UNC closes academic centers

The University of North Carolina Board of Governors unanimously voted to close three different academic centers, embroiling the board and its critics across the state in a debate about the proper role of politics in education. Although the vote was part of a standard review of the state’s 240 boards and institutes, the closure of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity sparked the ire of several professors and commentators. Many are claiming that the move was political retribution against the center’s director, Gene Nichol, an increasingly vocal opponent of the state’s Republican leaders. The vote, which was praised as necessary and cost-efficient by state conservatives, comes on the heels of the board's controversial decision to renew UNC President Tom Ross for one year only, which was also interpreted by many liberal professors and commentators as politically motivated.

Although it is impossible to confirm or deny the alleged political motivations underlying the closures, the limited justifications proffered thus far are insufficient. One of the main conservative critiques of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity was that it was oriented around a political goal rather than an academic one, echoing sentiments from conservatives around the country doubting the neutrality of academia. This critique is unconvincing. On one hand, poverty and politics are intimately entwined. Beliefs and ideology are instrumental in explaining the causes of poverty and inequality, determining poverty’s status as a systemic problem and implementing solutions.

Even more, studying and confronting issues relating to poverty are particularly relevant to a state in which so many citizens live in financial scarcity. As of 2013, nearly 17.5 percent of North Carolinians live at or below the poverty line, 2 percent higher than the national average. Universities are in the business of providing solutions, some more abstract than others, but solutions nonetheless. Political bodies should not seek to limit the potential impact of academia in society, especially if the findings of these centers are not aligned with the ruling political ideologies.

In an editorial published in the Raleigh News and Observer, John Fennebresque, chairman of the UNC Board of Governors, defended closing the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, stating that the decision was the result of a fair and conclusive review of the center’s impact on poverty. He pointed to similar efforts at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Social Work and the Kenan-Flagler School of Business as more productive examples of the university system’s work to combat poverty. After all, effective policy-making is made at the margins and, if the UNC system can re-organize its efforts to more efficiently tackle the issue, it should by all means.

Yet, though it is entirely plausible that the Board of Governors acted without political motivation, its reasons are opaque and lack key information about the relative impact of the centers in question. Many similar organizations were slated for reform rather than closure, and the difference in relative impact is difficult to discern. Although one cannot prove that censorship and political motivations were at play, the atmosphere that these kind of controversies create negatively affect everyone in the UNC education system, failing to promote an environment of cooperation and open exploration of potential solutions for pressing issues. More transparency would help clear up this atmosphere of controversy and, if political motivations are the cause of this disruption, instigate structural reforms that ensure that academia is insulated from the political whims of the majority. Some may argue that these pressures are acting as representative of the people of North Carolina but, considering the scale of the problem at hand, it is clear that something is astray.