November 11, 1994

MEETING OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL

Friday, November 11, 1994

Assembly Room, Wilson Library

Faculty Council Attendance: Present 59; Excused Absences 15; Unexcused Absences 17.

Open Session

I. Memorial Resolution for the late Betsy Jones Stover: Dr. Philip F. Hirsch, Chair

Chancellor Hardin: We will open this November meeting of the Faculty Council with the presentation of a memorial resolution for the late Betsy Jones Stover. This will be done by Dr. Philip F. Hirsch, Chair of the committee.

[Professor Hirsch read the memorial.] Professor Hirsch: The memorial committee requests the full memorial resolution to be entered into the permanent records of the Faculty and that copies be sent to members of the family. Since I’m not a member of the Faculty Council, I am requesting that a member make such a motion. Chancellor Hardin: The committee report has the status of a motion duly seconded. If you will favor the approval of this memorial resolution, please stand for a moment of silence. Thank you.

II. Chancellor Hardin

I begin my few words of report with an apology. There is a ground-breaking for the new addition to the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at 4:00, and I will have to leave early today. I hate that because I’m terribly interested in all of the matters that are coming before you for discussion today. Events of last Tuesday have led me to change the intended topic of my report, and while you’re chuckling, still on the lighter side, an interesting thing transpired at the Board of Governors meeting this morning. Former Governor Bob Scott was there to receive our thanks for his fine work as head of the community colleges system for North Carolina, and Bob Scott was given a chance to say a few words. And two of his Republican predecessors are around that table: Governor James Holshouser and Governor Jim Martin. And so Bob Scott began by saying, “I tried to reach Jim Holshouser and Jim Martin last Wednesday. I was not able to. But what I really want to say to you two fellows is that I’ve been on your side all along.” He went on to say that he had suspected that when he left state government, as he has recently announced, that the quality of state services in North Carolina would deteriorate, but he had no idea it would have such a dramatic impact. More seriously, I thought it might be interesting for us to have a short discussion. I guess by the nature of things with me doing more of the talking than you, but I’ll be glad to have your comments and questions. On what might be the consequences of the sea-change that we experienced in both federal and state elections last Tuesday. First, what are our most serious losses at the local level? Without question they are Howard Lee and Congressman Price. We lost in those two servants, public servants, incredible dignity, credibility, experience, knowledge, of this University, knowledge of Chapel Hill — they both live in this town — knowledge of the university world and the importance of the university system and of this campus to our state. In Congressman Price we lost a great champion of research and a person who helped us attract research funding on this campus and at Duke and NC State and elsewhere. In Howard Lee we lost the most stalwart, impervious-to-criticism-and-attack champion that this campus has had in the Senate, the State Senate, in recent years. Therefore, I just unabashedly say that we have suffered very nearly irreparable losses in the unexpected defeats of those two great friends of the University, David Price and Howard Lee.

Having said that, I’ll turn to a question on which I can give a slightly more cheerful answer: What are the possible or probable impacts at the state level? On the brighter side, on the very day following election day, when the newly elected senator from our district, Fred Hobbs, had plenty to do — he was receiving congratulatory phone calls and trying to get to work and wrap his arms around his new responsibility — he called me, and he chased me across the campus — he and I were both busy — but he was desperately anxious to reach me on the day following election day to say that he understood, having run in tandem with Howard Lee, how devastated we must be in Chapel Hill and in Orange County and on this campus that Howard was not reelected. And he said, “I feel as the Democratic member of the delegation to the Senate from this District an enormous responsibility to do what I can to fill the void that you must feel. And therefore I want to come, and I want to come before the Legislature convenes, to visit with you and such others of your colleagues as you want me to meet, to find out what the needs are at UNC-Chapel Hill, and what the needs and the concerns are at Chapel Hill and Orange County.” I find that extremely encouraging, and I think that spirit is going to be rather typical of those who are newcomers to the Legislature in both parties. They will have a sense of awesome responsibility and I think a deep commitment, and I hope they will be as eager as Fred Hobbs obviously is to learn and get to know us, and I’m inclined to be optimistic about that.

Turning from the Democratic to the Republican side of the Legislature, and, of course, the Republican party now controls the House of Representatives in this State, which was a surprise to almost everybody — I didn’t know it until something like noon the day after the election. When I went to bed amidst all the dire forecasts, that was not one of them. The speculation concerning who would emerge as Speaker of the House, obviously a Republican, but speculation is fairly optimistic. I’d rather not call any names because all I have are some hearsay hunches about who might be Speaker, but the persons that have guessed to me who might be Speaker of the House all happen to be Democrats and they speak highly of the suspects. In other words, they seem to be people of good will and intelligence and commitment. I think there is a high probability of continued commitment of the Legislature to public higher education and means, too, the University of North Carolina system. And that commitment of appropriated funds, one might guess, might possibly be accompanied by fewer restrictions. I might guess there might be slightly less micro-management. On the other hand, there might be less money, too. It depends upon the priorities of the leadership in the newly constituted Legislature, and it depends upon whether those who’ve been elected felt in that election a mandate to cut taxes. I will risk sticking my neck out: the last thing we need in this State or in our federal government is a tax cut, the very last thing we need. And I’m hoping, particularly at the federal level, that those who will be tempted at first to see this as a mandate to cut taxes will see it instead as a mandate to have enough taxes to cover the essential services of the government. I would argue that the mandate is not to have continually mounting deficits rather than a mandate to cut taxes. At least, that’s my mandate for what it’s worth. I do think we have to be aware that there may well be tax cuts both at the state and federal level, which, as far as I’m concerned, would reduce the opportunity for the University to realize its very legitimate needs and to continue to strengthen our mission of teaching, research, and public service in this State.

I have similar concerns at the federal level. I’ve been concentrating more on the State, the likelihood that there might be tax cuts and some overall reductions in not only social programs of the Federal government, but in support of education. Partisanship, to this observer, has been more aggressive in Washington than in Raleigh. And I’m concerned about partisanship and the likelihood that the President and the leadership of the now Republican controlled Congress will have trouble getting together and staying together for very long at a time. I have a generally optimistic, but very cautiously optimistic, statement about the possible salutary effect on both parties of what happened. I’m looking for a silver lining, looking real hard. But it does occur to me at the federal and state levels, and particularly federal that a party too long in power can begin to feel that its programs are the only approaches that make any sense, and develop a kind of habit of control that can translate into some arrogance and insensitivity. I also think, to be even-handed here, that being too long out of power for one of our national parties on the national scene can weaken that party in a very different way. I’m on ticklish territory here, but it strikes me as though the last 20 or so years the top leadership of the Republican party in Washington — not so much in North Carolina but in Washington — has spent a lot of energy persuading the American people that government is unreliable and a lousy idea. And now that party has to govern. Spent 20, 25 years persuading the American people that government is no good, that it’s a lousy idea, and the less government the better, and now that party has to govern. And it seems to me that that party will have to come up with positive answers to questions like tax cuts versus social programs versus new weapons systems, and it’s going to be a lot tougher to come up with the answers to those questions than it is to criticize the answers that someone else comes up with. I had spoken for a silver lining, but I really do think — I have it on the authority of Ross Perot — that this bath will be good for the Democratic party. And when I heard him say that on television the other night — (He said, “Make it easier for the Democratic party to resist the Left.”) — it occurred to me that it might be good for the Republican party to have an opportunity to put forth a positive program in government instead of a relentlessly long-term negative program.

