This fall, the UNC Board of Governors chose partisanship over safety
The 26-member UNC Board of Governors at a meeting last fall at their headquarters here in Chapel Hill. The board is selected by the North Carolina General Assembly, which places them squarely within the vicissitudes of partisan politics. Source.
A little over one month after the early start of the fall semester, UNC has been exposed for its ignorant decision making and robust failure in providing a safe transition to in-person classes. The UNC Roadmap laying out the reopening plan was demonstrably insufficient to protect the health of students and employees at the university. While there is some debate over blame to be shared between students and the administration at South Building, one overarching explanation is for certain: UNC’s failure to manage COVID is a direct result of the partisan politics of the NC Board of Governors (BoG) taking precedence over scientific evidence and public health.
While many blunders lead to this result, one of the most glaring was the revelation that UNC officials didn’t even listen to the experts whose help they enlisted. Decisionmakers refused to opt for mass testing, declined to manually decrease campus density, and resumed in-person classes all despite recommendations from public health officials. While the country watched UNC infect its students and endanger the surrounding community, other universities took note-- creating smart and safe COVID return plans. Other schools, including Duke University, have gone out of their way to avoid many of the mistakes UNC made. Duke had thorough testing, less populated dorms, and took other measures to keep their students safe, leading to only 35 infections thus far.
Why didn’t UNC follow public health recommendations? Why didn’t we test more students? Why did we aim for mostly in-person classes to begin with? All these questions inevitably lead back to the Board of Governors-- the governing body for the 17 schools in the UNC System-- and their partisan approach to administering the UNC system.
In the last few months, the partisan divide over COVID-19 and policies surrounding it has been clear. According to the Pew Research Center, the divide is only continuing to grow between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans, following in line with President Trump, have worked to downplay the impact and severity of the COVID pandemic. Moreover, the focus on businesses and the economy over public health concerns has become a partisan issue between Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately for UNC System students and employees, that partisanship was projected onto the planning for COVID management.
The predominantly Republican North Carolina General Assembly has appointed a majority-Repubican BoG, many of whom with little to no background in higher education. These conservative Board members have historically focused more on bending to the partisan whims of the North Carolina General Assembly and self-promotion than the proper governance of North Carolina’s system of higher education. It is no surprise then that UNC’s approach to reopening was focused on students returning to a ‘somewhat’ normal semester, as was the wish of conservative leaders in the NCGA.The damage caused by the BoG’s partisan decision making cannot go unstressed--UNC students and employees were unnecessarily put at risk of contracting COVID-19 and hundreds were diagnosed with the virus. Families spent money and time to send students to campus just to bring them back one week later. Additionally, the greater Chapel Hill community was forced to play host for a COVID hotspot.
A partisan divide in our political institutions is part of the American democratic process. However, when it comes to life or death situations, partisanship has no place. The last month at UNC is a perfect example of what happens when political identities supersede scientific reason and public interest. The partisanship on the BoG brought embarrassment on our storied University. Maybe this will be the wake up call the BoG needs to start making informed, student-centered decisions.