Skip to main content

Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, September 8, 2023
3:00–5:00 p.m.
1001 Kerr Hall (Eshelman School of Pharmacy)

Agenda

3:00 p.m.   Chair’s welcome and remarks
                         Chair of the Faculty Beth Moracco

3:15p.m.   Faculty Council discussion of August 28 events
                         Introduced by Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz

3:55 p.m.   Resolution in memory of Prof. Zijie Yan
                         Resolution [PDF]
                         Submitted by the Faculty Executive Committee

4:05 p.m.   Chancellor’s remarks
                         Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz

4:15 p.m.   Provost’s remarks
                         Provost Christopher Clemens

4:25 p.m.   Overview of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and University implementation
                         Kara Simmons, Senior University Counsel and Associate Vice Chancellor
                         Amy Hertel, Executive Vice Provost

4:45 p.m.   Additional Faculty Council discussion and Q&A

5:00 p.m.   Adjournment

Video of Proceedings

Watch the full video [Streaming]

Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened on September 8, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. in Kerr Hall, Room 1001 at the Eshelman School of Pharmacy. A remote option was provided for Council members who were unable to attend in person. Other faculty and members of the public were able to observe the meeting in person or on a livestream.

The following 74 Faculty Council members attended: Aikat, Ansong, Alderman, Azcarate-Peril, Balasubramanian, Becker, Berkoff, Binz, Blythe, Brownley, Budhiraja, Campbell, Cilenti, Colford, De Fays, Dillman Carpentier, Divaris, Donahue, Dooley, Drummond, Ebert, Entwisle, Estroff, Frederick, Freeman, Gold, Goralski, Guskiewicz (Chancellor), Haggis, Halpern, Hannig, Hessick, Jackson, Johnson, Kasthuri, Krause, Kucera, La Serna, Lauen, Lee, Lin, Maman, Mehrotra, Méndez, Mersini-Houghton, Metcalfe, Meyer, Mohanty, Moore (Secretary of the Faculty), Moracco (Chair of the Faculty), Nichols, Oliveira, Penton, Pier, Raff, Reissner, Renner, Reyes, Roberts, Schlobohm, Seña, J. Smith, Smith Taillie, Stewart, Thomas, Thorp, Turi, Vines, Weiler, Winget, Young, Zeeman, Zhu and Zomorodi.

The following 11 members received excused absences: Cai, Cook, Gates-Foster, Haggis, Hodges, McNeilly, Ma, Reyes, K. Smith, Wolfe and Yaghoobi.

The following 7 members were absent without excuse: Boyd, Charles, Juffras, Lain, McEntee, Sathy and Vernon-Feagans.

Others in attendance: undergraduate observers Olivia Putman and Margaux Sherwen.

Call to Order
Chair of the Faculty Beth Moracco called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

Chair of the Faculty’s Welcome and Remarks
Chair Moracco welcomed everyone to the first Faculty Council meeting of the 2023-2024 academic year. She began the meeting with a moment of silence to honor the memory of Prof. Zijie Yan and to acknowledge the collective trauma the campus community experienced when Prof. Yan was killed by a shooter on campus on August 28.

Following the moment of silence, Chair Moracco offered her remarks. In the preceding two months, the faculty and campus community have been faced with two monumental events that have challenged the University’s commitment to its core values and shattered its sense of safety: the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC on June 29, and the fatal shooting of Prof. Yan by a student on August 28 and the campus lockdown that ensued.

Chair Moracco talked about the effects of the Court decision and joined others in leadership in underscoring that the University will comply with the new law. She noted that the Faculty Executive Committee released a statement following the decision that affirmed the University’s unwavering commitment to dismantling systemic and structural barriers to higher education and to creating and sustaining a diverse, equitable and inclusive community of students, faculty and staff. Faculty know firsthand the value of teaching and working with people from a variety of backgrounds, perspectives and lived experiences. They have witnessed how these interactions are essential for transformational learning, for teaching, for the creation of knowledge, for innovation, for discovery and for equipping our students to be effective scholars and citizens of the United States and of the world.

Chair Moracco talked about the events of August 28, of how faculty experienced the hours under lockdown differently. Some were locked down in classrooms with their students, some were in their offices and others were off campus. No matter where faculty were at the time, this incursion of violence and fear into our community has had a strong effect. In addition, learning that the relationship between the suspect and the victim was that of graduate student and mentor struck many faculty particularly hard since their relationships as their graduate students’ mentors hold a lot of significance. She acknowledged that something precious had been shattered that day. It is vital for faculty to consider how to move forward with the necessary healing and rebuilding of trust as well as how to prevent a situation like this one from happening again.

