I find it highly ironic that you explicitly point to the administrators’ race — aren’t you a white male yourself? Does that make YOU a horrible person? Additionally, your last statement (“A revolution is long overdue”) is terribly frightening.

to UNC Student:
to say that all white males are horrible people would be racist and sexist, and S.Langberg never makes that claim. The claim is that the rich white males empowered to make nearly every important decision about this university system have rich, white, male priorities. Those priorities include university prestige and faculty raises, both of which are reasonable priorities. However, those priorities do not, but should, include controlling the cost for students and diversity of the student body.

If you can’t be mature enough to see the difference between ‘rich white males have rich white male priorities’ and ‘I think all white males are horrible even though i am one’ than you need to grow up

#Burn.

That still reeks of racism. As a card-carrying progressive and a white male, I find it somewhat insulting that someone would assume my priorities are an extension of the color of my skin. It’s reductionist. A more effective means of approaching this question would be to ask why our upper level administration does not better represent the demographics of our state. At the same time, I question that it would be impossible for a white male to have at heart an interest in low tuition and diversity.

Also, can someone please tell me what the cutoffs are for the Carolina Covenant? I thought that Carolina would cover the costs of admitted students below a certain threshold. Unless Carolina is ending this program, doesn’t this suggest that those who should be most concerned about the tuition rise are relatively unaffected by it?

Racism is okay if it’s against white people.

Carry on.

yeah that “white, male and wealthy” comment sounds straight out of PCU. i kind of thought the idea was to move past using race to make assumptions about a person’s behavior and intentions.

@luke sherry – your rationalization about “rich white male priorities” isn’t any less racist.

I do not have to assume that the rich white males have rich white male priorities. I have attended these meetings. I heard Carney’s presentation to both the Tuition Task Force and the Board of Trustees. I have deduced their priorities from their actions, not their skin color, sex, and income category.

How could I, a white male, argue that all white males have the same priorities? If we did, then I would agree with Carney that students have to pay more while the NC legislature pays less. I don’t think, and I certainly don’t hope, that most other white males share the view that public education should be privatized in order to maintain high prestige and high faculty pay. However, such a view does reflect rich, white, male privilege.

Read more …

“rich, white, male priorities . . . do not, but should, include controlling the cost for students and diversity of the student body.”

you very specifically state that the Board does not support certain things because of their race, income and gender. that you have actually observed actions compatible with your stereotypes does not make your implication of a causal relationship between their demographics and their priorities any less racist.

Whether or not it makes you uncomfortable to say that the decision-makers are white, let us not get distracted from the issue: rising tuition is bad for all students. If you want to talk racism, think about how raising tuition pushes out poor and minority students from UNC. That is racism.

I could not agree more with the commentary of Sean Landberg. We should not be arguing over the “white male” comment because it is the truth. If you understand the history of the United States and from the counternarrative (not just the viewpoint of the “founding fathers”) and the history of the American higher education system and how injustices that were established from this system still manifest in the present day then you would agree to his usage and his need for the usage of this language in this particular context.

Furthermore, to the question posed by the Grad student about the cutoffs of the Carolina Covenant—-one big issue I have with the tuition increase is putting entirely too much responsibility on this scholarship to attract students from lower income families. It is highly likely that some students won’t even apply to UNC in general once they see the cost- no matter if they could qualify for the covenant. In the case of many high school students who may fall under this financial umbrella and then don’t have the guidance from college-attending parents, they may not be as informed to the achievable possibility of attending this school at no-cost if they are not familiar with the Covenant when they are even thinking about applying to UNC. So a big problem could potentially be: eliminating fine students due to the increase in tuition so that they never even apply here in the first place (way before they could even become informed on the Covenant).

I don’t understand this.. I am one of the poorest students at this school and UNC pays everything for me 100%. Why would any of this change when tuition is raised? Doesn’t it increase financial aid to others? I think the middle class students would be the ones most effected by this.

@Briana Steel: I agree with your analysis of the Carolina Covenant. Whether or not UNC covers 100% of need will be irrelevant in many cases because the reputation of increasing costs alone will turn many students away.

@unc student: The 100% commitment only applies to aid coming from UNC. For example, if a student is receiving a Pell Grant the amount received will not change when tuition is raised. Regardless, I urge you to think of other low-income students who may not be lucky enough to receive 100% aid and join in protests against the hikes.