Big news: Chancellor resigns

UNC's Chancellor James Moeser is stepping down next summer. Will you miss him? Who would you pick to be the next leader of our favorite university?

Moeser, in his annual "State of the University" speech, announced his decision to relinquish the chancellor's job on June 30, 2008, the end of the academic and fiscal year. He said the decision did not signal his retirement. After a year's research leave, Moeser said he would return "with the most exalted title this University can confer on an individual - professor."


It appears he is demoting himself to professor. Isn't that a bit usual? I would have assumed you'd only leave a job that sweet for something even better.

Update: Here's a timeline of UNC Chancellors according to WIkipedia:

* Robert B. House (1934-1945 as Dean of Administration; 1945-1957 as Chancellor)
* William Brantley Aycock(1957-1964)
* Paul F. Sharp (1964-1966)
* J. Carlyle Sitterson (1966-1972)
* N. Ferebee Taylor (1972-1980)
* Christopher C. Fordham (1980-1988)
* Paul Hardin (1988-1995)
* Michael Hooker (1995-1999)
* William O. McCoy (acting and interim chancellor, 1999-2000)
* James Moeser (2000-2008)

- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's pretty common for folks who are tired of doing the College President thing (or any administrative position) to serve out their careers as professors. Molly Broad is doing the same thing.

I have often heard David Price thrown around as a successor to Moeser and I think he'd be great but now that we're in the majority I doubt he'd be interested...

I hope they get someone who has a solid background in cooperative town/gown relations. Though he's gotten better Moeser had a rocky start and we may not be able to afford that in the middle of Carolina North deliberations.

"I would have assumed you'd only leave a job that sweet for something even better."

I think he is saying that that is just what he is doing.

Interesting timing in this decision, isn't it?
I look forward to gaining from you (plural) a better understanding of the politics of this decision, but I think he might actually enjoy the more contemplative life of a professor and organist and might not even miss all the upcoming Carolina North process.

Food for thought:
Chancellor Moeser set up and appointed the members of the Chancellor's Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC), whose report he accepted but whose guiding principles he never officially committed to.
Will a new Chancellor have any obligation, morally or otherwise, to abide by those guiding principles? Was this an exercise in futility?

Ouch. As a member of the Joint Horace Williams Task Force in the '90's, I feel your pain George. I can honestly say that Chancellor Hooker's commitments during that process were not carried on after his death.

What will he teach do you think? Music I'd assume.

Didn't see eye to eye with him on a number of issues, but I must say that I always thought he was very competent and good at his job in an industry that has a good deal of dead weight in it.

I just hope I'm as spry and sharp as he is at his age. (he's what, in his late 60s?)

Damn, man! Spry? He's only 30 years older than me ;)

Gene Nichol for Chancellor!

The Chancellor is 68 yo. And I can't even begin to imagine how the burdens of that job wear on its placeholder. As Chris C said, I didn't agree with him on a number of issues but I wish him well on the remainder of his term, his future sabbatical, and his subsequent stint as a professor. Too few people at that level "retire" early enough to sit back and take pleasure in the achievements they have worked so hard to achieve.

Many would say going from chancellor to profosser is a promotion! Note also that Ms. Broad was an administrator and not a professor.

I think there have been hints that this was coming, and the BOT signing off on CN was probably the trigger.

In February, the ACE reported that the nation's college and university presidents are holding their jobs longer than at any time since the mid-1980s. Though considerable turnover continues, the average sitting president has served 8.5 years, up from 6.6 years in 2001 and 6.3 years in 1986, when the American Council on Education first conducted its survey, the largest of its kind.

The trend has pushed the average age of a sitting president to just shy of 60, raising the possibility of a significant exodus during the coming decade, the report's authors say.

Will the next chancellor also promise to not ask the legislature to rescind the Town's authority over the university?

My suspicious nature, but isn't this somewhat short notice for a chancellor to announce such a thing? In any case, I agree with Fred that there must have been a trigger, but I wonder what it was and am also concerned about continuity, esp. re: CN. It has happened all too often that something agreed to or arranged by one chancellor goes by the wayside with his(her) successor. Del's comment is pertinent.