As a public health researcher, Chair Moracco’s research includes a focus on prevention. She described the three dimensions of prevention of injury and illness, including violence. The main points are the importance of creating a community of wellness and well-being; ensuring that faculty, staff and students are knowledgeable and prepared about safety measures; and caring for the community after the traumatic event to mitigate its effects, which this campus accomplished with resources and direct support, such as various drop-in sessions.

Chair Moracco acknowledged and thanked everyone who has responded in such a compassionate and caring way. She announced that the meeting would depart from its original agenda so that Faculty Council members could discuss the events of August 28 and vote on a resolution in memory of Prof. Yan before moving on to other matters. During the discussion, an opportunity to provide comments or questions via Poll Everywhere was provided.

Faculty Council discussion of August 28 events
Chancellor Guskiewicz began by discussing the shooting and related events that occurred on August 28. He talked about Dr. Yan and described the privilege of spending time with his family and others who loved him. He thanked everyone for keeping Dr. Yan and his family in their thoughts. He also expressed his gratitude to faculty and staff for the care, love, and support they offered the family and each other during the event and in its aftermath. He then reviewed the actions the university had taken to prepare for the possibility of a shooting on campus and reminded faculty members that the emergency plan has been posted online and trainings are available. Active shooter training is currently required for only a subset of campus community members. One of the issues now under consideration is whether this requirement should be expanded. He announced an online portal that will be activated within a few days to allow the campus community to provide feedback about the response to the event. He identified three areas as particularly important: (1) How do we improve the initial actions taken? (2) What can we do to secure our physical spaces better? (3) Are there root causes that we can address as a campus community?

Prof. Kevin Stewart (Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences) said he thought the response by the University was very good. He mentioned that the initial alert to campus warned of an “individual who was armed and dangerous,” while “active shooter” would have been more precise and elevated the alert level. He asked whether it is possible to specify where on campus the shooting happened. Knowing your proximity from an incident informs what you should do when you receive an alert.

Prof. Jan Hannig (Statistics and Operations Research) asked about balancing the real danger of an active shooter with the more nebulous, but also real danger of being locked in a room for several hours. He and his students would like to know. The shooter was arrested by 2:30 p.m., but it took two more hours before the lockdown ended.

Chancellor Guskiewicz replied that the worst thing would be to message inaccurate information. Many people got inaccurate information over the internet or by accessing the police scanner. Law enforcement had to ensure that there was no accomplice before lifting the lockdown. They had to do a full sweep of buildings within a certain vicinity of the crime scene, which is a best practice in such a situation. The chancellor also acknowledged Prof. Stewart’s question and pointed out that there are also concerns associated with providing too much information. Both he and Provost Clemens have learned a lot and will use that knowledge going forward.

Prof. Francesca Dillman Carpentier (Journalism and Media) had questions from the journalism faculty. First, they want to know if it is possible to have printed directions in each classroom describing how to lock it down in such a situation? Second, what is a faculty member’s legal capacity to require a student to stay in a classroom during a lockdown, and what do we do when students leave during such a situation?

The chancellor replied that classrooms are equipped with QR codes that provide information about emergency situations such as lockdowns and can be accessed electronically in real time to provide the most current information. He doesn’t know the answer to the second question but will look into it. He acknowledged that some students exited early, which is a student conduct issue.

Prof. Allison Schlobohm (Business) commented on the impact on students from China who have been reading hate online that makes them feel unsafe to be here. She wanted to know how we as a university will address this additional fear that some students have.

Chair Moracco acknowledged the question and mentioned how international students are highly represented among the graduate student population.

The chancellor agreed that he is very concerned about this issue. He attended a webinar with the Asian American Center that Prof. Heidi Kim hosted the day after the shooting in which he and others tried to reinforce their support for the students and their commitment to ensuring their safety.

Provost Clemens added that Chemistry Professor and Chair Wei You would be speaking later in the meeting. Prof. Wei is the faculty sponsor of the Chinese Student Association. The provost said that UNC Global maintains a list of international students and that they do a check-in with all of them after an event like this one. He also added that we are fortunate that CAPS has a Mandarin speaking counselor on staff; she was made available and has worked dutifully as part of the full campus response and availability of resources to students. He asked Faculty Council members to share any ideas for how the follow up process can be better in this incident as well as any incident. We have a strong Chinese American community of faculty who are interested in these questions.

