WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
This spring, the UNC Board of Governors voted to effectively purge DEI efforts from state universities (and the state-owned healthcare nonprofit, UNC Health). Conservatives tell me they see it as a necessary corrective against encroaching ‘woke’ ideologies that reestablishes the university as a neutral forum for ideas. More liberal-minded folks have decried it as a power grab that axes inclusion and diversity efforts that are still badly needed — especially at a campus like UNCW, where Black students are still significantly underrepresented.
As a former academic, I have some mixed emotions about all of this, but my professional concerns as a journalist have been about the level of transparency involved with the implementation of UNC’s new policy.
Beyond a boilerplate statement from Chair Randy Ramsey, Board of Governors member Woody White was the only one to publicly discuss the new policy, in an opinion piece that ran in the Carolina Journal. But White declined to speak to WHQR – as did many others in his sphere of influence – although he did give an interview to The Assembly.
UNCW Chancellor Aswani Volety has also declined several interview requests since White first signaled what he and his fellow governors intended to do. A number of WHQR listeners and readers have said that’s disappointing, in general, because Volety is a powerful, well-paid public servant. Shooing away the press is unbecoming, regardless of the topic. But specifically on this topic, it's troubling because each university was tasked with coming up with its own response to the new policy and, as chancellor, he’s well equipped to discuss UNCW’s particular reaction to a challenging mandate from the powers that be.
Now, was Volety handed a lousy hand to play? Sure. Speaking out against the UNC board, let alone refusing to comply with their mandate, could imperil his other initiatives for UNCW – and even his tenure as chancellor. Accepting and implementing the new policy too eagerly, on the other hand, is likely to alienate further those marginalized students whose support services are being cut.
The safest course of action may well be to say nothing, or as little as possible. But I understand those of you who wrote in to say you found it galling that we’d grant the UNCW chancellor a house, a car, and over $380,000 a year and allow him to duck tough conversations.
Then, last month, Volety released a statement, laying out what cuts would be made to UNCW’s DEI programs and, to his credit, acknowledging that “this news may be difficult for some Seahawks to accept and absorb.”
But after the statement, Volety again declined interview requests, handing off sit-down interview requests to Dr. Christine Reed Davis, vice chancellor for student affairs, who gave a thoughtful, and fairly candid interview to WHQR – in which she acknowledged that it was too early to answer some questions about how the new policy would really look once it was rolled out on campus.
And once it was rolled out two weeks later, leading to protests on and off campus, UNCW declined to comment further on the details of what changes had actually been made to comply with the UNC policy. Those details are contained in a report, mandated by the Board of Governors to be delivered by September 1 – but UNCW declined to turn that over, directing questions and public records requests relating to the report to the UNC system.
(WHQR filed records requests to the state UNC system – but also asked UNCW for drafts of the report, which are public records, though the university’s general counsel is still reviewing the request.)
Although we wanted local answers, we did try at the state level. We asked the UNC system if we could arrange an interview; they didn’t say no – but also didn’t say yes, instead directing us to the upcoming Board of Governors’ meeting set for Wednesday, September 11.
When I asked UNCW why they were directing our questions and records requests to the state, I was told it was a directive from the UNC system. But UNC’s director of media relations denied this, telling me “there is no gag order or directive” from the state.
So, I went back to UNCW to try and sort this out, and the university walked back their earlier claim that UNC had steered their response.
UNCW said instead that since the state system was collecting reports from all the public universities “it made sense to direct inquiries about the plans to them.” UNCW’s chief marketing and communications officer made it clear that the university would answer our questions in the future, after UNC made those reports public at the state level.
Now, if you found that clear as mud, or even a little frustrating, I don’t blame you. But I’m trying to stay optimistic.
I have, or at least I think I have, a good working relationship with UNCW’s comms department and I know that they, too, sometimes get dealt some pretty bad hands. And, in general, they’ve been plain dealers, even on some tough stories, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that after the DEI autopsy report is made public, we’ll be able to have an honest conversation about it – the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, perhaps, in the fullness of time, Volety will agree to discuss what looks to be, for better or worse, a consequential change to the campus he is tasked with overseeing.
But if that’s not the case, regardless of what the UNC system and its spokespeople say, it will be hard to say there isn’t a gag in place.