What in the meantime do we do? I think we mourn the loss of our friends, and I’ve written hand[written] notes to them and spoken to several of them. We celebrate the fact that Anne Barnes and Joe Hackney weren’t opposed. I told Anne last night — we were sitting together at a function — and I said I heard somebody pulled the unopposed lever. But Joe and Anne emerged. George Miller emerged. I almost consider George a member of our delegation. He’s our loyal, stalwart friend in Durham, and survived the slaughter. I do know some of the Republicans, not all, who have risen in prominence. And I think our proper course is to be empathetic to those who have lost and to help them in the future any way we can. But then to be determined to make new friends in Raleigh and in Washington. We have a great story to tell the public: higher education in North Carolina and to this campus, and I feel that people will listen. I think Fred Hobbs’ response will not be atypical. And so we should all set about to make new friends in Raleigh and in Washington. And I’m not only going to be busy at that myself, working closely with B.G. Martin and President Spangler, but I’m glad that we have become political in the Faculty Council through your Executive Committee and through your special committee that helps educate our General Assembly and the Administration of the University system about our faculty salary needs and other needs on our campus — the needs for graduate student support and the like. And I will do my part to help make the contacts and you can make, to be sure that we tell the story truthfully and tell it in order to win friends and influence senators and representatives.

I also think it’s a good time for us to resolve on this campus to set an example of civility and respect, civility and enormous respect for each other across all artificial barriers including party lines. Really, I said it a while ago, but I think partisanship is a more serious problem in Washington than it is in Raleigh — I really saw some evidence of that in the Board of Governors today. If you realize there are 32 people on the Board of Governors and 16 of them are up for reappointment this year. And they are selected by the General Assembly. So there’s a possibility of a tremendous change in the composition of the Board of Governors and yet, I know by working closely with that body, that you can hardly tell in that body who’s a Democrat and who’s a Republican, because they all do care about the University of North Carolina and join together in working for what they perceive to be the best interests of our University. And I think we can set an example on this campus of respecting each other across the lines that divide us, whether they be political party or race or what, or status. And I think that North Carolina might be counted on to set a positive example in terms of working together in that awkward situation in which the executive branch is in the hands of one party and the legislative branch in the hands of another. I bring you that commentary for what it’s worth. Are there any questions or comments? I’m particularly sorry I have to leave before the discussion takes place today about the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center, a project very dear to my heart and my personal priorities, and one that I think fits very deeply into the theme of working together across artificial boundaries with civility and mutual respect, profound respect, and that’s my comment on that. Plus a commendation to whoever prepared the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center fact sheet which you had a chance to pick up as you came in. It strikes me as enormously useful in terms of just exactly where we are. Any questions? Or comments? Or political rebuttals? Thank you very much. Professor Jane Brown: Thank you.

III. Chair of the Faculty Jane D. Brown

I wanted today to acknowledge that it is also Veteran’s Day, and we had a ceremony out here. I can still see remnants of it. And I want to acknowledge all those of you who have been veterans. We thank you for that. I want to begin by recognizing Harry Gooder who brings us some more planning information that we all need to be aware of. There is a document that you may have picked up. He’ll tell us more about this committee. It is a timely announcement.

Professor Gooder (Microbiology): Do I need to come up there? Can everyone hear me from here? Professor Brown: Please stand up. Professor Gooder: I’m representing Professor Clegg who is Chairman of the Faculty Advisory Committee on Land Use Planning. This was a committee created by Professor Peacock and Chancellor Hardin jointly to really advise the consultants on the land use planning for the outlying lands. Anyone who’s read the newspapers or read any of the other faculty material knows that Johnson, Johnson, and Roy are the consultants chosen by the University to develop a plan for the outlying lands of the University, specifically the airport property and the Mason Farm Road property. Now, they need advice on what academic programs may eventually be located on those properties. They will visit the University again early in January between the 11th and 13th, and the real question that they’re asking the faculty committee for advice on is how will the primary mission of the University change over the next 10 to 20 years? What’s the impact of new technologies, new teaching methodologies? What do we feel about the location of facilities? Now at that meeting in January they are going to begin to identify site opportunities. And so, Professor Clegg’s committee needs by that date a sense of what the faculty see as academic program needs over the next 20 years. What kinds of programs or amenities, for example? Do we conceive of developing residential colleges? Or are there going to be academic/industrial consortia that may be located on campus? What kind of research programs? And similarly, what kind of activities currently located on the central campus could possibly be moved? Now, beginning in January the consultants will translate those themes into site plans. Certainly local government committees are expecting to see where buildings will be, where roads will be, what kind of parking amenities will be provided, and so on — coming out of that consultants’ report. So Professor Clegg’s committee would like to hear from faculty what their thoughts are for the academic mission of the University during this time frame, so they could be incorporated into that plan. Jane pointed out at our first meeting of this year that we each represent 25 faculty. So I think it behooves us to find out from our colleagues what they would like to see from the point of view of academic programs. I might say I’m sort of haunted by a vision. As you drive down 54, Highway 54, the only outlying land development we’ve had in recent years consists of the Friday Center, the indoor tennis courts, an administrative building for the Hospital, and WUNC FM radio. Now for good and sufficient reasons, each of them were located where they are on that property. But I have a hard time finding the academic coherence among that group. Professor Brown: So you’re suggesting we each talk with our constituents? Professor Gooder: You’ve got the committee list, get in touch with them with your ideas. [The list of the Faculty Advisory Committee on Land Use Planning was available at the meeting, and is also attached to the Summary of Proceedings, distributed to all faculty members.]

Professor Brown: Great. Any questions or comments for Harry at this point? Okay. This is crucial. I mean it’s happening rather fast, and so anything you can offer to the committee would be appreciated at this point. I’m going to speak today a little bit more about what we’re going, the conversation we’re going to have a little later, in my opening comments, and then come back to it. I’ve been remembering my first days at the University of Kentucky as an out-of-state freshman. My mother and sister brought me a few days early so I could participate in sorority rush. They left me on the ninth floor of a twenty story dormitory tower with some 400 other young women, all complete strangers. I went through the ritual of sorority rush, ultimately deciding it wasn’t for me. Mostly because not many out-of-staters, read Yankees, were pledging Southern sororities at that time. It was 1968. Part of it was highly appealing, though. I liked the idea of having a houseful of sisters, of having a place where I could belong in this unfamiliar landscape. Over the next few months I tried out being with different groups: the international students, the student newspaper staff, other Yankees. I’ve gone through a similar process each time I moved to another large university. It is the process of finding my community within the community. Community is a word used often and somewhat loosely these days, but many of us hanker after it. John Gardner writes that we look for a number of things in communities, including security, a sense of identity and belonging, a framework of shared assumptions and values, a network of caring individuals, an experience of being needed. This is what our students and many of us seek here at Carolina. I think the conversation we had at our last meeting about consensual amorous relationships and the conversation we will have today about the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center are, at their core, conversations about community. These conversations about how we can be a network — these are conversations about how we can be a network of caring individuals that help each of us have a sense of identity in a safe context. These are not easy conversations, because what is in question is not the desire for community but our shared assumptions and values. I’m afraid that what we resort to more often than not is to retreat to what is familiar, to seek out and stay with only those whom we think will share our assumptions about how the world does and should work. We find it threatening to speak and be with people who are not like us. In my life I have found it is easier to be with the unfamiliar if I come from the familiar. If my base is secure, I will venture out. It’s tentative and scary. I’m not sure what I’m doing and I’m afraid I’ll sometimes say something I shouldn’t say. As a woman in an academic world still inhabited mostly by men, I have found strength and security and community in groups of women. These groups have provided me the security from which I can function in a sometimes unfamiliar world. Today I am committed to the possibility that men and women can work together and have a great time at it. And as we work on what that’s going to look like, we may need some guidelines in the process.