Prof. Dorothy Cilenti (Maternal and Child Health) asked about communications that occurred after the event. In the days that followed, more than 100 emails were sent to faculty and students communicating resources from different levels of campus that caused some people to shut down (emotionally). Even though the messaging was well-intentioned, it ended up being overwhelming. She asked if a command structure to disseminate this kind of information exists or, if not, one could be created.

Chair Moracco replied that Faculty Governance coordinated with the Center for Faculty Excellence and the Office of Faculty Affairs in the Provost’s Office to streamline the number of messages to faculty and sent out a couple of communications with curated resources and information about drop-in sessions for faculty to process the events together. Provost Clemens said that the administration tried to be judicious with email but acknowledged that if every office sends out a few messages it can easily result in an overwhelming number of them. The administration can look at whether it would be better to aggregate or just have one message that points people to a website where they can find all the information. He would like to look at how many messages were sent to get a sense of the amount of overlap and whether it was appropriate under the circumstances.

Prof. Shannelle Campbell (Medicine) asked the chancellor to address prevention efforts, such as plans that are in place or being made to help prevent a similar incident from happening again.

Chancellor Guskiewicz replied that we need to consider the root cause that leads to an event like this one. We need a better understanding of the pressures placed on graduate students and postdocs. The administration is consulting with campus experts who study these issues for assistance and want them to help enact useful measures.

Chair Moracco paraphrased a comment submitted via Poll Everywhere stating that Prof. Yan reported concerns about the shooter to the dean of students, but there was nothing that could be done. There needs to be a way to separate dangerous people from those who feel threatened by them. What can be done when faculty feel that they are not safe because of the behavior or comments of a student?

The chancellor replied that he cannot speculate about this situation. He noted that an investigation is ongoing, and he does not have details about it. He underscored his and the administration’s commitment to prevention.

Provost Clemens said that the Dean of Students Office is the normal starting place for such an issue. The Graduate School has a student affairs staff member who can serve as a first point of contact for issues related to graduate students.

Prof. Doug Lauen (Public Policy) said that in his department’s first faculty meeting after the incident a faculty member discussed being triggered by Prof. Yan’s shooting because of stalking the faculty member has experienced. Some faculty feel like it is difficult to get help with a problem like threats and stalking, especially when a former student is involved. What can the University do regarding issues with a former student? If there is no credible threat, then the police cannot really do anything. We are facing a mental health crisis that was exacerbated by the pandemic. Many of our students are struggling and some are acting erratically, which is a real challenge when faculty are trying to motivate students to perform at a very high level.

Provost Clemens replied that this problem is associated with any open campus. In cases where no threshold to take legal or HR action exists, it is hard to find a channel to address issues without violating due process. He hopes that following our after-action process, the administration will be better informed to address whether it did everything it could

Chancellor Guskiewicz added that awareness about these issues will likely be heightened right now, especially as faculty, staff and students have experienced this potentially triggering event. He said that colleagues from other universities that have experienced gun violence have reached out to share what they have learned in the aftermaths of them. The administration plans to learn from them and share that information widely.

Chair Moracco read a comment from Poll Everywhere [the person who submitted it did not provide a name]: “As an emergency physician and healthcare worker, I was concerned for the safety of patients and staff and the discord of notifications and response between hospital and university systems. As a faculty member, I continue to worry about ongoing trauma for our learners and mentors and the need for training and resource allocation. As a parent of a child on campus, I continue to be concerned for his safety and the impact on the learning environment going forward. I appreciated the quick response and actions of safety personnel, but we have learnings from this event to improve our preparedness.”

Prof. Miguel La Serna (History) returned to the issues about communications and ambiguous messaging, asking if it is something the University can commit to investigating. Faculty in his department felt that the alerts were insufficient; the messages were often ambiguous and difficult to process in real time. He requested that the alert system be reviewed. He added that he did appreciate the resources that were offered afterwards.

Chancellor Guskiewicz affirmed that the alert and communications system will be part of the review process. The administration will work to improve it.

Prof. Schlobohm asked at what point the administration will share the campus’ communication process to help faculty understand it.

