Friday Interview: Higher Ed Think Tank Hires New Leader | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This article was originally created for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

Pope Center's Robinson shares goals for new job as president, CEO

    RALEIGH     North Carolina's leading think tank devoted to colleges and universities is ushering in a new era in its history. Dr. Jenna Robinson recently took the job of president and executive director of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Robinson discussed her new role with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)

    Martinez: Congratulations! You have been a frequent guest here at Carolina Journal Radio as the director of outreach, and now you have ascended to the presidency. Tell us about your journey at the Pope Center.

    Robinson: I started at the Pope Center eight years ago as student outreach coordinator. Doing that job, I was mostly working with student groups, bringing speakers to campus, particularly working on bringing ideas that are not generally heard on campus, and free-market speakers. That position soon morphed into more general outreach. So instead of just doing outreach to students, I've moved more in the direction of doing outreach to citizens, to Board of Governors members, to legislators, to members of the public, and really to anyone who wants to hear about our ideas on higher education.

    Martinez: And you have been doing a lot of research, a lot of analysis, a lot of writing. We have talked about a lot of your work here on the show.

    Robinson: Absolutely. My focus in most of my writing has been public policy changes, recommendations, ideas that we think can be implemented to make higher education in North Carolina smoother, more effective, of a higher quality, and a better value for students and for North Carolina taxpayers. Going forward, I think that will continue, and of course I will continue to wear those hats as a researcher and as a writer and as the spokesperson for the Pope Center.

    Martinez: Let's talk more about the areas of focus. Of course, right now we know that the head of the UNC system, Tom Ross, will be leaving that position at the end of the year. One would think you are going to be focusing on his legacy and his replacement.

    Robinson: Absolutely. President Ross still does have [the rest of the] year left, so there is a lot he can do in that time. He has had to steer the ship during a difficult period in UNC's history, particularly in the light of UNC-Chapel Hill's athletic/academic scandals.

    But now that those are mostly in the past, there is time still for Tom Ross to have a legacy, and of course we have some recommendations on how to do that. In particular, I think, transparency would be a good one and a good fit for Ross because he has worked mostly as an administrator, and transparency really is an issue of good government, an issue of making sure that all the processes are easily accessible for the public, and easy to understand. I think that would be a wonderful legacy for Tom Ross to leave. We recommend it.

    And then, of course, going forward, we are very interested in the kind of president that the board will choose to replace Ross. We hope that it will be someone with reform in mind.

    The UNC system, of course, has a long history of providing higher education in North Carolina, but the economy is changing, delivery of higher education is changing, technology is changing at an amazing pace, and so far the UNC system has been slow to adapt. Someone with reform in mind and who can take on those 21st-century challenges would be an ideal candidate for UNC system president.

    Martinez: "Reform" is an interesting word, and of course you also follow the General Assembly. We know that reformers have been elected to the majority in the General Assembly for several years now. What would you recommend, in terms of reform, that a new leader of the system might start to look at?

    Robinson: One thing that we have suggested is looking more closely at academic standards. At the UNC system there has been a move to create a floor on academic standards at a [grade point average] of 2.5 and an SAT of 800 for math and writing.

    We think that they could go a little bit higher and they could take advantage of our community college system, working more closely with them to make sure that students who need remediation, who are perhaps now going through summer bridge programs, could instead go to our community colleges.

    The General Assembly and the UNC system are already studying something called the Guaranteed Admission Program. We think that they should go ahead with that, so that students who can't get into UNC schools or who are now getting in, but are struggling a lot, should instead go to a community college and after they get their two-year A.S. or A.A. degree, are then guaranteed admission into the school that initially kind of just rejected them.

    I think that would be a very important reform for North Carolina. It would be better for students because they would have the support they need. They would be going to an institution that is tailored to teach the kind of classes that they need. They would also save money because North Carolina's community colleges are less expensive than the UNC system, and the taxpayers would save money as well, and also make sure that our UNC system schools are focusing on college-level teaching, instead of remediation.

    Martinez: I know you have also focused on the issue of graduation rates and what kind of "bang for the buck" is the taxpayer getting and how long it takes the typical student to go through the traditional university experience. Would that be another area of reform?

    Robinson: Absolutely. We do think that there should be some kind of performance funding for the UNC system. Graduation rates would obviously be some part of that, although probably not the only piece. We think learning is actually what should be measured, rather than just graduation.

    Students shouldn't be in school just to get a piece of paper; they should be in school to learn skills, life lessons, and how to be a citizen. Measuring that learning, which of course contributes to graduation, we think should be a major focus going forward. Funding universities according to that performance, according to actually what students are learning, would be a major incentive for them to change.

    Martinez: It might also engender some chancellors and faculty members to push back and say, "That's not fair to be measured that way." Are you prepared for that?

    Robinson: Absolutely. Faculty members, presidents, anybody who is part of an organization is always going to push back and say, "Well, that's not how we have done it in the past," because change is difficult and reform is not the easy path. But it is the path that is right for North Carolina and right for its students.

    The universities are in the business of educating students, and I think we need to concentrate on reforms that are benefiting students, not benefiting the universities, as they have been doing business for years.

    Martinez: Jenna, you have also focused over time on the issue of free speech on North Carolina campuses, and there are a number of organizations that are allied with you, trying to work on that issue. How would you describe the climate these days on North Carolina campuses when it comes to students being able to express what they think, or to bring speakers that are aligned with their views?

    Robinson: North Carolina students have had some success bringing speakers. There are a lot of passionate groups out there who are willing to stick their necks out and take on the task of bringing in speakers. Student groups in particular.

    That said, the climate overall is not a good one, particularly with this new issue of trigger warnings, where students have to be warned before a professor is going to talk about any topic that might conceivably be sensitive for someone, in some kind of setting. It's really stifling for free speech, particularly because you never know what a student is going to perceive as triggering.