Today we will be discussing the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. I have only recently begun thinking seriously about what the Center means. Like many of us I have stood on the sidelines as this discussion went on. I knew what I read in the newspaper or what my colleagues muttered in the halls. I had my opinions, but mostly I wished it would go away. Over the past couple of months, though, as the smoke has cleared, I have been looking more closely at what the Center is and what it can be in the future. I am impressed. I am impressed with what a few dedicated people have accomplished. I am impressed with their commitment and their vision of a future that includes continued inquiry into what it means to be black in this culture. About whether we can have a community in which both Blacks and Whites and other races feel secure and needed. I have come to believe that the Center will serve to make us a stronger community. It is designed to provide a familiar base from which our students and faculty can venture out to be with and excel in the larger community. And it will be a place where white faculty and students can come to learn about what is unfamiliar to them. Our students need the benefit of community and so do we. I believe this is an opportunity to continue to create a community that includes us all. This is an opportunity to step together into a future in which we can all live and learn together, respect and possibly even love each other. So, this afternoon I encourage you to listen carefully to the presentations I have. And I encourage you to listen, to see if we an let go of our concerns, and consider how this might benefit us all. This is a difficult conversation. And I really want you to listen to see if it’s possible. And to see if you all can find a place in it, so that it’s going to work for you, too.

First we have some other community matters to attend to. We have a report of the Standing Committee on Athletics — this is always an interesting one — Professor Fred Mueller.

IV. Annual Reports of Standing Committees:

A. Athletics Committee: Frederick O. Mueller, Chair.

Professor Mueller: I’ve been looking forward to this for the last month. The report has been distributed, but before I entertain questions concerning the report, I have some brief remarks to make. Athletic Director John Swofford has expressed the importance of an open channel of communication between the Department of Athletics and the faculty. And he’s willing to discuss any aspect of the program, at any time, on any areas of concern with you, the faculty, with any faculty member. I think all we have to do is call John or his office and he will be happy to discuss those concerns with you. I want to also take this opportunity to congratulate the Department of Athletics for being selected the most well-rounded, successful athletic program in the country, and finishing ahead of other fine academic institutions like Stanford, UCLA, and Penn State. If you noticed in the annual report, there was no report from the Subcommittee on Drug Education, and that was due to the following reasons: Number 1, the drug testing committee evaluated the program in 1992 and 1993 and found no problems associated with that program. And there have been no changes in that program since 1992 and 1993. Another reason is that there has never been any comments from athletes during the exit interview process concerning the drug testing program. And finally, the faculty Athletics Committee will review the value of the drug education committee since the Athletic Department also has a committee on drug education. A member of the faculty Athletics Committee is a member of faculty for the Athletic Department committee. So, we’re looking at whether we should have two of those committees or just coordinate the faculty Athletics Committee liaison with the Athletic Department.

I also want to apologize for not having a final report on the exit interviews in the final report that you received. We received it at our last meeting, and I will give you some of those results. The results are similar to last year. Some of the problems that we came across, or that problem with freshmen facing, the problems freshmen face adjusting to academics, social life, and intercollegiate athletics during their freshman year. Study hall has continued to be criticized, and I’ll talk about that a little bit more in a minute. Athletes were concerned about being able to study during extended travel time going to trips they make with athletic teams. Athletes were concerned that they were not able to take some of the classes they would have liked to sign up for due to their athletic commitments. Sixty-six percent of the white respondents thought professors were biased against athletes, but 90% of the black athletes had this same feeling. Some of the recommendations by these subcommittees are as follows: They want to encourage the Athletic Department to continue the recent changes they have made in the study hall procedure which allows some freshman student-athletes to be excused from study hall based on their high school academic performance. Also to continue using Davis Library as an additional site for their study hall. And we recommend that the Academic Support Center continue to allow flexibility in the study hall program. The Subcommittee also recommended that the Department of Athletics make sure that lighting is available for night reading on its buses and vans, that it continue to support the practice of many teams that set up hotel/motel study rooms on the extended overnight trips. The Subcommittee also recommends that the Faculty Committee on Athletics or the Advisory Committee to the academic support program consider the response differences between Afro-American and white students on the exit questionnaires, and endeavor to understand how these differences can be diminished. The problem may be with student perception, faculty attitudes, or most likely, both. The Subcommittee also asks for additional favorable publicity of the academic accomplishments of the student-athletes as a group. Another recommendation was to continue to develop a peer counseling program, Carolina Athletes Coming Together. This is a student-athlete peer interaction group and may be the best way to continue work on freshman transition problems and to enhance the quality of education programs. Another recommendation was for the Department to continue to sponsor the all-sports banquet and other activities that permit Carolina student-athletes to interact across campus. And finally, the academic support program to consider how to announce its programs and activities so that all student-athletes who do not rarely use the Academic Support Center will learn how to, will learn of these programs. I would be happy to answer any questions about the final report that has been distributed.

Professor Ron Link (Law School): I’m responding to John’s invitation and communication. I refer you to page 3 of the report, last paragraph, concerning implementation of the new faculty basketball ticket distribution. The last sentence, “The recommendation was approved and the new policy went into effect in the 1994-95 academic year.” I have a few questions, after which I will submit two resolutions which I ask for the Secretary of the Faculty to schedule for December’s meeting. I hope the Athletic Committee will endorse them, but in any event I intend to offer them at the proper time. First my questions. Am I correct in understanding that the resolution proposing the new formula for seating at athletic contests, as adopted by the Faculty Council last February, provided that “the proposal is not to be retroactive but will take effect for the first time in the fall of 1994”? Professor Mueller: Let me refer you — Jane Brown met this fall with members of the Athletic Department, with Towny Ludington, with Professor Peacock, and members of the Athletics Department, Committee Professor Brown: Yeah. We met with members of the Employee Forum, Towny Ludington, members of the Athletic Department, and talked about that. That concern has been raised. We went back and looked over the minutes of both meetings where this was discussed last year. Our interpretation, the Employee Forum interpretation, the interpretation of the Athletic Department was that “retroactive” meant that it was going to hold, it was retroactive only for the tickets last spring. Because as this first came up it was in October, and so it was considered retroactive for that spring’s allotment. Professor Link: I will point out that the resolution as introduced last fall I think did not have the retroactivity sentence; I think, therefore, it was added and considered at the February meeting. Obviously, retroactivity means something other than taking away tickets for 1993-94, because that season was past. I point out, and I’ll save my debate for later, the minutes of the February meeting reflect the following discussion: “Professor Salemi did not understand what the proposal meant by not being retroactive. Professor Ludington replied that it meant that one would not get zapped by the new formula when it went into effect.” I’ll simply observe that I talked to several members of the Faculty Athletics Committee — their understanding was that the new formula would not apply to existing ticket holders. And it is my understanding, although I don’t have the data, that several long-time ticket holders have been seriously disadvantaged by the retroactive application. So I have a resolution that I ask be put on the agenda for next month to deal with this.