Provost Clemens replied that a lot of the communications system is automatic and follows best practices. It doesn’t provide a location because the shooter(s) may move about. The timing of messages is prescribed beforehand. Lots of information was routed to Twitter or X because it doesn’t sound an alert on people’s phones (unlike a text message), and it was updated about every 15 minutes. The only time there was an actual alert was when a status changed. It will all be reviewed. Essentially what happens is that if a first alert goes out and an emergency is declared, then the emergency operations center takes over messaging for the University. He added that teams of professionals and external consultants designed the system to be optimized to follow best practices and not for a specific case. The University will examine the system’s effectiveness and whether it needs to be changed.

Prof. Schlobohm replied that she does not use X and was not aware that it would be a main information source in this type of instance. She commented that people need to know in advance what information platform will be used.

The provost replied that the decision to use Twitter was made before it became X and whether that is still the appropriate vehicle for these types of communications will be revisited. A discussion was already underway about having a central website that everybody knows to go to for information instead of a commercial solution, such as X.

Prof. Hélène de Fays (Romance Studies) shared that students in her Spanish class who were in Lenoir Hall at the time of the lockdown later told her that a lot of the campus dining workers did not understand the messages since they were all in English, and especially since they used unfamiliar terminology. She asked if emergency messages could come out in multiple languages, or at least in Spanish, for the support staff at the University who do not speak fluent English.

Chancellor Guskiewicz answered in the affirmative. The administration has heard this feedback over the past week and will ensure it is addressed.

Professor Jennifer Smith (Linguistics) commented that many people on campus were not aware that Twitter/X was being used to disseminate information in an emergency context. Upon hearing the emergency sirens, she accessed the Alert Carolina website right away, but it was not being updated regularly. She asked why the website wasn’t used for live updates. In terms of language issues, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School district has implemented a new app this year where messages can be automatically translated into multiple languages and sent out to people who are registered to receive them in those languages. She is wondering if the campus could implement a similar solution, especially for emergency messages.

The chancellor agreed on both points and underscored that the University is working on it.

Prof. Brad Drummond (Medicine) wanted to elevate primary prevention. He has heard from several School of Medicine faculty how they feel woefully inadequate in understanding mechanisms to report concerning student behaviors. He gave the example of how simply he can notify the hospital if he has COVID and asked if the University could find a similar way to streamline reporting mechanisms that allow due process and help to remove stress from faculty by having their concerns reported and acknowledged.

Prof. Hannig asked about future messaging to prospective students and faculty. How will we show our strengths, and that people can still come here and be safe? He wondered how incidents like this recent one may affect future enrollment.

The chancellor replied that the University is focused on the community here first. He acknowledged that messaging prospective students is important and will be considered.

Prof. Anissa Vines (Public Health) remarked how the event was retraumatizing to her. She noted that she was here for the first mass shooting on this campus when there were no sirens, X, or other technology features, though immediate hotlines were set up for students. She also remembered 9/11 and campus preparedness that was implemented because of it with almost every department having a preparedness person. This time she has not heard much about preparedness at the department level and how it is interconnected across the campus. As we think about moving forward and improving on the systems in place, she would favor seeing a preparedness system put in place again. She too was not aware that X was being used for emergency messaging. Upon receiving the alert, she accessed Alert Carolina. She shared that her daughter was on campus that day and did not receive an alert, so was not aware of what was going on or what to do. Prof. Vines was off-campus and did not know where to direct her. Her daughter ended up sheltering alone in her car in a parking deck, but did not know when it was safe to leave. Prof. Vines hopes that going forward we will examine our internal communication channels and not rely so heavily on technology.

Chair Moracco acknowledged that many people already have experiences with trauma, and that an event like this one can be especially problematic and hurtful.

Chancellor Guskiewicz said that the feedback being shared is very important and he is taking note of it. A feedback portal is opening next week; he encouraged faculty to enter their additional feedback. He also took a moment to acknowledge the campus’ emergency response teams and the efforts of the clinicians working for CAPS. He described their work as incredible and encouraged faculty to express their thanks if they encounter those individuals.

Provost Clemens said that faculty will receive a survey from Darrell Jeter’s operation [Emergency Management and Planning] that he urged them to respond to it even if they have provided feedback in today’s meeting or to their departments, because the intent is to capture the best set of data in one place to help inform what we do next.

