still, I’ll respond to the statement about SDS doing nothing good on campus.. If you know about the history of the speaker ban on campus, 2 of the 12 signees to the federal lawsuit against the GA were from SDS. A few were from the Campus Y, some were unaffiliated, some were from Student Government.
Interestingly, you don’t see any names from Young Americans for Freedom, or College Republicans, or any other conservative organizations. The same ones who are so quick to deride any “liberal” activism efforts. Derp a derp, derpity derp derp. Keep arguing children.
It seems pretty clear what has surpassed student interest in activism and commitment to academics: college sports. Just look at what the executive board tweets about or what makes the front page of the DTH: it’s usually about our sports programs. The amount of time, money and energy spent has increased exponentially in the last few decades, and something had to be lost so we can talk endlessly about Butch Davis’s firing or obsess over Dick Vitale favoring Duke. We should replace athletic scholarships (a terrible pay to play arrangement) with need-based academic aid to restore academic integrity.
This isn’t the freaking Ivy League. How do you intend to replace the roughly $46 million in revenue that football and basketball bring in to this school?
Besides, people here complain all the time that UNC students are not dedicated enough to UNC athletics.
Basically, protest activists here need to realize that no one likes them, or cares about their revolution. Not because they don’t care about their causes, but because protesters are annoying, disruptive, pointless and make the entire school look bad. No one likes protesters. Go home. You don’t change anything by camping out on South Building steps with signs. Go volunteer at the homeless shelter or something that will actually help someone.
Also, the revenue from football and basketball make it possible to fund a large number of completely unprofitable women’s sports. Are you willing to give those up as well?
Zach
Are you aware that our sports revenue doesn’t help any other parts of the school besides athletics? Don’t think all the attention placed on sports at the expense of academics is keeping the rest of the university afloat, it’s not.
I absolutely support Title IX and think the obsession with men’s football and basketball does not help fulfill Title IX obligations and goals.
But I think we should certainly scale back varsity sports while fully complying with Title IX. Why do we need 28 varsity teams? Would you support raising tuition so we could expand to 50 teams? I understand keeping the popular ones (although I’m saying they should be reformed in a way that doesn’t place athletics over academics), but I don’t see the value in keeping 28 varsity teams. We have IM and club sports which provide ample opportunities for students to participate in athletics, and those should be fully funded. But 28 varsity is excessive and that money is urgently needed by academic departments that can’t retain faculty or keep tuition affordable.
And you realize YOU find protesters annoying, disruptive and don’t care about them, but not everyone agrees with you? One could say similar things about sports fans (obnoxious, disruptive, could be giving their time helping other people) but the difference is UNC isn’t spending significant funds supporting protesters at the expense of academics.
That last comment was for @Zach
If you don’t see the value in having varsity athletics then you simply do not understand how modern higher education works.
College athletics means exposure. That means advertising. That means better applicant pool to choose from. College athletics creates a greater sense of community at the school. That means alumni value their experience at UNC more, and are more inclined to give money. College athletics sells more than tickets and TV money. It sells merchandise. UNC merchandise is a recognizable brand all across the United States. You go to California and people will still know what the interlocking Carolina Blue NC stands for. Can a school get better advertising than having its logo worn all around the country?
Also, as you said, money from athletics goes to fund athletics. But then you wrote that “But 28 varsity is excessive and that money is urgently needed by academic departments that can’t retain faculty or keep tuition affordable.” You should know that UNC sports do not take money away from academics, rather, the athletic department funds itself, partly through student fees but mostly through the revenue generated by football and basketball. Without sports, that money wouldn’t be around in order to be shifted to other departments because that revenue wouldn’t be generated.
The way the athletic department works is football and basketball make money, which is then spent to fund women’s sports and men’s minor sports programs.
If you wanted to use profits from athletics to fund other aspects of the school, you would first have to eliminate the colossal money sinkhole of women’s varsity sports. But you are unwilling to do that.
All UNC peer institutions and all successful public universities, and most successful private universities, in the United States have invested significantly in intercollegiate athletics for good reason: It is beneficial to them. Pretending that the University can get along fine without major sports is simply ignorant of the realities of college administration.
