The Faculty
Council passed a resolution March 26 in support of academic
and intellectual freedom in the classroom.
Chancellor James Moeser spoke in favor
of the resolution in a speech he gave before the resolution
passed. In his remarks, Moeser announced a federal compliance
review of an incident in early February in which an English
lecturer sent class members an e-mail message that criticized
a student for comments he had made against homosexuality during
a class discussion.
Moeser said expressions of diverse viewpoints
are a part of daily campus life here. They are also a part of
the University's continuing legacy.
"It is natural that we should be
having these conversations here in Chapel Hill, where, in fact,
we have been in the spotlight and at the eye of the storm since
our creation in 1793," Moeser said. "Our University's history
has been marked by the yeast of democracy, and we are very proud
of it."
The e-mail incident was but one in a series
of several recent issues arising on and off campus related to
increasing activism among conservative students and the lingering
effects of scrutiny about the Summer Reading Program over the
past two years.
The council's resolution "On Intellectual
Integrity and Independence" said it was important to reiterate
the principles of academic and intellectual freedom "at a time
of growing pressures to politicize and therefore undercut the
essential educational process."
The resolution drew a distinction between
"expressing arguments in open discussion and presenting personal
attacks on others." Further, the resolution called on the University
administration to "protect the integrity of the classroom and
the University as a space for safe, respectful difference and
dialogue for all those present, within the guidelines of civility,
openness and respect, as well as the boundaries imposed by the
curriculum."
A portion of the council's resolution
said the University also must remain committed to the principles
of free expression without discrimination on the basis of "among
others, race, sex or sexual orientation."
Faculty Chair Judith Wegner commented
briefly on the resolution and why it was needed given the current
national climate.
"I fear society at this point has
sometimes lost the drift of dialogue and instead has moved toward
debate in way that doesn't necessarily lead to light," Wegner
said. "It may lead to flashes, but not necessarily constructive
ones."
U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Republican
representing North Carolina's third district, wrote Moeser to
express concerns about the e-mail incident earlier this spring.
He also referred the matter to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR),
part of the U.S. Department of Education.
The OCR's review will evaluate the University's
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act -- which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin
-- and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits
discrimination based on sex. OCR will examine the e-mail incident
and the University's response.
The English department chair, James Thompson,
quickly conducted a review after learning about the class incident.
He met with the lecturer and the individual student with concerns.
The lecturer apologized to class members and Thompson continues
to monitor the situation.
At the Faculty Council meeting, Moeser
said he fully supports Thompson's response, which he characterized
as "both timely and appropriate, tempered and measured."
Moeser said the main responsibility of
the University is to remain a vibrant intellectual community
in which all viewpoints can be comfortably expressed and heard
in an atmosphere of civility and respect.
"Our charge is to maintain an open
atmosphere, one in which unpopular or controversial ideas may
be expressed, heard, but also challenged without any fear of
retribution," Moeser said. "The primary role of a university
is not to espouse a point of view, but rather to provide a platform
for the expression of all points of view."
Everybody within the University is not
always going to agree about the issues of the day, Moeser said,
but the University must always defend the rights of those who
hold opposing views.
"Some would argue that some ideas
are so hurtful or so harmful that we should not permit them
to be expressed," Moeser said. "But any effort to declare a
particular point of view off limits is, in my view, not consistent
with our values as a totally free and open institution."
He added, "While we will vigorously enforce
the University's non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies,
we will not restrict free expression on this campus."