The second resolution [I will present] and that is the last straw for me. The root problem is the paucity of decent faculty seats. In my view the faculty Athletic Committee did not give serious consideration to the possibility of improving the location, the number of faculty seats, and my second resolution deals with that topic, which I introduce and save my debate for later. Professor Brown: So you want us to bring this up at the December meeting? Professor Link: I do. Professor Brown: If other members want to talk with us about that in the meantime, would you contact me about this? And talk with me? The Agenda Committee meets on Monday, so it’ll happen very fast: whether we’ll get this on the Agenda. But I’d like to hear other comments in the meantime about how to approach this. I would rather us not get back into a serious debate about allocation of tickets. If we have to, we will, but let’s see if we can handle this quickly. Professor Mueller: I would be happy to change my basketball tickets with anybody in this room, since I’m two rows from the top. Contrary to popular opinion, the Faculty Athletics Committee doesn’t sit behind the bench. Any other — But I appreciate your comments, and I’ll take it up with our Committee. Anybody have any other questions about the Faculty Athletic Committee report?

Professor Miles Fletcher (History): I appreciate very much the data in the back of the report. I was just looking through it and I noted in the cohort entering in 1990 there seemed to be an unusually large number of student-athletes marked as “withdrawn.” And I was wondering was there any notice of that, or discussion? And I don’t mean this as a general criticism. I think the Academic Support Center does an excellent job. I was just wondering about that. Professor Mueller: These are students that have withdrawn on their own initiative. Professor Fletcher: Right. Professor Mueller: And some legislation out of the NCAA. An athlete, a student-athlete can transfer to another institution without being penalized, without having to sit out one year. In many of the so-called Olympic sports like golf or baseball or tennis, if an athlete is not participating as a starter at this institution, if he or she feels that they would get more exposure to possible professional play later, by scouts and so forth, by moving to another institution, or transferring to another institution. So this really has increased the number of athletes that are leaving. Professor Fletcher: I see, so that’s a trend we might expect to see? Professor Mueller: Well, hopefully that, this is a concern of the Athletic Department and the Faculty Athletic Committee. And, because we’re concerned that if we bring students into the University, especially from out-of-state, we’d like them to complete their career and graduate. Professor Fletcher: Thank you.

Professor Mueller: Any other questions? Professor Brown: So you’re not offering those recommendations as resolutions? Professor Mueller: No, those are from a subcommittee.

B. Scholarships, Awards, and Student Aid: W. James McCoy, Chair.

Professor McCoy: Good afternoon. My comments are contained in the report that’s been circulated among the members of the Council. I will be happy to answer or try to answer any questions that you may have. But if your questions are beyond my comfort zone, I will not hesitate to tap the expertise of Ms. Eleanor Morris of the Office of Scholarships and Student Aid who is with us this afternoon.

Professor Hillel Gitelman (Medicine): I looked for it, but couldn’t find a statement as to the adequacy of scholarship funding. And I was a little surprised. Professor McCoy: Eleanor, SOS. Ms. Morris: Scholarship funding is never adequate. We can say that. I think that it can be pointed out by showing that loan burdens are increasing. As costs go up, in order to meet their full costs, students are borrowing more. And that is contained in the report. So while students are still getting the costs met, there are these higher loan payments. Professor Gitelman: I just thought we might — I understand it may be hard to have a formula to judge adequacy by — but I think it would be nice to have some sort of formula so that we could see whether we were getting somewhat better or somewhat worse. And I don’t know how to put the formula together, but I think we could. . . . Professor Brown: Thank you. Anything else? Comments or questions? Professor Jim Stasheff (Mathematics): Rightfully so most of the report seems to be concerned with undergraduate scholarship support. There is mention of graduate students. It is clear as I read in the report was that the inadequacy of funds was particularly strong on the graduate level. I was just wondering if there’d been any progress made in that direction. Professor McCoy: Again, having just taken over as chair of this Committee, I’ll have to direct your question to Eleanor. Ms. Morris: This Committee does not have oversight of graduate student aid except loan assistance. Professor Brown: Anything else? Thank you, Jim. Professor McCoy: I might just add that our largest amount of unrestricted monies comes from trademark royalties, and in that respect, do your Christmas shopping early, because UNC logo’s going, because this past year, in this current year, we’re dealing with approximately $1.4 million in distribution money, and that’s significant. Professor Brown: Thank you.

V. A Panel Presentation and Discussion on the Mission and Future of the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center

Professor Brown: We don’t often have purely informational presentations at Faculty Council, but I thought that this is an important one for us to have. I’ve already spoken to it, so I don’t need to reiterate why. We’ve assembled the experts on the Black Cultural Center to come tell us what this Cultural Center is, what it has been, and what it’s going to be in the past — right, no, in the future. So what we’re going to do today is to look at what the Black Cultural Center is going to be in the future, and how we can participate in that. We are going to have lots of time for discussion, and so what I want you to do is to listen for what it is in the future. And if you have concerns about what it has been or what you see the vision to be, we want to talk about that so that we can get on with it. And so this is going to be another open discussion after we hear the facts. So we have — and I haven’t really set this up very nicely for you all to come up. We have three presenters. Can you all at least come up front and then you’ll be here? There are a number of other people here who can speak to your questions. Harold Woodard is Interim Associate Dean of the Office for Student Counseling, and a Lecturer in the Curriculum of Afro-American Studies, and Chair of the BCC Advisory Board. Thank you, Harold. This is Michelle Thomas, who is the current Program Coordinator for the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. She’s a President of the Black Student Movement and a 1993 graduate. Thank you for being here. She’s also played a constructive role at difficult junctures in creating the Center. And she’s going to talk briefly about current programs with the Center and also what we can expect in the near future. Soyini Madison is an Assistant Professor in Communication Studies and a member of the Planning Committee for the Institute for African-American Research, which will be housed in the new Center. And she will speak about the Institute. So they have lots to talk about, but they’ve all agreed to limit their conversations to about 5 minutes apiece, so that will leave us lots of time for further conversation. We’ve also provided you some handouts that describe, one of the handouts tries to answer some of the most commonly asked questions about the BCC, and also lays out some ideas about programming and what’s going to be in the new building. The, I call it “pink,” but lavender or something, pamphlet also describes more about the programming in the current Center. So, if you all have those materials. But I’m also going to ask you do is again listen as representatives of your constituents. This is, you are representatives of faculty. The faculty had lots of questions about the Center. So the other thing that I’d like to accomplish today is that you become experts in what the vision for this Center is, and so you can take that back to your other faculty and talk about it. And if there are concerns that are generated in those conversations, we can bring them back, too, and keep talking about it. So, thank you all for being here today, and we look forward to what you have to say.

