UNC Professor Placed on Leave Amid Investigation
UNC students protest against Professor Dwayne Dixon’s placement on leave. Source: Indy Week.
On September 29th, the UNC administration put Dwayne Dixon, professor of Asian and Middle Eastern studies, on indefinite administrative leave. Four days later, following protests and a “thorough threat assessment,” Dixon was reinstated.
Two days before Dixon’s placement on leave, a Fox News article attempted to tie him to controversial flyers posted on the campus of Georgetown University, which read, “Hey, Fascist! Catch!” referencing the engraving on the bullet that killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University last month. A photo of a flyer was first posted to X by Andrew Kolvet, Executive Producer of Charlie Kirk’s podcast, on September 24th.
The Fox News story alleged that Dixon belongs to a branch of the John Brown Club, the organization that posted the flyers at Georgetown, but, importantly, did not establish any specific links between Dixon and the flyers. Dixon previously belonged to Redneck Revolt, an offshoot of the John Brown Club whose website describes it as “an anti-racist, anti-fascist community defense formation.” Dixon told the Daily Tar Heel that he left Redneck Revolt in 2018, and their website states that the organization disbanded in 2019.
The Fox News article also sought to connect the violence advocated by the flyers with Dixon’s history of facing charges for having a weapon at a public rally in 2017 and assault during the Silent Sam protests in 2018, both of which were dropped.
The implication was enough for UNC to place Dixon on leave and investigate his “alleged advocacy of politically motivated violence.” So, the case brings up questions about the bounds between professors expressing their opinions and their responsibility to create a positive learning environment.
Professors sharing personal beliefs in class certainly has upsides and drawbacks. On the one hand, it can humanize professors and help students think critically and draw connections between coursework and current events. On the other hand, it may discourage open discussion among students who hold different views.
Though a subjective example, Dixon has a rating of 4.6/5 on Rate My Professor, with many students praising his lectures and connections drawn to current events. Reviewers’ perspectives on Dixon seem to depend on their reaction to his sharing of personal views. The few negative reviews cited him getting sidetracked by sharing opinions on current events during lectures.
Importantly, Dixon’s speech in class, while isolating some students who disagree, does not amount to the promotion of violence. Anecdotally, at least, no students mentioned safety concerns or dangerous rhetoric in class. If the concerns raised about Dixon don’t seem to represent students’ worries, whose do they represent?
In its letter to UNC administrators, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina reaffirmed that the accusations against Dixon were made by an “outside activist.” This method of external actors raising concerns is also emblemized by Turning Point USA’s Professor Watchlist, where Dixon has been listed since at least 2021.
The outside nature of this concern around Dixon’s conduct implies political motivation more than a genuine interest in students’ safety and learning environment. It seeks to create a moral panic and put external pressure on the University to crack down. Around the country, similar methods have been used to target professors who made critical comments about Charlie Kirk after his death, prompting firings or other disciplinary measures from universities.
UNC has its own process for people to bring up issues regarding faculty conduct with administrators, and if students or other members of the community had concerns about Dixon’s conduct, they could raise them with the university directly. The University’s guidelines also stipulate potential corrective measures beyond just suspending or discharging faculty, including mandatory training, job reassignment, and salary adjustments.
Clarifying the lack of internal concern around Dixon’s conduct, he was swiftly reinstated, with the University stating to the DTH that they “found no basis to conclude that he poses a threat to University students, staff and faculty, or has engaged in conduct that violates University policy.”
The allegations made against Dixon by Andrew Kolvet’s X post and the Fox News article were unsubstantiated, and it’s worth noting that both failed to interview any current students or community members (the Fox News article did quote a student who expressed displeasure at Dixon’s bringing political views into the classroom, but the quote was sourced from a 2018 WRAL article about the toppling of the Silent Sam statue).
University policies and procedures for reporting faculty misconduct already exist, so it’s possible to focus on concerns raised within UNC rather than those from outside. Certainly, Dixon’s involvement outside of the classroom is controversial, but students themselves can identify if any lines are crossed within the classroom. In this case, following a four-day investigation, the UNC community’s perspective won out. Perhaps a greater reliance on the local community in the first place could have averted an investigation and contentious placement on leave entirely.