The selection committee has plenty of time to do its work, so I don't think it's short notice. In late April, the Howard U president (my undergrad university) anounced his retirement effective June 30, 2008. Last week they anounced the selection committee chaired by General Colin Powell and Richard Parsons, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Time Warner.

Del, maybe the real question should be, "Will the Legislature promise the next chancellor it will not rescind the Town's authority over the university?"

I will not miss him. I will remember him as the chancellor who raised tuition, turned a blind eye to corruption, and destroyed the West House. He was an outsider who never really understood the unity of interests for the towns and the University, particularly when it came to Carolina North.

I will also not miss him. As someone who has been an in-state student for ~ 7.5 years, I haven't seen any of the benefits of his fundraising - as a middle-class individual it will take me about half of my professional career to pay off my student loans! The faculty may have loved him, but he did little for the average student – he raised tuition, focused on research instead of education and tried to admit more out of state students. Although he may have helped expand/renovate the campus, there are still some dorms that do not have air conditioning and some classrooms that do not have heat! To me he was just a self serving individual who cared little about the needs and wants of students. I hope his successor will make students a high priority.

Just a personal note. With Chancellor Moeser I've always felt free to speak my mind. He has supported a wonderfully collaborative work environment. When I began my planning career in Florida, being the only woman in a meeting was the norm; at UNC I look around and marvel at the smart and deeply committed women, and men, I work with.

Although I personally had nothing to do with its creation, the thing I am most proud of is the Carolina Covenant. I'm sure people will make lists of what the Chancellor did or did not do, but for me, the Covenant is the top of the list. I went to a college that was six years old when I arrived and I am proud to be an alum of a school that has made its mark on higher education despite its youth. But that pride doesn't compare to how I feel working at UNC, where every day I am grateful that I can work with a great team of people, at an institution with an amazing legacy and a Chancellor who cares.

Linda Convissor

Moeser raised tuition and then created the Carolina Covenant to partly offset the harmful effects of these increases, particularly for low-income families in the state. What gets reported, and lauded, is the Carolina Covenant program. But the full picture shows that on the whole the tuition surge, started under Hooker and continued under Moeser, has made it harder to come to UNC Chapel Hill for many families.

I don't know enough about the tuition increases at UNC-CH over the last decade to comment on those. However, I do remember that when I went to college (a small, private liberal arts college in New England) many, many years ago that our combined tuition and room/board (we had to live on campus) increased 44% over the 4 years I was there. For reasons I still don't understand, costs at colleges and universities seem to outpace inflation even though staff and teacher salaries usually are hard-pressed to keep up.

"Will the next chancellor also promise to not ask the legislature to rescind the Town's authority over the university?"

Huh? The legislature could do that?

My concern-- the next guy will be some pro-Carolina North hardliner. Moeser seemed slightly moderate; that is, not 100% ruthless. Damn, but I'd like to see that whole boondoggle scrapped! But I'm not holding my breath.

George, as this piece from the College Board indicates, one of the big culprits is the reduction of state funding to public universities.

Reductions in revenue from sources other than tuition, particularly state and local appropriations in the public sector, were associated with rapidly rising public college tuition levels in recent years. Other important factors affecting costs include health benefits and particularly utilities, which have increased in price more rapidly in recent years than the prices of other goods and services purchased by colleges and universities. Faculty salaries are significantly higher at private institutions than at public institutions, and the gap is growing. The reports do not include detailed analysis of the causes of tuition increases.

As more and more of state dollars go to fund human services and cover reduced federal spending in these areas, universities have to find ways to keep pace. Chancellor Moeser mentioned this a couple times when addressing tuition increases in the past.

Those who wish to evaluate his time as chancellor only through the lens of tuition increases should also evaluate their elected state officials based on the decisions they have made. Spend more on mental health and Medicaid or spend more on the UNC system? Wouldn't it be nice for the State to do both?