Dean Woodard: Good afternoon. Let me begin by offering a sincere vote of thanks to Jane Brown and to the Faculty Council for the invitation to come before you and share the vision of the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. I will take very seriously her admonition to keep introductory remarks brief, because what I want, perhaps most, is to allow you the opportunity to voice your concerns. And I want to solicit your support, because your support is, indeed, vital to the success of the Black Cultural Center. I’m reminded of a phrase that I heard my grandfather say from the pulpit of his Freewill Baptist Church. And he said, “We have come from a mighty long way.” And, indeed, we have. The planning process for the Black Cultural Center began, actually, in the ’70s in this discussion. It proceeded in an orderly and careful and deliberate fashion for many years. The planners included blacks, whites, undergraduates, graduate students, administrators, and faculty members at every stage of its planning. And we have arrived at a point where we have achieved much of which we can be proud. Our purpose is to promote scholarly inquiry about diaspora-related topics. And to provide a forum for the celebration of cultural, aesthetic expression. But perhaps more important, or equally as important as that, is the approach. Our approach must be, and shall be, open and inclusive. But critically it will also be interdisciplinary. We seek to involve the entire campus. Not just what is referred to as Academic Affairs. But we want the valued participation of our faculty and students in Health Affairs as well. We strongly encourage presentations at our programs from a very diverse group of artists, scholars, and students. And the planners were very careful to offer opportunities for any member of the faculty to come to the BCC staff with specific ideas related to your discipline or area of study. And in fact that is what I would like to focus on, especially during my question and answer session. I want to state emphatically that this is not a black student union. This is not a black student union. At one critical juncture during the discussions, the negotiations, we were talking about dedicated space for certain purposes. And when someone representing the administration mentioned the position of a lounge, it was students who said adamantly, “This will not be a place to hang out. Change that lounge to a study room.” With that kind of dedication, with that kind of seriousness of purpose among undergraduates, how can we as faculty and administrators help but be excited? This has fast become one of the most impressive cultural centers in the country operating out of its current cramped, limited space. Several of our programs have been modelled by others across the country. And many of them think we are already in our free-standing structure because of what we offer. You will hear from Michelle Thomas, who has proven to be one of the most able program administrators I have ever encountered. You will hear from her about some of the specifics about those programs. But I want to mention two in particular, because they cannot succeed without your active and enthusiastic support. The first involves our Blacks in the Diaspora Lecture Series, a lecture series in which several of your colleagues are already participating. There are open slots for the spring semester for those of you are engaging in research related to blacks in the diaspora. I strongly encourage you to come forward if you want the opportunity to share your personal research now. Take this message to your colleagues as well. Their participation is welcome. Perhaps the greatest idea for which Michelle Thomas is responsible was the idea of staging a student scholarly conference scheduled for March. That will be an all-day conference that will feature presentations from undergraduates who are completing their honors theses. It’s available for Master’s students who are completing their Master’s theses. It will also be open to Ph.D. candidates who are working on their dissertations. The idea is for you, the faculty, to inform your advisees, have an opportunity to share in scholarly advising the valuable research that they are doing. To me that epitomizes how the Black Cultural Center can contribute to the scholarly mission of the University. But I reemphasize it cannot be as successful as possible unless, unless you enthusiastically support it. Since my time has elapsed, I will pause, and Michelle will come and talk to you about other current programs going on in the Center. And remember, we will keep inviting you, and awaiting a response. Thank you. Professor Brown: Thank you. [applause]

Ms. Thomas: Good afternoon. I have flyers for the “Blacks in the Diaspora” call-for-papers if any of you are interested in taking those and posting them on your door. Thank you, Dean Woodard, for explaining that. It gives me a little bit more time to talk about many of the other programs that are coming out of the Black Cultural Center this year. We have worked really hard to try to pull together a range of programs that would have a little something for everyone. We have programs that, like the Blacks in the Diaspora lecture series, and student conference, that are strictly academically focused, that seek to bring together faculty and students from across disciplines and across the University, across racial lines, to investigate, to understand, to talk about, current research that is being done by faculty and students that relates to the experiences of people of African descent throughout the world. In addition, we have several student run, student operated, programs. One in particular that we’re very proud of is sauti mpya literary magazine. In its third year of existence, sauti mpya has produced four editions. The latest will be coming out at the end of this month; the fourth edition will be coming out at the end of this month. And have featured literary writings, poetry, prose, short stories from students, staff, faculty, community members, not only in this community but also at North Carolina Central University and North Carolina State University. We’re really excited about sauti mpya for this year, though, because last year the editor-in-chief attended the Association for Black Cultural Centers national conference in Kent, Ohio, and took with him several submission forms and information packets about the magazine and distributed them to directors of cultural centers around the country. In two weeks we are expecting to receive a list of all the addresses for the 200 plus black cultural centers that exist across the country, and we’ll do a mailing to all of them, inviting students from across the country to submit for our premiere national edition of the sauti mpya literary magazine. So the students, something that they started, a vision that they had, to contribute to the literary scholarship that exists on this campus and to expand it across the country. And submissions are due February 1, 1995, if you are a writer yourself and would like to submit something for that magazine.

In addition we have a Communiversity Saturday School, which was founded in the spring of 1992. This program seeks to bring in children from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro communities, 40 children, ages 8-12, in for Saturday sessions, full-day sessions, with undergraduate and one or two graduate, students here at UNC. The day is comprised of lessons in history and culture, arts-and-crafts, social interaction with the college students but mostly learning experiences in terms of understanding the contributions that people of African descent have made. We picture the program as enhancement to the curriculums that exist in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro city schools. When the program was designed, they had not included the multicultural component in the school system, but now that it does, the Communiversity enhances their education. This program, too, has expanded this year, and now Communiversity volunteers, all 60 of them, which is the largest number of undergraduate volunteers we’ve ever had for the program, are going out into the community on Tuesday and Thursday and tutoring for not only participants in the Communiversity Saturday School program, but for other children in the community who need assistance as well.

We also have a Performing Art Series, a two-part series this year. About two weeks ago, on October 22, we brought the play, “What About Black Womyn?” which is written by James Chapman, who also wrote, “Our Young Black Men Are Dying and No One Seems to Care.” This play was a dark drama comedy that dealt with the condition of African-American women with AIDS. And it told the story of three black women who had AIDS and how they dealt, not only with the disease, but how they dealt with living, how they came to grips with knowing that they were going to die, but also how they dealt with living with the disease. It was a very well received play. For that event we invited everyone from the IFC Homeless Shelter who wanted to attend to come, and we had 20 people from the Homeless Shelter to come. James Chapman, who is the playwright and one of the characters in the play, himself was homeless for two years. And he made personal appeals to them and spoke with them and actually went out on Sunday and spent the entire day talking with the people who are currently living in the homeless shelter. So these are just a few examples of the types of service that the Cultural Center seeks to bring about.

Also, every Monday at 12:00 in the Cultural Center, we have “Around the Circle” which is a discussion group. Each week there is a different topic based on a broad range of issues. Over the summer we put a suggestion box out in front of the Center asking students to fill out a little piece of paper to say what are the types of issues you’d like to talk about. And from those issues we derived a list of topics that we discuss every Monday. The “Around the Circle” discussions have been phenomenal. We’ve had a lot of faculty to participate. Several of them have served as experts on panels that dealt with a topic, but also many faculty and staff have come in and sat down and talked with the students. We have a faithful group of graduate students who come every Monday and sit down and talk with the undergraduates and the other participants who are there. So that program has been very successful. For those of you who are interested, this Tuesday, the 15th of November, at 6:00 in Gerrard Hall, we’re going to have a special edition of “Around the Circle.” This deals with the IQ debate. There’ll be six faculty who will be serving on a panel to discuss recent books that have come out talking about the IQ, intelligence testing and [science and?] racism. So, we invite you to come out on November 15th at 6:00 in Gerrard Hall and participate in that discussion.