@ EB & Rakim: In terms of the SDS fighting against the speaker ban; you’re kinda resting on your laurels there aren’t you?
As to the article itself, “breal” has done a good job of pointing out its logical inconsistency. You advocate adopting a strategy that, by your own admission, might not be the best? Why not take pride that Carolina does things differently.
Your whole argument reeks of the “but all the cool kids are doing it!” thesis.
To @Zach
I didn’t say the current system has athletics taking money directly from academics. I’m saying it’s a revenue stream that should be redirected to academics, where it’s more urgently needed. So what’s your argument against getting rid of 10 unpopular, expensive teams (5 mens, 5 womens)? The money saved could go into academic scholarships, faculty retention or any other worthy academic cause.
Does academic reputation have anything to do with the quality of students that apply to UNC? Or is it all what we’re ranked in basketball and if our football teams wins the meaningless bowl game they play in? In seasons when our basketball and football team slumped, can you show a significantly weaker applicant pool? If we had an equivalent drop in the academic rankings, you would certainly see that happen. You seem concerned about quality of our incoming class….you know what might help? Having more academic scholarships to lure talented students. If we replaced athletic scholarships with need-based aid or more Morehead scholarships, we could have that better qualified incoming class.
And wouldn’t it be preferable that UNC be known for academics rather than sports, since it’s what might be considered an “institution of higher education”? As for donations, can you show that donations are higher during years where our athletics team perform better? I don’t think many people donate because of our sports team, and if they do they likely donate directly to sports. We didn’t always have this system where big-name coaches drew higher salaries than everyone else and student athletes frequently travel to Boston and Miami to compete, yet students still valued their time at UNC and gave back.
You say I’m pretending we can be fine without major sports….I’m not saying that. I’m saying we should reform our system in the ways I’ve outlined above, so you can attack a strawman or you can address what I’ve written.
in favor
Steve Jobs briefly went to Reed College.
@JAG
“Protesting and effectual activism are not necessarily the same thing.”
Yep, but they are sometimes the same thing. I am pretty bad at recognizing when they are, and I think many other Tar Heels are as well. So the default attitude might be, for whatever (probably historical) reason, that they are never the same thing.
I think by “protest” Mark might mean “organizing,” as is practiced by the likes of the Industrial Areas Foundation. Organizing addresses a different set of problems than the kind of direct service / education that is the focus of most UNC campus activity. It involves a whole set of skills that only a few groups on campus have – the “Beyond Coal” people, and maybe SAW, Alianza, SDS, and a couple others. But, in any event, there’s a whole number of issues that unc students can and should be organizing around – this absurd marriage amendment, funding of public educational institutions by the state, an endowment this is not transparent and could be invested in god knows what, etc. – and, for any of those, effective organizing might involve some kind of protest.
Ben
Zach,
Title IX would not allow programs to be closed and funds to be re-directed in the way that you suggest. Title IX requires that spending on men’s and women’s athletics be proportional to the student body. Since UNC is over 60% women, that’s quite a lot of money that has to go to women’s sports. Eliminating 5 minor men’s sports programs and 5 minor women’s programs will throw everything out of whack because men’s football and basketball are the most expensive to fund. So eliminating less expensive men’s and women’s programs will skew the funding numbers strongly towards men’s sports, thereby putting the university out of Title IX compliance and making us ineligible to receive federal funds.
“Does academic reputation have anything to do with the quality of students that apply to UNC?”
Yes it does. Here is a study: www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09330.pdf
“This study finds that the average college ranking from U.S. News & World Report for the
two years after winning a national championship in football or basketball is significantly
improved compared to the two years before. Consistent with increased applications, acceptance
rates are lower and SAT scores are higher.”
“You seem concerned about quality of our incoming class….you know what might help? Having more academic scholarships to lure talented students.”
You mean, more scholarships for kids who probably don’t need them?
“If we replaced athletic scholarships with need-based aid or more Morehead scholarships, we could have that better qualified incoming class.”
I have never met a Morehead scholar that needed a scholarship in order to be able to attend college. NCAA athletics scholarships probably help more low-income kids go to college than the Morehead Foundation has in its entire existence.