The first time I sat down with Chancellor Moeser in his office just after being elected to Town Council, I expected to come in and we'd talk about town/gown (carolina north) type of issues. This was right before the LAC got going, and I felt sure he'd want to talk about that. However the first thing he wanted to talk about was his excitement over what the Town was doing in exploring wireless. He went on and on about that and said he'd write the Town a letter offering support in this endeavor. He did just that and that led to a very productive meeting between the Town and Dan Reed last year. I appreciated him reaching out to the Town in that regard, and he obviously took note of my particular issue of interest.

The N&O says the search is on and the chair of the search committee will be Nelson Schwab of Charlotte, former trustee chairman and current trustee.

Guess this was not a "surprise" to everyone!

I am most curious about the behind-the-scenes influence of large corporations.

It is interesting that the UNC Board also approved Carolina North while noting that they did not know how they would actually pay for the mounting cost. Of course this situation gives leverage to corporations who want to be involved - and we know that corporate invoilvement is key to CN as well as expanding universities.

There are some threads running through the shadows which may connect to Moeser's stepping down. I'd love to see a comprehensive research article by a local newspaper on the mainly undiscussed role of corporations at UNC.

"corporate invoilvement" is pretty much the Kiss of Death, in a Democracy.

Can't the university set standards for the corporations who will be there and what kind of research they fund?

Can't the university also partner with them and take equity shares in new corporations spawned by discoveries made by the university?

Isn't saying "no corporate involvement" cutting out a large source of research dollars these days? Again, I can see not taking anything and everything, have some standards.

Corporate involvement in higher education is a fact, whether it bothers you and me or not (and it often does). Research (including the facilities needed for it) has gotten much more expensive, and government funding has been withdrawn, slashed or encumbered with burdensome conditions and regulations. Most alumni don't even begin to have the kind of money needed for research projects.

A few examples: Medical research, just for starters, can be highly dependent on corporate funding -- partly because federal money for pure science research has shrunk to a tenth or less of what it once was. Business schools, more obviously, have abiding and sometimes intricate relationships corporations who'll fund programs, as do journalism/communication schools who need special facilities, etc. Funding for applied research in areas such as "alternative fuels" or pesticide development comes from guess where, very often.

No argument that the more a university depends on corporate funding, the more risk of becoming a corporate creature rather than an independent bastion of objective research and inquiry. (Harvard is, actually, a "corporation.")

For any chancellor (or institutional president), the trick is knowing where the strings are attached and making judicious decisions. For a search committee, the trick is knowing how a candidate will preserve the University's independence without losing crucial financial resources. I wouldn't want the job.

Short version of the preceding: medical research in the Duke Medical Center in certain divisions MUST be fully funded with non-Duke money. In other words, if they don't get a highly competitive NIH grant (about 2% success rate in some fields), they have to go to drug companies (or possibly advocacy groups and foundations who don't have anywhere near the money pharmaceuticals do) -- or forget it.

Presumably, UNC has similar requirements, although its relationship with the state of NC may alter some aspects of research funding decisions.

Clarification: I was concerned mostly that corporate monies could increase the size of Carolina North or the probability of its being built. Of course, money with strings raises many other potential ethical questions at a state University. In some circumstances, corporate money can be a good thing, though.


Your post inspired me to do a little research. Not only is Harvard a corporation, it is the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere. Harvard was incorporated on June 9, 1650 by the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Masschusetts (i.e. the colonial legislature). The official name, which pleases my affection for the formal and archaic, is The President and Fellows of Harvard College.


What really blows me away is that Harvard's endowment is worth somewhere around $30 billion.

Of course there's a danger of compromising independence and objectivity -- some of us have been raising that issue since the early 60s. But that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid. It's worth watchfulness, nonetheless, to keep universities from straying too far away from academic ideals into the brambles of control by "interested" interests.

(Harvard's status as a corporation is slightly different from other institutions -- internal documents often refer to "The Corporation," which one doesn't see in most universities, at least none of the 8 or 9 in my experience with. Just FYI, here's it's organization chart: - not exactly the architecture of the traditional image of an Ivory Tower, is it?)

