Ongoing Lawsuit Illuminates Internal Divides at UNC
Chris Clemens has stepped down from his position as Provost and currently holds a faculty position. Source. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
For over a decade, there have been differences in political opinion among UNC-Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees, its staff, and its students. UNC-Chapel Hill’s student body trends toward a more liberal ideology, while the Board of Trustees’ (BOT) members are mostly Republican, with politics playing an increasingly larger role in recent years. These ideological divisions have not typically affected on-campus life in the past, but this may begin to change as tensions escalate. The internal conflict that was already apparent at UNC-Chapel Hill has been made more pronounced by the initiation of Lee Roberts as chancellor. The way in which Roberts has chosen to handle political situations on campus has not allowed for a healthy relationship between UNC-Chapel Hill’s administration and its students, as he has not expressed much support for student-led protests and initiatives. Moreover, long-standing internal disputes among the administration itself have become more salient with the lawsuit that former Provost Chris Celemens has launched against the Board of Trustees.
On Monday, Sept. 20, Chris Clemens sued UNC-Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees, alleging that the Board used loopholes in the law to engage in closed-session meetings over matters that should have been discussed in open session. The lawsuit details that the Board has “violated the N.C. Open Meetings Law and the N.C. Public Records Law.” Clemens claimed that the Board used these exemptions to their advantage in multiple instances, but the lawsuit focuses on the BOT’s discussion of tenure. The lawsuit claims that the incriminating meeting began as a “routine personnel review,” but transformed into a discussion about the idea of tenure itself and whether UNC-Chapel Hill should continue to award it to employees or do away with it entirely. This is incredibly significant, as tenure is commonplace for universities all over the nation, and abolishing it would undoubtedly make waves, especially at a school with UNC-Chapel Hill’s reputation. The discussion of the qualifications and performance of personnel is very different than the discussion of tenure as an entity, which is where the legal issue comes in; the personnel exemption only allows meetings to enter closed-session when its members are discussing “the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, [or] conditions of appointment or employment of a public employee.” The basis of the lawsuit rests on whether a closed-session meeting would have been approved if the contents of the discussion were made clear before its approval.
Members of UNC-Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees and Chris Clemens remain firm in their stances on the case as it proceeds. Clemens expressed his disappointment that “legal action is required to maintain the basic norms of transparency and good governance.” Meanwhile, the Board of Trustees (BOT) deems Clemens’ lawsuit a “baseless assault” and a “waste of taxpayer dollars.” At the end of the month, Chris Clemens was asked to resign, as the BOT claimed that he had unjustly shared information discussed in their closed-session meeting. Clemens’ and the BOT’s priorities clearly juxtapose each other, as the BOT believes that the confidentiality of the content discussed during these closed sessions should be prioritized, while Clemens believes that the legitimacy of the closed-session meetings themselves should be called into question. As tensions escalated between the BOT and the former Provost, something else began to be overlooked: UNC-Chapel Hill’s students and staff.
Lee Roberts was sworn in as UNC-Chapel Hill’s chancellor on Oct. 11, 2024. Between then and now, he has engaged in multiple behaviors that suggest his main priorities lie somewhere other than UNC-Chapel Hill’s staff and student body. Lee Roberts’ selective adoption of policy underscores his inconsistent leadership approach. For example, Roberts’ compliance and advancement with DEI changes imposed by the federal government have raised concerns among the university’s staff. Specifically, the Oversight Project would call for the publication and scanning of course syllabi for DEI-related content, while simultaneously removing the “U.S. Diversity” requirement from the Making Connections curriculum. However, Roberts did make an effort to recover research funding after the massive cuts made to university research from the federal level, claiming his “top priority is securing funding for health sciences research.” Additionally, his handling of the Palestine protests in May of 2024 caused opposition from many students, as he complied with violent police tactics that were used against students protesting on the quad. Roberts’ actions are straddling the line between supporting student efforts and suppressing them, and his minimal communication with UNC-Chapel Hill’s student body make his goals even less clear. Given the problems that have arisen under his leadership, Roberts’ ambiguity on political and university issues is not going to fare well in the long term.
Chris Clemens’ lawsuit has yet to yield a conclusive decision, but the case is symbolic of the growing split in the UNC-Chapel Hill administration. Additionally, Lee Roberts’ inconsistent behavior as it pertains to the university is not going to make its students and staff feel empowered and stable in the long term, as his decisions have made it unclear where his loyalties lie. The more civil conflict builds within the university’s leadership, the less it can focus on the well-being of the students and staff and work to improve the university as a whole. In order for the university’s players to get back on the same page, communication between its leadership, staff and students must experience a significant increase. UNC-Chapel Hill cannot function as a strong university when its entities are divided amongst themselves.