Those are just a quick run-down of the many things that the Cultural Center is doing this year. There are many, many more. We have had one of the most successful years this year I think that we’ve ever had, and it could not have happened if it had not been for a team of dedicated and committed people. Not only the students and staff of the Sonja Stone Black Cultural Center, but also the staff of the Office of the Vice Chancellor of University Affairs and the Office of the Provost. We’ve worked really hard this year to build a team, and together we are taking the Black Cultural Center into the future. We have a vision, we share that vision, and we are trying our best to make it a reality. We wholeheartedly invite all of you to join with us in making that vision a reality. Thank you. [applause]

Professor Soyini Madison (Communication Studies/Institute of African-American Research): Wow! That’s a hard act to follow, girl. You go, girl. The Institute of African-American Research, an autonomous unit, will be housed in the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. The Institute of African-American Research aims to address the mounting tensions around race. Indeed, the very word “race” has been contested. Diametrically opposed camps from social constructionism to biological determinism have arisen. Issues around multiculturalism, identity politics, Afrocentrism, new conservatism. What we hope to do is to provide a kind of intellectual context, a venue for vital communication and analysis of these issues. The general purpose of the Institute of African-American Research is to provide advanced study and scholarly investigations of the culture, political and economic, as well as the intellectual traditions of black life and history, within the United States and outside of the United States, but particularly in the South and North Carolina. In terms of what these investigations are we’ll be looking at the expressive traditions, literary performance. In vision we’ll be also concerned with intellectual movements coming from black liberation theology, coming from pan-Africanism, feminism, neo-socialism, and how all of these movements in a sense impact race theory. We’re also concerned about economic and political processes and how they impact black life every day nationally and globally. And how that augments into public policy and new technologies and its impact on black communities.

What this means in terms of the wider University, how these ideas and these various discourses, how does that impact upon you and students? How do we plan within the Institute of African-American Research to service our University community? Well, we have a kind of list here. One of the things that we’re very concerned with is to assist researchers in identifying and gaining access to resources. We’re already in touch with the Institute of African Research at NYU, and the DuBois Institute at Harvard, and Houston Baker at the University of Pennsylvania. The idea is, and resources that we share with them, we’d like to be a liaison between our students and faculty. We are also very concerned with facilitating intellectual discussions and tapping into the wisdom and activity of various community groups in secondary schools, and acting as a kind of facilitator between the University and the community. We also hope to host visiting scholars and sponsor colloquia and conferences and seminars to promote the exchange of ideas between faculty and student researchers and policy makers. We hope to provide small grants to faculty and students in assistance in preliminary research as well as promoting interdisciplinary study that encourages exhaustive investigations of black culture and thought.

Finally, we hope to foster stronger relationships between component universities, particularly traditionally black colleges and universities. The next question might be, “Well, what does this mean in terms of organization and structure?” The planning committee for the IAR, which has been, in effect, in operation, almost a year. Let me just digress a minute and say that the Institute of African-American Research was not just some kind of ideal notion based on a hope and prayer, but there are a group of us that met diligently, and [we had] various discussions, and going out across the country to look at other research institutes and coming back and sharing some of the ideas and some of the challenges of these other research institutes. We drew up a kind of plan and from that point on have been working very hard to get this plan in motion through other discussions with faculty members and students across the University. So the planning committee has proposed that an advisory policy board will be appointed to the Provost upon recommendation of the nominating committee. And this board would be composed of a maximum of 24 members and a minimum of 20 members; 12 members will be UNC faculty. This faculty crosses the University; it crosses disciplines. Four from the professional schools. It will also be comprised of 4 students, graduate and undergraduates. Two members from area universities, and 2 correspondent members, meaning national scholars. Terms on the board rotate every 2 to 3 years. A member must leave a year before they are again nominated for another term. The board will elect the chairperson. It is the charge of the Director [of the Institute] at this point to organize, plan, and execute activities and functions voted by the advisory board and in keeping with the Institute’s mission and objectives. Again, the Institute of African-American Research — we see it as autonomous to the Black Cultural Center, but certainly crosses over into this whole notion of culture, and the multi-dimensions of what culture is, and how culture impacts upon the lives of black people and all of us. Thank you. [applause]

Professor Brown: Thank you all. Now it’s your turn. What would you like to ask? Professor Joy Kasson (American Studies): I think this has been a really informative session, and it got me to thinking about the flow of information starting now and into the future. And I was thinking about the activities that Michelle was describing and how I wish that I’d been a little bit better informed this fall to be able to tell some of my students, to recommend some activities to my students. And I was also thinking about some of the potential for, oh, senior honors students who are working on papers where they might benefit from getting to know other students working on similar topics and so forth. All of those kinds of activities that I think would be of very great potential from what I’ve heard described here depends on communication. So, one of my questions is for Harold and, I guess, for Michelle, too. You have enough support — it sounds like a lot of people have been working really hard. Is there a — you know, could you do mass mailings to all faculty members, to departments, or do you need us to stand up and say, “We need more support for the communications and information”? Is there some kind of on-line plan where information could be available across the campus where we can tap in and find out more about these activities? Vice Chancellor Harold Wallace (Interim Director, Black Cultural Center): Clearly we need more resources that will allow us to reach out to a large community. But we are trying to get the message out. We have a student working with us as a publicist who has worked with some major corporations and major magazines in the country. And the fact that she’s enrolled as a student — she’s been doing this for us for less than $1000 a semester. So we’re trying to use existing resources. But the answer to the question, we clearly could use more resources to do that. But we have called out the need, as you defined it, that we do need to get the word out and to try to communicate better with our colleagues. And we’ll begin to do that with the limited resources we have. We hope one day to have a full-time publicist who will be working with our news bureau, working with local media, to really get the word out to our faculty, and the larger community, about activities that are involved.

Ms. Thomas: Last weekend we attended, myself and four students, attended the Association for Black Cultural Centers national conference, and the black cultural center at Vanderbilt University just spent $40,000 on renovations and put everything on line. They’ve got this huge, wonderful information system that Dr. Wayne Bush put together. And one of our students, Richard Harris, who’s a sophomore, talked extensively with Dr. Wayne Bush about the system and the way it’s connected. All that we have right now is a modem because the Student Union is not wired to really plug in with the University system, but we do have a modem. And Richard and Dr. Wayne Bush are working together to set up an on-line system for black cultural centers across the country. But at the same time, Richard could probably get, just as easy, to send that information to faculty and staff, if we could get a list of E-mail addresses if you have those. So that is something that we could work on.

Professor Brown: Other questions? Professor Paul Farel (Physiology): Due to circumstances partially beyond my control, I’ve been a member of Faculty Council — this is my sixth year — I’ve gotten up several times to express concern about the Black Cultural Center and doubts that you could accomplish your goal of inclusiveness. And I think I made these comments primarily on the result of what I read in the newspaper. And in recent years I’ve had the opportunity to get to know some of the people involved, and to meet and talk with the students. And I think that the, my greatest hope for the Black Cultural Center is, derives, from my impression of these people, that the students are extraordinarily committed, that these are people who are devoting lots of their own time to service, taking time away from their studies and other activities — they’re doing the kinds of things that have a time commitment that often we bemoan as lacking among other students, that this is really an impressive group of people, and as well as the faculty and staff who help them. So I’d just like to say since I criticized and expressed doubts about the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center, I would like to say that, meeting with them these past several years, that I have great hopes and, more than great hope — I have a certainty that it’s going to be of terrific benefit to the campus.