Well, yes. Harvard is a corporation. But so are most churches, many activist organizations, and so on. Incorporation is simply a legal means of creating an entity that continues to exist as its membership changes. But the real issue is that business corporations are gaining greater influence at many colleges and universities, and this is sometimes a problem because it can compromise the independence and missions of an educational institution. Moeser embraced this growing connection to business corporations.

Actually Chris C, Harvard's endowment was 34.9 billion as of June 30, 2007. If they earned a paltry 6 percent interest per year on that they would earn in one year in interest as much as UNC and Chancellor Moeser raised in 5 years. And usually, because they pay their advisers so well, the Harvard endowment returns in the 20 to 30 percent per year range. It wouldn't be unusual for one of their endowment advisers to earn 25-50 million per year. It is clear that the rich (universities) keep getting richer while the poor (everyone else) get poorer. I don't fault the universities (including UNC) for looking for corporate partners. After the way the current administration has bankrupted the federal government, and the resulting cutbacks at the state level necessary to maintain an least a modicum of social services, corporate partnerships may be the only way that our universities can maintain the minimal infrastructure they need to be competitive as major research universities.

It is true that support for Carolina from the legislature had diminished. But there were two ways one might respond to that.

One is to use and develop strong ties with legislators, built up over long periods, to lobby effectively to restore state funding for a state university. The other is to look elsewhere for corporate and grant funding, and to raise tuition.

Moeser did some of both, but as an outsider he had to rely mainly on the second strategy. As a consequence, Carolina's status as a true public university has been compromised.

This is one of the dangers of bringing in someone from outside. I hope that the next chancellor is chosen from among the faculty of the university.

Moeser never understood the Carolina low-tuition tradition. He thought the idea was that it should be affordable. But the idea is, as the state constitution makes clear, that to the extent practicable, higher education at UNC should be free , much the same as K-12 public education is supposed to be free.

Then Chris C, you will enjoy also knowing that the oldest for-profit corporation in the western hemisphere is the The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay or as it is more commonly known, the Hudson Bay Company. The descendant subsidiary corporations of which have included the notable North Carolina company Hudson Belk. Incidentally, the wall street corporate retailer Dayton Hudson was also a subsidiary of that same origin. Dayton Hudson officially changed their name just 3 or 4 years ago to have the company co-branded with their primary retail outlet Target.

Incidentally, the Hudson Bay Company was just sold within the last year for just over $1 Billion, so it appears that Harvard has fared a good bit better than beaver pelt biz.

James, I don't know when you stated looking at this issue but I think you have your facts wrong. The Chancellor has been criticized for UNC's "good ol boy" lobbyist at the Legislature and the work done by the Ram's Club PAC. Proposing to raise tuition doesn't mean that one doesn't understand the low-tuition tradition. Rather, it reflecs the realities of the day. What's your solution?

Fred, my knowledge of the facts is based on years of observation working at the University. The Ram's Club PAC is not state funding. Year after year, when the legislature would cut funding, the administration's response was primarily to look elsewhere. Of course, lobbying in Raleigh also continued.

You are right that proposing to raise tuition does not per se mean that one does not understand the low-tuition tradition. But my remarks about that were based mainly on my conversations and e-mail exchanges with James Moeser, particularly in the first years of his tenure.

My solution is the same advocated by Bill Friday: to preserve the low-tuition tradition, and to concentrate on restoring tax-based funding from the General Assembly in Raleigh. The "realities of the day" have been that it has failed to meet its obligations to support the public university system.

But the big tuition increases just made matters worse, because it undermined the principle that a state university should be supported by the state. It is very much like what has happened to public radio and television, which should be funded mainly by taxes, not fund-raising from listeners and viewers.

James, is not the Rams Club PAC interested in influencing the actions of the Legislature?