Dean Beth Mayer-Davis (Graduate School) addressed a question that came up earlier in the discussion about resources for faculty who see a student in distress, especially a graduate student. As the provost mentioned, the Dean of Students Office is one source particularly for undergraduate students, but graduate students as well. In The Graduate School, the senior associate dean for student affairs is Katie McAnulty, who is highly experienced and has a team available to help students. If faculty have a concern about students, they can reach out to them. The Graduate School has created a lot of programming to support student well-being and success. They continue to examine the graduate student experience and how it can be improved. She encouraged faculty who teach graduate students to in turn encourage their students to access programming and resources offered by The Graduate School. Dean Mayer-Davis underscored that staff in the school are available to provide help and support.

Chair Moracco thanked Dean Mayer-Davis and acknowledged the dual role of many graduate students who are often both students and instructors. As instructors, they can avail themselves of the resources on the Center for Faculty Excellence website as well as with The Graduate School. She concluded the discussion by thanking Faculty Council members for their candid comments and the chancellor and provost for being willing to respond to and listen to the feedback.

Resolution in memory of Prof. Zijie Yan
Secretary of the Faculty Jill Moore announced that the Faculty Executive Committee had submitted a resolution in memory of Prof. Yan. The Council’s notice rules normally require that resolutions be disseminated with the final agenda, but that deadline could not be met under these circumstances. Secretary Moore requested a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the Council to consider the resolution. Prof. Joy Renner (Radiologic Science) moved to suspend the rules and Prof. Andy Hessick (Law) seconded the motion. The Faculty Council then accepted the motion to suspend the rules by unanimous consent.

Secretary Moore then asked for another allowance for departure from normal procedures. The intent of this resolution is to honor a colleague and to acknowledge his family, so we want to take care to do that in a most respectful way and with the input of the most relevant people. Council member Prof. Ronit Freeman is on the Applied Physical Sciences faculty, as was Prof. Yan. Prof. Freeman shared the FEC’s proposed resolution with Prof. Yan’s close colleagues in her department and they worked quickly to suggest better language for the resolution.

Secretary Moore asked the Council to consider amending the resolution to adopt the changes recommended by the Applied Physical Sciences faculty. The changes were redlined on the document shared during the meeting. Prof. Freeman moved to adopt the amendments and Prof. Hessick seconded it. The amendments to the resolution were accepted by unanimous consent.

Chair Moracco read Resolution 2023-5. In Memory of Professor Zijie Yan, as amended, aloud in English.

Chair and Professor Wei You (Mathematics) read the resolution as amended aloud in Mandarin.

Following the readings, the Faculty Council adopted the resolution by unanimous consent. It will be transmitted to Prof. Yan’s family.

Provost Clemens acknowledged the efforts made by Chinese American faculty members to support the Yan family. He thanked Prof. You for his leadership and generosity, and also acknowledged Professors Jinsong Huang (Applied Physical Sciences) and Conghe Song (Geography) for their support of the family all week long, helping them through their grief and with the funeral and burial. He invited Prof. You to make remarks.

Prof. You described the faculty’s efforts to provide immediate support to Prof. Yan’s family. He read a note of thanks from the family. He also acknowledged the tremendous outpouring of support from administrators and staff.

Chancellor’s remarks
Chancellor Guskiewicz remarked that the past twelve days have been unlike any he has ever experienced. He then provided updates on other items.

On June 29, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling was made on our affirmative action lawsuit, the law was changed. It now prevents all universities in the country from using race as one of many factors in a holistic admissions process. Our admissions teams have been working hard to prepare. As the chancellor said on that day, the University will stay true to its mission to welcome all students who earn admission to Carolina and value their varied lived experiences that help to bring the curriculum to life.

The chancellor has spent time meeting new students. Carolina welcomed its largest incoming class in history at the June 21 new student convocation. We welcomed the largest new incoming class in our history, about 5600 new first year students, 900 of whom are transfer students–the most transfer students to enter at once. Most transfer from community colleges across the state. We also have 2400 new graduate students. We now have over 30,000 students collectively. Incoming students come from 93 North Carolina counties, 49 U.S. states plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and more than 100 countries. 19% of this class are the first in their family to attend college. He wants to make sure they are the first in their family to graduate from college.

The administration is committed to improving accessibility on campus. One visible improvement is a new permanent sloped walkway that was installed at the Old Well this summer. They are working hard on accessibility for transportation services, classroom spaces, and several new elevator projects. We are seeing progress, though there is much more to be done.

