RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Keely Muscatell always told prospective students they could study anything they dream of at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Now that many diversity programs in the state’s public university system are under threat of elimination, she’s not so sure.
“We’ve had some really, really sad and difficult conversations in my lab,” the UNC psychology professor said. “Can we in good conscience continue to try to recruit and promote people to come to graduate school here? Particularly people of color?”
UNC’s governing board took the huge step in May of repealing a diversity policy for its 17 institutions — meaning positions will be reevaluated and possibly eliminated. Republican leaders in the General Assembly supported the move and applauded it. House Speaker Tim Moore had previously condemned diversity efforts as wasteful and “wokeness” to indoctrinate students. “Ultimately, students should have free exchanges, but not allow coercive ideas and not have people excluded,” he said in April.
The modern policy commits universities to free speech, academic freedom and institutional neutrality – values that UNC System President Peter Hans believes are necessary to prevent institutions from taking political stances.
But it’s part of what Muscatell calls a “structural effort” to stifle diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, and the overhaul of how public universities handle DEI work plays a huge role in her dissatisfaction. Previously, increasing pressure to dismantle DEI programs was one of the reasons Muscatell left her job as the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience’s director of diversity initiatives in May.
Politics and its consequences
The Associated Press spoke to several UNC-Chapel Hill faculty members who reported feeling uninformed about the implementation of the sweeping policy. Many, like Muscatell, say the lack of campuswide guidance raises concerns about what will happen next.
UNC System campuses must submit documents by September 1 detailing eliminated and realigned positions, program changes and reallocations of funds under the modern policy.
North Carolina is not the only state rolling back DEI rules. Conservative resistance gained ground particularly at the University of Florida and the University of Texas, where diversity offices and positions have been cut, while other universities in Kentucky and Nebraska are considering changes.
UNC-CH declined to comment on the changes on campus before Sept. 1, but added that “targeted initiatives that welcome and support underserved students” could continue if they adhered to rules of nondiscrimination and neutrality.
In June, Leah Cox, the university’s chief diversity officer, accepted an additional one-year appointment as the university’s deputy provost, according to emails and contracts obtained by The Associated Press. Cox’s duties include reorganizing certain diversity initiatives within the provost’s office, her contract states.
UNC did not comment on whether Cox’s modern appointment was a result of that policy, but the administration said the policy change, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision banning affirmative action discrimination in college admissions, played a role in the recent cancellation of a program to diversify the university’s workforce.
The Valuing Inclusion to Attain Excellence Hiring Program (VITAE) provided significant funding for the salaries of underrepresented faculty members seeking to gain a foothold at the university. VITAE stopped accepting applications this month, and a modern initiative launched last week will support the hiring of faculty members who contribute to the university’s “academic, curricular and intellectual diversity goals,” Provost Christopher Clemens said in an internal email obtained by AP. Officials said funds already pledged through VITAE will be honored.
Kurt Ribisl, the director of the Department of Health Behavior, recalled recruiting talented teachers through VITAE and said discontinuing the effort would be a huge loss. Records show that in 2020, about half of underrepresented tenured and non-tenured teachers were VITAE participants.
“They want to have a teaching staff that represents the composition of our state, and students want to see people in the lecture halls who look like them,” Ribisl said.
“Looking over your shoulder”
Several faculty members said major changes in 2023 set the stage for the policy change. First, the UNC System implemented a speech ban prohibiting soliciting statements about diversity or political beliefs from candidates when making hiring decisions. And the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action led to drastic changes to race-based scholarships, research grants and awards.
In her final year as director of diversity initiatives, Muscatell felt the impact: Small tasks went through multiple layers of approval and her ideas were often questioned, she said. When Muscatell asked about DEI programs, others told her to do whatever required less criticism.
Muscatell’s colleague Margaret Sheridan said it felt like the administration was “looking over our shoulders.”
Some faculties are waiting “for the bad news”
Ariana Vigil said that before the fall semester began, several freshmen inquired about her well-being and whether they could continue to major in women’s and gender studies, the department that Vigil chairs.
In general, she feels supported, Vigil said, and her department has not encountered any explicit resistance from the administration.
She also notices increasing diversity in her courses. From 2016 to 2023, the number of black students increased by less than one percentage point to 8.6% of the student body, while the number of Hispanic and Asian students reached 9.1% and 12.9%, respectively.
But fear about what will happen next remains, Vigil said, calling the change in campus diversity policies “demoralizing.”
“It’s more like sitting around and waiting for the bad news,” she said.
Ahead of an April UNC Faculty Assembly meeting to discuss the policy, UNC-CH faculty chair Beth Moracco said she had been inundated with enough feedback from faculty members to fill 13 single-spaced pages—some of it supportive, but the rest “overwhelmingly concerned.”
Moracco said she has been assured that policy changes should not affect research – a major concern for some health researchers who need to address inequities thanks to government funding.
The modern directive states that research is protected by academic freedom.
Sheridan is less concerned about her research—namely, how structural inequality affects children’s brain development—than about the wider research environment. She noted that a “less diverse and less open” work environment could cause some teachers to leave, leading to a loss of talent and innovation.
“More of us are going to leave, and I honestly feel like we’re not the obvious target, our own research isn’t specifically under threat,” Sheridan said. “But if the overarching goal was supported at the university, I think that would create a climate where we want to stay.”
Muscatell says that’s one reason she’s looking elsewhere. Despite her love for UNC, she said her top priority is to find a teaching position at a university where there isn’t a “hostile climate toward diversity and equity.”
“It definitely seems to me like we’re just, yeah, I don’t know, replaceable,” she said.
