Whining UNC faculty expose UNC accountability flaws | Eastern North Carolina Now

It is a closed system run by Elites for the benefit of Elites that does little for those who own the University

    First, a bit of a disclaimer. I worked in the UNC system for fifteen years and during that time served on my department's and School of Education's personnel committees, chairing both  -  at different times--for several years. Those were elected positions, subject faculty vote. Those committees reviewed all initial employment cases, promotions, tenure and in a couple of instances, disciplinary action. The point is: One learns a great deal about how "the system" works by sitting such circumstances. I also served a term on the ECU Academic Affairs Research and Creative Activities Committee, which had as one of its primary tasks the development of a policy that provided for assessment of faculty research.

    Partly as a result of these experiences I read with interest a recent article the The Chronicle Of Higher Education (arguably the most read publication related to higher education news). It was a story about thirty professors at UNC-Chapel Hill writing a letter in support of Gene R. Nichol the former President of William and Mary University and Dean of the UNC Law School and now Director of the UNC Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. This is the outfit founded by UNC to give John Edwards a "place" when he ... well, we're not sure what they were trying to do.

    Here's the issue. When the Republicans took control of the N. C. Legislature and Governor's Office the good folks at UNC were not happy. Even though under Mike Easley and Bev. Perdue the university system had had to "revert" several million dollars as a result of the poor economic conditions the state was facing, it was not until Republicans came to Raleigh that the Academics began to openly criticize the Power Structure in Raleigh. One of the leaders in this attack was Gene Nichol, who writes a bombastic column in the Raleigh News & Observer and who aligned himself in support of William Barbour's "Moral Monday" demonstrations at the General Assembly. Nichol has been especially critical of Governor McCrory.

    Enter the Civitas Institute, a conservative libertarian think tank in Raleigh. Civitas filed a Public Records Request with UNC to review Nichol's emails and other communications produced as a state employee over a six-week period coincidental to the Moral Monday protests. That's when the "fat hit the fan" with a number of UNC faculty members.

    So the traumatized academics crafted a letter. You can read the letter, and other background (including links) at: this link to the Chronicle story.

    This writer finds this story interesting, not because of the debate about the UNC faculty being upset with the Republicans running things in Raleigh right now, but because I think it offers insight into the thinking and attitude of many academics and administrators in the UNC system. They simply think they are above everybody else.

    In this case the crux of the matter is simple: Gene Nichol is a state employee and he works in a position subject to North Carolina's Public Records statute (Chapter 132). Presumably, the records request by Civitas is restricted to Nichol's communications on public facilities (equipment, networks, time, property etc.) As such, regardless of the actual content, they are public records, unless specifically excluded by statute from public inspections. Even though Mr. Nichol protests, and the august academics at UNC-CH whine about "a chilling precedent" this might set, the law is clear (remember, Nichol is a law professor). Any document produced via the use of state resources is a public record.

    I have a very strong suspicion that most of those who signed the "letter of protest" about the Civitas request know what the law says about public records. And they know if the law is adhered to that all of Nichol's emails will have to be released. And they also know why Civitas wants to review those records. And there is really where the issue comes to rest. Nichol and his colleagues want to be treated exceptionally as state employees.

    And that is what I learned in my experience as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this article. Many in higher education think they and only they can and should be the judge of themselves, and when it becomes necessary for some external oversight then they believe only their peers are qualified to judge them and their actions.

    Of course, most of the rest of us recognize this poppycock arrogance for what it is: Elitism.

    But this gives good cause to examine the accountability system in higher education. In my experience that system is terribly deficient.

    For example, while I served on the Research and Creative Activities Committee I made a motion that one of the criteria to be used to assess the research products of faculty should be: "Impact on practice." What I meant by that was that the product of research should be judged on the results it produced in the real world. After a lengthy "Point of Order clarification Q&A" the motion died for lack of a second. Those who spoke against judging research activity argued that "peer review" was the only acceptable standard. I argued that, particularly as a public taxpayer supported institution, the University had a duty to make a realistic impact on our region and state, as well as the "body of knowledge" of each discipline. It was not that "Impact on Practice" would replace such 'superior' assessment as publication in refereed journals but only that it would be a discrete standard for measurement of what good the University did for the taxpaying public. You'd have thought I was asking them to give up their first born for sacrifice to the common man on the street.

    Now let me hasten to add here that this indictment does not apply to all university faculty. Many of my colleagues made a world of difference in "the field." But based on my experience in reviewing applications for employment, promotion, and tenure, a savvy faculty member could get more mileage out of an article published in a publication that they paid the publishing entity to publish than something they wrote or did that made a difference in the lives of the people who own the University. In fact, one of the most virulent discussion I recall was when I suggest just that: That the People own the University and we, as faculty, work for the People. You'd have thought I was proposing that these Elites subject themselves to the oversight of barbarians.

    I recall one debate generated when a colleague in the School of Education suggested that East Carolina University should accept at least some responsibility for the fact that statistically we had proportionately more "low performing" students in the public schools in the ECU designated service area of the state than was true in other areas. There was no way that idea was ever going to gain any level of acceptance. It was unthinkable that a faculty member would choose to work with a couple of low performing public schools to help turn them around as opposed to submitting a "research article" to a publication with an editorial board comprised of other colleagues who were members of the same "Club." In fact, I was told once that I needed to do less "service" and get more articles published. When I pointed out that I had just produced what the State Superintendent of Public Instruction had characterized as the most beneficial study he had ever seen on a major issue at the time (school system mergers), the Department Chair (evaluator) said to me: "Then what you need to do is revise it (the title) a bit and submit it to at least six different refereed journals...You can get a promotion out of that." The fact that the study helped show why two school systems would be better than four made no difference in the accountability model being used to assess my performance as a faculty member.

    I would conclude by offering this observation: Were there an effective accountability system, including transparency in intra-academic communication, among faculty members who were researching "global warming" we would not have been as likely to see the scam that those Elites produced. Remember, it was the emails that broke that charade open and in the process exposed the absurdity of the "peer review" system.

    Whether they ever publish it or not, we suspect that what Civitas will discover is that there's a rat in the woodpile in Chapel Hill. And that rats' nest will be the direct result of a group of Elites believing that they are above being held accountable for what they do with taxpayer money.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.