I guess I don't understand how you hold all of the chancellors responsible for less state funding and then having to seek tuition increases.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the "right" solution, including the one that says the chancellors, the President of the system and the BOG should just make them pony up the necessary funds.

Fred, my claim is not that lobbying and efforts through the Rams Club ceased, but that there was a shift in emphasis. I do not say that the chancellors are responsible for less state funding. It was the legislature itself that dropped the ball. But many of us at UNC disagreed with raising tuition as the response to its failure.

During the controversy about the Pope Foundation's effort to fund a program in 'Western Civilization', Moesser claimed that opponents of the program were opposing academic freedom. In other words, dollars equals free speech.

One of the danger of corporate funding--quite real--is that the knowledge produced sometimes becomes the private property of corporations involved in funding it. This is counter to both the mission of specific universities and the cause of science in general.

Next Chancellor after a nationwide search?
Ellson Floyd- Here's how the story will read. Homegrown guy, degrees from Chapel Hill,worked in student affairs as a student and kept on working his way up,mentored by Hooker,sent off to get more experince till Moeser retired.First to Michigan and now Pres of U of Missouri he is "excited and ready to come home to lead UNC" I'll bet a quater this will be the story!
Look to see Chacellor Floyd at next year's University Day
JAcquie Gist


That is a fascinating bit of trivia and a great name.


$36 billion? At what point can the interest on Harvard's endowment negate the need to charge tuition? It is hard to believe there is a non profit (maybe the Gates Foundation??) with more assets than Harvard.

Things didn't go very well for Floyd at Missouri and he's now been the President at Washington State for less than a year. I'm sure three or four years ago he would have been the guy and he still could be but it would be switching jobs awfully quick.

As we all read and feel the decrease in state funding for
UNC, we must remember that since research plays an
ever-increasing role at UNC-CH, the state funding provides
only a minor (well maybe a third) part in the UNC budget.
So when we read, for example, that UNC has received a cut
or an increase of 5 pct in the state budget, it hardly tells the whole story.
I agree that Chancellor Moeser (or any chancellor
of a large public research university) has to diversify
revenue for the same reason that any stockholder has to
diversity his/her portfolio, to minimize risk.

The NIH plays too large a roll in UNC funding now. In the
Bush era, its budget has remained constant in
yearly dollars, actually decreasing in real dollars. Our
research faculty have done a superb job in writing
grant proposals, but should the NIH get, say, a 10 pct
decrease (perhaps due to an expensive war?) Chapel Hill could have a recession. There are a lot of UNC employees
working on soft money (grant money). This is one
disadvantage that the UNC system caused when in
created its major med school in Chapel Hill
and its major engineering school in Raleigh.

My reaction to the career of Chancellor Moeser here at
UNC-CH is mixed, and I should write a treatise on it.
But expressed quickly and limited to town-gown issues,
and using a football metaphor (he did come from a
football powerhouse), his first half was a brutal failure
(the first words I heard him say in person at a
development-related meeting were "You're treating
us like a shopping center"). At halftime, someone,
or perhaps himself, gave him a pep talk, and he realized
that the town was important and he should continue
the good relations that Chancellors Hardin and Hooker
had fostered. His second half was much better, with
UNC following the lead of Yale (who started it all when
they realized they couldn't recruit due to the poor condition
of New Haven) and he actually recognized that the towns
do matter, UNC planning became public and showed
respect to the local governments and people.

The approval process for Carolina North will be extremely
interesting. I just hope that the UNC BOT doesn't get

Joe, I agree somewhat with your analysis of Moeser's evolution.

He also started to show some deftness in recovering from some fumbles - the Jack Evans "us vs. them" quarterback analogy springs to mind - over the last 18 months.

I fully agree with you about UNC's BOT's possible impatience derailing what progress in improving Town-n-Gown relationships Moeser was able to cultivate. Squandering that capital would be quite short-sighted.

My hope is that Moeser's leaving presents all of us with an opportunity to start anew.

