Scandal Statement Release from UNC-CH Retired Faculty

Retired UNC-Chapel Hill faculty statement on the continuing scandal.

Of all the questions surrounding the long-running academic-athletic scandal on the Chapel Hill campus, one of the most perplexing and troubling concerns the faculty. Professors, whatever their discipline, are above all else committed to the pursuit of knowledge and to the educational development of the students in their charge. Yet on an issue touching on both these fundamental commitments the UNC faculty has with a few striking exceptions been silent and as a collective altogether missing in action. How did a single faculty member in a single department so grossly violate fundamental professional standards for so long? In what context did this violation occur, and how widely in other departments might similar breaking or bending the rules have happened? To what degree and how detrimentally have athletes in revenue sports been exploited, and in what ways have they been neglected or betrayed?

The failure to confront these questions suggests a faculty that has abdicated its responsibilities.

Two chancellors have sought in their decisions and public statements to defend the reputation of the university or at least minimize the damage while turning their backs on the issues related to the integrity of UNC as an educational institution in the service of the state. This course, guided by familiar public relations stratagems, has been too clever by half. UNC’s reputation is now in tatters and integrity more deeply in doubt than ever. South Building and the Board of Trustees seem locked in a self defeating course and unable to find an alternative path. The recent presentation to the Trustees by several accomplished student-athletes whose work as students has not been impugned was one more embarrassing exercise in avoiding the heart of the issue.

All of the signatories of this statement are retired faculty who feel a right and an obligation to speak out. Our professional experience and our record of service to the university over decades are considerable. This record gives us more than enough standing to express our genuine puzzlement and deep concern.

There is a way forward out of faculty passivity and fatalism. In a university run from the top down, departments remain a redoubt of faculty governance and discussion. Departmental meetings offer a logical place to begin a conversation about a fresh approach in which institutional integrity gets the priority it deserves. Department chairs or other departmental representatives can help broaden the conversation by creating a web of communications essential to convening a larger forum.

This need not involve an unwieldy university-wide gathering and should be independent of Faculty Council. This scandal is particular to the College of Arts and Sciences. The department at the center of controversy is in the College. So too are the students whose educational standing and experience bear examination. Those who teach within the College are the ones on whom it falls in this case to start shouldering faculty responsibilities. We hope our concern will encourage our former colleagues to make their voices heard.

George S. Baroff (Psychology)

Karl Bauman (Public Health)

Donald A. Boulton (Education)

Jane D. Brown (Journalism and Mass Communication)

Wayne Christiansen (Physics and Astronomy)

J. Robert Cox (Communication Studies)

Elliot M. Cramer (Psychology)

Paul B. Farel (Cell Biology and Physiology)

George Fishman (Operations Research)

James W. Friedman (Economics)

Henry A. Landsberger (Sociology)

William E. Leuchtenberg (History)

Madeline G. Levine (Slavic Literatures)

Townsend Ludington (American Studies and English)

John Shelton Reed (Sociology)

Lawrence M. Slifkin (Physics)

Ruel Tyson (Religious Studies)

Anthony J. Vogt (School of Government)

Gerhard L. Weinberg (History)

Paper Class Inc. reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice. Please see our Comment Policy

Comments are closed.