An exciting announcement about The Carolina Women’s Center will come in the next few weeks. He thanked Prof. Beth Posner (Law) for her efforts to help create a thriving women’s center on campus.

Finally, the chancellor mentioned Athletic Coast Conference expansion. Three new schools (Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, and Southern Methodist University) will join the conference in 2024. Chancellor Guskiewicz said he voted against this expansion and his vote was informed by students, coaches, the Faculty Athletics Committee and its chair, and others. However, we are going to make it work. One issue of concern is extended travel for student athletes. The chancellor has reached out to colleagues at the three incoming schools.

There were no questions for the chancellor.

Provost’s remarks
Provost Clemens provided a summary of some of the ways in which Carolina is doing very well. We receive tremendous state support, with one of the largest appropriations of state funding in the country. Our educational programs are in high demand, as evidenced by the nearly 60,000 high school and transfer students who applied for undergraduate admission last year. Our students have educational experiences that prepare them for meaningful lives, with almost half of them participating in study abroad or other global experiences. We are a top 10 federally funded research university, with over $700 million in federal funds and around $1.2 billion in overall funding. These numbers are all going up, not down, but the numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. Our campus’ success is due to its faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students and it is important to ask how they are faring, because that picture may not be as rosy. He mentioned how we are recovering from COVID-19 stress and urged pausing and reflecting before “turning the knob back up to 11 again.”

His leadership team has been involved with a lot of hiring, 9 of the 15 deans and 5 vice provosts have been hired since he became provost. He and his team, which he is extremely proud of, have worked to create a robust office of Faculty Affairs.

Provost Clemens mentioned the new School of Data Science and Society and the School of Civic Life and Leadership and expressed a desire to discuss those with the Council further at future meetings.

Overview of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and University implementation
Associate Vice Chancellor and Senior University Counsel Kara Simmons provided an overview of the Students for Fair Admissions decision and how it is affecting our campus. She and her colleagues in the Office of University Counsel have worked on this case for the past 9 years. On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of race in admissions was a form of “pernicious stereotyping” that “cause[s] continued hurt and injury.” They held that the educational benefits of diversity, which the court had previously recognized as a legitimate reason for schools to pursue or to use race as one factor among many in evaluating candidates for admission was no longer lawful because it was inescapably imponderable and could not be measured by a court. The Court described college admissions as a zero-sum game, in which consideration of race in favor of some applicants has a negative effect on other applicants. The Court discussed the imprecise nature of some racial categories, such as Hispanic or Asian, and said that those categories are both over- and under-inclusive and may work against the educational interest in diversity that the Court had previously recognized. As a result of the Court’s decision, colleges and universities can no longer consider race at any stage of the admissions process, including initial reviews of applications, decisions about whom to interview, decisions about whom to offer admission, and waitlist decisions. Furthermore, the admission process cannot be used to achieve any racial diversity goals within a school or program. As a university, we cannot attempt to mirror the demographics of our state or the particular communities that many of our schools serve by taking race into consideration. Also, we cannot track the racial status of applicants during the admissions process to assess the makeup of a class being admitted and how it to the racial composition of prior classes. While applicants may discuss their lived racial experience in their essays, an individual’s lived racial experience can be considered only if it demonstrates a quality, characteristic, or experience we’re seeking from all applicants for admission—i.e., something that anyone can demonstrate regardless of race. Essays cannot be used by institutions to elicit racial status. We cannot have racial goals or proxies of any kind. Economic and geographic diversity can still be considered but must not be used as a proxy to achieve racial diversity.

She then invited Executive Vice Provost Amy L. Hertel to talk about the University’s recent activities to implement the Court’s decision and communications related to it. Just after the decision was released, Chancellor Guskiewicz sent a message to the campus community underscoring our campus’ commitment to stay true to the University’s mission. Then in July and August, the Offices of the Provost and University Counsel shared initial guidance with the deans and updates to the faculty. Council member were directed to the website for the lawsuit (https://Admissionslawsuit.unc.edu) to read those communications.

Executive Vice Provost Hertel discussed changes to the admissions processes going forward. Admissions reviewers no longer have access to applicants’ racial demographic data. The Office of Undergraduate Admissions, led by Vice Provost Rachelle Feldman, has been working to update application materials, including essay prompts and reviewer training materials to ensure compliance with the law. This same work will continue in the graduate and professional schools. A team has been meeting with each school to talk directly about each degree they offer. She expressed her thanks to the many people who have been involved in these meetings.