First, some of our Town's current leadership should embrace this change, soften their attitudes, drop the election year act and drop some baggage. A failure, now, to build upon what success the LAC engendered will sit squarely on the Towns. It's our "ballgame" (to pickup on Joe's theme) to lose by "giving up yardage" and retreating into the "same old, same old" rhetoric.

Second, the newly reformulated BOT needs to show some uncommon sensitivity to community issues and seize the opportunity to hire a new Chancellor that will strengthen/evolve the LAC process into a much more sustainable framework for multi-log between the community, our local leadership, UNC's various factions and other concerned parties. I'm not ready to adopt Madison's way of doing business but the BOT must recognize the value of a more predictable framework for discussions and should act, in choosing a replacement, to bolster a new process.

Third, this presents UNC an opportunity to recalibrate the CN schedule. I imagine that a new Chancellor will not only bring a fresh outlook but will also bring a fresh "team" (as per Joe) to the field. In transitioning to a new administration, UNC also has an opportunity to create a much more workable timeline for CN that allows the ongoing studies to be finished, for discussions on managing the zoning/development agreement to move ahead in a prudent fashion and for the new "players" to get up to speed.

So, we have a great opportunity to build a new kind of relationship with the University.

Folks can drop some baggage - stop doing the Town-n-Gown passion play - and start to look at how we move forward not only on developing a sustainable, CREDIBLE, framework for discussing CN but the other points of contact between UNC and our community.

Finally, failure to leverage this opportunity will lie more on our Town (which stands to lose the most from retrenchment) than UNC.

We need to prep ourselves - get our ducks lined up - and be ready to make that fresh start.

I agree with Joe's assessment.

In my 30+ years in this town the University has slowly come to the realization that they are no longer the Chapel Hill's sole reason for being. Many of us came to this town because of the community UNC created or helped foster.

Many today fight to preserve their vision of that community against the University's vision as a statewide/nationwide and international leader. These conflicting visions have been smashing into each other as long as I have been here but much more frequently in the past decade. Balancing town-gown is not just a passion play for a chancellor but a major headache.

In this new millennium, with the rapid growth of the community, the medical center complex and CN have underscored dramatic change during Moeser's tenure. If it is the measure of a good leader that they learn from mistakes then this chancellor should get some credit.

I would commend Moeser for UNC's increasing recognition of the role of slavery in UNC development and the role of people of color in shaping the University of today. As UNC moves on to a new history with CN much still needs to be done accounting for past history.

Had a chance to review this week's news, the Chancellor's statements, UNC's BOT comments.

I was struck that UNC overlooked a great opportunity in appointing a few local folks to the search committee. The public will be invited - twice it appears - to weigh in on the criteria but, as of now, that seems to be the limit of what UNC is willing to do to integrate a local community perspective.

Maybe it is not too late for UNC to appoint a few folks - not just local luminaries - to the board.

If I was forming the search committee, I would've selected frontline staff from within UNC's workforce. I would've solicited folks from the local community that have been active in Town-n-Gown issues who also had no direct relationship with the University. Finally, I'd try to find folks that were not particularly thrilled with the current administrations tack (Ms. Sumpter, for instance) as well as those that were to kind of balance the perspective.

Who would you suggest sit on the search committee?

Details of the Oct. 26th and 30th public forums will be announced via this special search website.

Here's the current search committee:

Schwab of Charlotte is co-founder of the Charlotte-based merchant banking firm Carousel Capital, and completed two terms as trustee chair in June. Also a UNC alumnus, he was first appointed to the board in 2001.

Perry of Chapel Hill is president of East West Partners and was elected trustee chair in July. A Carolina alumnus, he was elected to his first term on the board in 2003.

Mason of Atlanta is a partner at the law firm Alston and Bird LLP. A Carolina alumna, she was appointed as a trustee in 2001.

Other search committee members are:

* Trustee Russell “Rusty” Carter of Wilmington, current secretary of the board, president of the Atlantic Corp. of Wilmington and a UNC alumnus.

* Trustee John Ellison Jr. of Greensboro, president and chief executive officer of the Ellison Company Inc. He holds two Carolina degrees.