Professor Harry Gooder (Microbiology): I’d like to follow Paul’s remarks but the fact that I sit and read the list of instruction on research areas in the proposed Center, I’m struck by the opportunities for interaction with already existing academic departments. And so my question is, what plans, if any, at the moment do you have, for example, for getting the interaction with the Art Department regarding the art gallery, with the Music and Department of Dramatic Art in relation to the music and dance studios and the 400-seat theater? What about interaction with the School of Journalism faculty in regard to the media center. And one could go through the whole list. And I’d like to hear if you already have plans that are being made or what you think for the future, regarding developing these interactions with the already existing academic programs, because I really think they would strengthen at least the academic side of the Black Cultural Center as it develops. Dean Woodard specifically said interaction with the Division of Health Affairs. I’d like to hear a little more, if you have it, as to what do you have in mind.

Dean Woodard: Let me begin by saying we do have a facility and space committee now as part of the advisory board. And one of the mechanisms we have in place to enhance the kind of involvement that you just described is to rely on present and past advisory board members who are also members of different academic units. For example, in the area of Journalism we relied extensively on Harry Amana’s input regarding the structure of the media center, and also how that could be tied into what is currently underway in the School of Journalism. In the School of Education we’ve benefitted enormously from the expertise of Dr. Frank Brown, former Dean of the School of Education. And in the Department of Music, Jim Ketch has given us very, very incisive comments on how the Music Department can be involved ranging from supporting an artist-in-residence program to other kinds of ideas. So that is another area where we rely and will need faculty guidance and direction. And we have, I’m pleased to say, we have enjoyed it to this point, but as you suggest, we certainly need to nourish that and to continue that. And [that’s an area] you will be hearing requests coming from the Advisory Board in particular for your expertise in those areas. In Health Affairs currently, we are involving members of Health Affairs in the Blacks in the Diaspora Lecture Series. For example there have been a number of exciting projects going on in the study of hypertension in the Department of Epidemiology, and that hypertension and blood pressure studies are of course of very direct interest not only to the University community, but also to the larger community as well. It’s a major health concern in the black community, heart disease in particular. And we are looking forward to introducing faculty in Health Affairs to the rest of the campus, especially the undergraduate population, through these lecture series. But here again is another opportunity for the faculty in Health Affairs to alert undergraduates with whom they are currently working and advising on honors theses or research projects, because we will certainly want to know about those, but also would like the larger University community to know. So we want the communication to continue in the way we have begun so far, with the lecture series.

Professor Kathleen Rounds (Social Work): I’d like to hear more specifics about fund raising and the future of fund raising and how faculty members might participate in that. Professor Brown: Great, we have some people from fund raising. Do you want to speak to that — from the Development Office? Mr. Matt Kupec (Associate Vice Chancellor for Development): Sure, I’d like to, if I could. My name is Matt Kupec. I’m the Associate Vice Chancellor for Development. Professor Brown: Was this a set-up, Katherine? Mr. Kupec: The project for the building is $7 million. We have raised to date about $1 million-and-a-half, or $1.6 [million] to be exact. I’ve never taught and I’ve never coached, but on this project I can’t imagine the feeling you must get in the classroom when you start to see your students get it. Things come together, they get what you’re trying to teach them. Or when Dean Smith’s out there working with those young men, the student-athletes, and bingo!, Donald Williams starts drilling the 3s, and we win national championships. I’ve thrown a touchdown pass, though, to beat Duke — I know that stance — but it’s the same kind of feeling that you must get in a classroom, that Dean Smith gets, and that I got beating Duke from throwing that touchdown pass. You get this with this fund raising on this campaign. There is a sense of movement. There is a sense of energy. And I think, Paul Farel, you put it right: the snapshot is being brought up to date. The vision of the Center is becoming clear. The people out there are believing in the Center, what it’s going to do to Carolina, why it should be here, why it’s important to the state, and why it’s important to the nation. Hugh McColl took one of our students down to meet the top private companies in North and South Carolina to talk about change. NationsBank was hosting a conference, and the talk was change. And he wanted to talk about the Black Cultural Center and how that fits into change. He introduced, this young student, Jimmy Hitchcock, who talked about the Black Cultural Center. And it was awesome, because you could hear a pin drop. The crowd was [hushed up] at Jimmy. And when Jimmy got down, all the members in the audience came up to him, and he’s a star football player. They didn’t want to talk about Carolina football. They wanted to talk about the Stone Center. It was awesome. Even Dave Thomas of Wendy’s, Dave Thomas of Wendy’s was there — the commercials, we can see him on commercials all the time — he wouldn’t let Jimmy Hitchcock go. He wanted to talk about the Black Cultural Center.

So, getting back to your point — I know that’s a long way around it — we have got a great sense of energy. On Monday, Maya Angelou, Dean Smith, Bob Eubanks, and Jack Tate, all volunteer leaders, were here. We had a big committee meeting. Deloris Jordan couldn’t get here; she had a strep throat, but we talked to her. The sense, though, is the time has come. The time has come. We’ve got 1.6 down; we’ve got $5.4 million to go. We’ve got a big hump to get over. But there’s a real sense of energy. We’ve dedicated one of our star development officers, Margie Crowell, to run the daily operation. We have got students, leaders, like Michelle Thomas and Harold Woodard, and Harold Wallace, leading this effort. We’re going to get there. We need your help. We’ve got students reaching out, making $1,000 contributions, NationsBank has pledged $1 million to challenge other banks because Hugh McColl believes in this project because it’s so important to the state. So, there’s a lot of energy, a lot of sense of commitment, and believing in this vision of the Center. So we’ve got $5.4 million to go. We’re not going to stop at $7 million because we’re going to fund a lot of the programs. Foundations don’t give the buildings, but they’ll give the programs. And they’re going to get on board and support this Center. So we truly believe that Vanderbilt may be good on information systems, but I’ve been in Vanderbilt’s black cultural center, and it ain’t gonna measure up to what we’re going to have here in Chapel Hill. [applause]

Professor John Workman (Business School): I guess I have two related questions. One is about the, you mentioned the Subcommittee for the Capital Expenditures. What are the plans for the ongoing operating expense of support? And I guess, one, is there any state funds involved? And I guess another question I have is, “Why is this 100% private funded?” Given that it’s moved out of Student Affairs and into the Academic Affairs, given that classroom buildings are educational, why are we not seeking state funding? That, I guess is the question. Professor Brown: Can we take some more of Matt, or somebody else?