At this point, a four-part effort is taking place:

  • Updating applications and essay prompts.
  • Providing updated application reviewer training, including a training module for faculty and staff involved with admissions.
  • Reviewing scholarships and funding policies. The team has received many questions about fellowships and funding for graduate and professional students that they will research and communicate to schools and departments.
  • Considering issues and questions around recruitment efforts and pipeline programming.

The Office of University Counsel is keeping the UNC System Office apprised of how we are implementing the decision on campus.

Executive Vice Provost Hertel opened the floor to questions saying that it helps her team know what to respond to. Faculty can also direct any questions that arise to their admissions offices.

Prof. Hannig asked whether scholarship considerations will follow a rubric that involved diversity factors, such as had been used in the past.

Executive Vice Provost Hertel stated that her team is reviewing all rubrics. Even though the Court’s decision was about undergraduate admissions, we understand that it applies to graduate and professional schools as well, and they will be providing guidance about how to conduct a review absent race. They recognize that some of those conversations implicate funding. She asked to be notified of scholarships or fellowships in their departments and schools, particularly if they have been historically tied to diversity, race or ethnicity.

Prof. Lauen asked whether the term “race” is used to mean what he as a sociologist would consider “race or ethnicity.” Executive Vice Provost Hertel replied in the affirmative.

Prof. Dillman Carpentier asked if race extends to country. In other words, will these prohibitions affect recruitment from other countries? What if we have a specific need for recruiting scholars or building a pipeline from particular countries?

Associate Vice Chancellor Simmons replied that it could, depending on the circumstances. University Counsel would require more information and a better understanding of context to be able to advise on the country issue.

Prof. Cheryl Jackson (Medicine) asked if these changes are the University’s interpretations of the Court’s decision or is the decision that specific? She also wondered if other constructs, such as gender or legacy, can continue to be considered?

Associate Vice Chancellor Simmons said that the information presented is the University’s interpretation based on close examination of the decision. Other elements of diversity that can be assessed depend on what qualities and characteristics are sought. The Court’s decision is only about race and ethnicity. Other laws may apply to other elements of identity.

Prof. La Serna expressed concern that the law might be over-interpreted by admissions officers. He can imagine a scenario in which an applicant writes exclusively about their race and how it affects what they have done and would like to accomplish in their essay, as is allowable. What is in place to prevent that applicant from being discriminated against for talking too much about their race? In other words, what kind of instructions are being given to admissions officers about interpreting the Supreme Court decision too broadly?

Associate Vice Chancellor Simmons replied that the Supreme Court decision says we cannot discriminate on the basis of race in any direction. While we cannot use race as plus-factor, we also cannot use consideration of race in an adverse way. It is important that we achieve balance in assessing information we have about any applicant in a way that is compliant with the law. The training module for admissions reviewers and officers will address these efforts.

Prof. Hannig said that at the Faculty Assembly meeting he learned that Eastern Carolina University had decided to remove all DEI statements from its website. He asked if there is any danger of that happening here and how the changes may affect hiring decisions.

Executive Vice Provost Hertel replied that they are not giving recommendations on DEI statements nor on hiring. Her team has only been looking at references to diversity and inclusion as it pertains to admissions.

Prof. Raj Kasthuri (Medicine) asked if any efforts have been undertaken for universities across the nation to join together for the sake of uniformity and to harmonize across the country?

Executive Vice Provost Hertel replied that collectively, universities and colleges are in a season of compliance. Professional societies and national groups are considering what steps to take next. It is an opportunity to reconsider practices. Carolina can be a leader in that space. Our schools have been showing how to make opportunities out of change. One way is streamlining admissions processes. National conversations will occur once the admissions season is fully launched and there is time to reflect on it. She expects that many conversations on this topic will come in time.

Provost Clemens added that this topic is being discussed at national meetings of provosts and among the chief academic officers in the UNC System.

Additional discussion
Prof. You said that he is a faculty advisor for Chinese students who have concerns because the tragedy impacted a lot of the Chinese and wider Asian community. He implored faculty to embrace their Chinese and Asian faculty and students, and to be vigilant about hate speech and report anything that is amiss. Finally, he wanted faculty to know that a Go Fund Me has been created for donations for the Yan family.

Adjournment
Its business having concluded, the Faculty Council adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Helena Knego
University Program Specialist

Jill D. Moore
Secretary of the Faculty