“I don’t think many people donate because of our sports team, and if they do they likely donate directly to sports.”
Once again, this has been studied: www.stanford.edu/~jmeer/Meer_Rosen_Athletics_NBER_033108.pdf
“When a male graduate’s former team wins its conference championship, his donations for general purposes increase by about 7 percent and his donations to the athletic program increase by about the same percentage…Another novel result is that for males, varsity athletes whose teams were successful when they were undergraduates subsequently make larger donations to the athletic program. For example, if a male alumnus’s team won its conference championship during his senior year, his subsequent giving to the athletic program is about 8 percent a year higher, ceteris paribus.”
“We didn’t always have this system where big-name coaches drew higher salaries than everyone else and student athletes frequently travel to Boston and Miami to compete”
Yes we have, at least in the modern era.
You know which UNC system schools don’t invest much into sports? UNC-Greensboro. Western Carolina. UNC-Wilmington. UNC-Asheville. Are they highly ranked academic institutions? Do they have a loyal base of alumni? Do they bring in lots of quality students from all over the nation? Do many people outside of North Carolina even know that they exist? You already know the answers…
To @Zach
Basketball and football are not expensive to fund since they pay for themselves. Why not reduce (complying by Title IX) some of our least popular, money-losing teams? It wouldn’t be difficult to drop 6 men’s team and 4 women’s teams and keep spending proportional.
You point to a study that shows that football/basketball championships improve our pool of applicants. Great! Like I said before, I’m not suggesting getting rid of those programs. I’m pretty sure that bump in applicant quality didn’t come from cross country or rowing titles, so that doesn’t seem to be an argument against what I’m suggesting.
Your first actual dispute seems to be I picked a poor replacement- academic scholarships. I think these are important for competing with higher ranked academic schools because it allows to get many potential Rhodes Scholars (or whatever you think is a prestigious academic achievement) from other schools. So let me suggest the funding go to Carolina Covenant or more need-based academic aid. Athletic scholarships can go to low-income students, but they send many kids a message that the way to get into higher education is to focus on sports, not academics.
Your second argument is that we’ve got to keep these revenue-losing sports because they result in 7% higher donations from a tiny proportion of alumni (men who were varsity athletes) but only in years when their former team wins a conference title. I think the revenue saved from cutting excessive sports programs will more than make up that loss.
And yes…I wasn’t talking about the modern era of commercialized college sports.
How important is name recognition to you? Would you rather go to school with a miserable academic reputation but a great sports program, or a school known for outstanding academics but not sports? I think we can have both, but we should care most and invest most in academics (because again, we’re in the higher education business….) Look at a list of colleges with the most Rhodes scholars (MIT, U. of Chicago, Williams, Reed, Swarthmore, USNA, USMA, all the Ivys)….it’s not a whose who of sports powerhouses. UNC is in the top 15 of that list not because of our sports program (you’ll notice UF, FSU, UCONN, Kentucky’s sports programs have not magically raised their academic statures…) I think UNC should be a leader (like it was with the Carolina Covenant) and restore academic integrity by reforming our athletics program.
“Basketball and football are not expensive to fund since they pay for themselves.”
That’s not how Title IX works. It is based on funding given not net revenue.
Your list of colleges that produce the most Rhodes Scholars is a very elite list, in fact, the Ivies, UChicago, MIT and CalTech are pretty much the only schools that CAN get by without major sports programs. Note that all of them are private and none of them are UNC peer institutions. We’re not at their level. And we won’t be anytime soon. The two public institutions on that list, West Point and Annapolis, DO have major D-1 sports programs and have had them for a very long time.
The rest of your post says essentially that we should make our athletic program more popular by eliminating sports that no one cares about. Which is something that I support, but you won’t be able to avoid Title IX.
As I said earlier, you can either keep our current sports structure or get rid of Title IX. You can’t keep both.
Join the discussion
You Should Know
The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
Formatting Options:
- Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
- Bold: *something!*
- Italic: _OMG!_
Serving UNC students and the community since 1893
© 2012 DTH Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Flag this comment