* Trustee A. Donald Stallings of Rocky Mount, chief executive officer of Eagle Transport Corp. Inc. and a Carolina alumnus.

* Trustee Eve Carson of Athens, Ga., student body president and a senior political science and biology major who serves ex officio on the Board of Trustees.

* Kenneth Broun, Henry Brandis Professor of Law and former dean, School of Law.

* Lisa Carey, associate professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division, School of Medicine.

* Bruce Carney, Samuel Baron Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy and senior associate dean for the sciences, College of Arts and Sciences.

* James Johnson, director, Urban Investment Strategies Center, Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, and William R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship, Kenan-Flagler Business School.

* Joseph Templeton, chair of the faculty and Francis Preston Venable Professor of Chemistry, department of chemistry, College of Arts and Sciences.

* Lauren Anderson, president of the Graduate and Professional Student Federation and a doctoral student in the School of Medicine.

* Ernie Patterson, chair of the Employee Forum and biology network manager, department of biology, College of Arts and Sciences.

* Anna Wu, director of facilities planning, who has played a key role in the successful execution of the University's current $2.1 capital construction program.

* Julia Sprunt Grumbles of Chapel Hill, a 1975 UNC alumnae and retired vice president of Turner Broadcasting who serves on the Carolina First Steering Committee and co-chairs the Carolina Women's Leadership Council.

* William B. Harrison Jr., a native of Rocky Mount and currently residing in Greenwich, Conn., a 1966 UNC graduate and retired chairman and director of JPMorgan Chase & Co. He is heading a Global Leadership Circle announced by Moeser on Wednesday.

* Willard J. “Mike” Overlock Jr. of Greenwich, Conn., a 1968 Carolina alumnus, senior director of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and co-chair of the Carolina First Campaign.

* Willis P. Whichard of Chapel Hill, a 1962 UNC graduate who earned a law degree in 1965 and is former associate justice of the N.C. Supreme Court and former dean of the Campbell University law school.

Will says that the public forums seems to be the limit of what UNC is willing to do to "integrate" a local community perspective. Heck, when there is a room full of local folks, it's hard to gain a consensus on a local community perspective!

I suspect that on the part of the Trustees, there is a higher value being placed on each person's track records and their ability to work together under the agreed upon constraints than on a couple of people bringing their version of the local "community perspective," however you define it.

I also think that several on the committee who are local and have a lot of understanding can contribute much, but maybe some would argue that because they are "luminaries," their local perspective is not as valid because certain others do not share it. Imagine that!

Fred, a luminary, like yourself, has a different position, and maybe perspective, to inject your opinions into the process. I'm suggesting the University would be well served by listening to a wide spectrum of suggestions in order to ferret out the best candidate.

How about asking someone, even if they're a local luminary, like Fred Battle to participate?

As far as gathering 100 local citizens and getting 1,000 opinions - I rather that than limiting input from the same old suspects or shutting local contribution totally out as you are apparently comfortable with.

Finally, of the folks on the list living locally, I'm not familiar enough with them to claim any knowledge of where they stand on Carolina North, UNC's diversity problems, the LAC, Town-n-Gown relations in general, etc. Do you know them well enough to feel confident they represent a range of opinions on those local issues?

Let's do the math, two student leaders "representing" the opinions of 28,000 students means what exactly? Their formal positions got them their seat at the table; will they "represent" or will they express their opinions based on their experiences that they feel ought to be considered in a decision process like this?

A couple of people on the list have appeared before the Town Council almost as many times as you have, Will. They have opinions too.

Let's face it, the new chancellor will not be picked on his ability to meet your definition of what's needed in the town-gown arena, but on his ability to be a competent, effective and dynamic leader with vision who will guide a multi-billion dollar business organization that's (primarily) about education. I think this point is what causes some of our problems - we don't always grasp that they are making business decisions when we want something else to be the standard.

Thus, not having a citizen like Fred Battle on the committee does not mean that things he might consider important are not being considered.



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.