Provost Richard McCormick: That’s a real good question. When the building was significantly more controversial than it is now, and when the vision was less understood, those in support of it, including members of the administration, including myself at that time, said we’re going to raise this money privately. That’s a commitment that we made, and I don’t think there’s been any inclination to renege upon it. It’s quite true that because it is an academic facility that will include, among other things, classrooms open to every discipline at the University, it could qualify for state funds. If a decision had been made to put [it] in that pipeline of priorities for state-funded facilities, I have no doubt that it, or a significant part of it would qualify. We haven’t done that, in part because we said we wouldn’t several years ago, and also, in significant part because there’re lots of other priorities that were in the pipeline already. It’s potentially eligible. We haven’t gone in that direction. In theory we could. Matt, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Kupec: In addition, in the Bicentennial Campaign there are about six other projects that are totally going to be privately funded. Provost McCormick: Yes. Mr. Kupec: So it is not the exception. It joins a number of other projects that we’re going totally from private funds. Professor Brown: When it’s operating, who, will the University pay for the operating, just the utilities and so on, like that? Provost McCormick: Yes, we hope that that will be possible. There are really two kinds of operating issues involved. One is the maintenance of the building, the heat, light, electricity, air conditioning, and so forth. In granting us approval to go ahead and design it and to raise money for it, we think that the State of North Carolina has implicitly committed to provide that support. I can’t show you a document in which that commitment is made, but past experience leads us to believe that will be true. Now with respect to the programming, the case is the one Matt described. We’ve got, although the bricks and mortar will cost $7 million, in fact, our goal has to be more than that. [There’s] no point in building that beautiful building without providing the staff and the programming. And we’re hoping that some of those whom we approach about it will want to put their money there rather than into the bricks and mortar. So, in effect that’s part of the fund raising goal as well.

Ms. Karen Erickson (Co-treasuer of Campus Y): One concern that we have is the name for the Center. And I’ve heard the Development Office refer to it as the Stone Center, and there’s been several other things that it’s been referred to as the building, and we’d kind of like confirmation that the name on the outside of the building is, indeed, going to be the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. Provost McCormick: There’s no doubt about that. On October 25, 1991, that’s the name the Board of Trustees adopted, Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. That will be the name on the outside of the building. That will be the name of the largest tenant within the building, the Sonja Haynes Stone BCC. There’s no question that from time to time people refer to it as the Center, the Stone Center, the BCC. What building on campus, the Smith Center, for example, what building on campus that has a long name is not occasionally abbreviated or substituted, you know, the BCC substitute. I don’t think any of that changes the name of the building. The name is what the Trustees gave it, the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. Professor Brown: And the Center within it is called that as well. Provost McCormick: And the Center within it, the largest entity within that building, is also the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center.

Mr. Kupec: All the publications say the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. We will refer to it, say, call it the Stone Center after we’ve identified it in its full name. That’s a lot of words; I have a lot of things to say. We try to get it out quickly. I have told Mr. and Mrs. Haynes, though, we’re going to the Stone name like Wharton has done, to the school, to their name at the University of Pennsylvania.

Professor Genna Rae McNeil (History): First of all, of course, I’d like to commend the presenters, Dean Woodard, Ms. Michelle Thomas, and Professor Madison, and also Vice Chancellor Wallace, and those who helped to interpret of the Sonja Haynes [Stone] Cultural Center, because certainly in commending Mr. Kupec also on his presentation, it is clear that the things that have been questioned have now been, in many ways, cleared up. I have a question that — some of my questions have been answered. I have one question specifically about the way in which the Stone Center is going to facilitate or encourage scholarly inquiry, and the relationship between that specifically and the Institute, since the Institute is autonomous. The Institute will have a separate Director. And the Cultural Center will have another Director. I’d like to know something about what is envisioned for the Director of the Black Cultural Center and then, also, about the programming so that there would be some contribution of the Institute to the Cultural Center.

Vice Chancellor Wallace: Let me just say that historically we wanted to make sure that anyone coming into the building would understand that we’re an autonomous group. They will have their freedom; they will be autonomous as well. So we have yet to have a discussion about how we might work together. So we don’t want them to think we do have some preconceived notions about how we would like to work with you. At some point we will need to sit down as a group and talk about those matters, but, believe me, there’s nothing on the agenda to suggest how we would like relate to our colleagues in the Institute. Professor Soyini Madison: Well, I can answer that theoretically. I might just have to address that question theoretically because we haven’t in any specific way outlined just what those working relationships are going to be in detail. In both instances we’re in the planning stages. But I suppose, just theoretically, I see the Cultural Center as a place where we can engage in cultural expressions and cultural products from the diaspora. And, of course, within the Cultural Center we can engage in how do we interpret those, those cultural products, how do we talk about them, how do we name them? The Research Institute within the Cultural Center will more or less deal with what are the deep structures, what are the diverse perspectives in terms of disciplines, in terms of scholarship, in which we begin to talk about what are some of the kinds of descriptions behind these cultural products. And how does that interpret to certain kinds of processes, whether they be economic processes, cultural processes, historical processes? So one is a kind of intellectual, deep structural investigation of these products. The other is an engagement through interpretation in a kind of illustration of these products.

Professor McNeil: Might I ask then, I know — have you determined the Director for the Institute? Has that person been named? Provost McCormick: No. In fact we can’t even commence that search until we receive from the General Administration of the University permission to establish the Institute. The planning committee, of which Soyini is a member, has now completed that planning document and Chancellor Hardin will be sending it to President Spangler with a request to establish — is Marilyn Yarbrough still here? — early next week in all likelihood. At the point when approval is granted by the Board of Governors, we will begin a search for the Director of the Institute. I hope that will be in a matter of a month or so. Professor McNeil: Dick, if I might make a suggestion, I hope that there will be some way that we can clarify that there would be an emphasis upon the scholar/director for the Institute and, in relationship to the Cultural Center, that there be someone with equivalent expertise and level of prestige and training in relationship to development and programming on the university campus. Not someone that is at such a level of sub-staff that you cannot see those persons as peers. And, also, I wonder if whatever group might be formulated to do some of the discussion of relationships between the two might investigate funding so that there might be some scholars who would participate on some annual basis in the work of the Institute and then be available to persons in the Cultural Center to either provide lectures, seminars, or something on that order. That would then mean that the Director of the Cultural Center could help with developing proposals for that kind of interaction. And then the University, perhaps, make some funding available for campuswide opportunities for everyone to benefit from that cooperation as a result of that scholarly inquiry. Thank you.

Professor Brown: Thank you. Anything else? I’m sure Matt has pledge cards that he would — [laughter]. Please do — Now you know the people who are working with the Center, the Development Office, and the Institute. If you have ways that you’d like to see these projects move, please communicate with them. Please do talk with your colleagues about the Center and the Institute. Share the information you have gathered here today. And thank you all very much. We have one more item of business, but let me applaud you all for being here. [general applause] Thank you.

VI. Old or New Business

Professor Brown: Is there any old or new business we need to be addressing? Okay. We have to have another closed session. So all of those who are not Council members may leave at this time — or general faculty may stay as well. Very short.

Closed Session

(to non-faculty members)

VII. Consideration of Honorary Degree Candidate for Commencement 1995: John L. Sanders, Chair, Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards.

The candidate was approved.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

George S. Lensing

Secretary of the Faculty

Actions of the Council

Date	Action	Destination
Sept. 23, 1994	Resolution of thanks to Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney	To Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney
	Resolution of thanks to General Assembly	To Members of General Assembly
	Resolution of thanks to Elizabeth McMahan, editor of Faculty Handbook	To Elizabeth McMahan
Oct. 21, 1994	No resolutions
Nov. 11, 1994	No resolutions