Tracking UNC’s School of Civic Life and Leadership

  • Thread starter Thread starter EyeballKid
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 131
  • Views: 3K
  • Off-Topic 
nycfan said:
Jay Smith Trigger Warning ⛔️
Click to expand...


I thought that was a decent article. All over the place with the narrative, but lots pf information and some good quotes. Plenty for supporters and opponents to pull out but I saw a few paragraphs that gave me hope for the program:

"After the pro-Trump mob entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Rose said he asked students if they “had a family member or friend who voted for Donald Trump. In a class of 56, 50 hands went up. I then asked them to keep their hands up if they thought this person’s vote was motivated by anything unsavory—say, sexism or racism. Every hand but two went down.” Rose said that “when you actually know others, they aren’t an abstraction onto which you can project your own political narratives.”"

"It’s unclear what the majority of UNC faculty now think of the school that hundreds protested. But Beth Moracco, current chair of the Chapel Hill faculty, said she’s heard cautious optimism; faculty have said the school could help, for instance, with the vigorous debate that may arise due to the election results.

“We as a society are quite polarized,” Moracco said, and “there’s always room for more engaged, constructive civil discourse.”"
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I thought that was a decent article. All over the place with the narrative, but lots pf information and some good quotes. Plenty for supporters and opponents to pull out but I saw a few paragraphs that gave me hope for the program:

"After the pro-Trump mob entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Rose said he asked students if they “had a family member or friend who voted for Donald Trump. In a class of 56, 50 hands went up. I then asked them to keep their hands up if they thought this person’s vote was motivated by anything unsavory—say, sexism or racism. Every hand but two went down.” Rose said that “when you actually know others, they aren’t an abstraction onto which you can project your own political narratives.”"

"It’s unclear what the majority of UNC faculty now think of the school that hundreds protested. But Beth Moracco, current chair of the Chapel Hill faculty, said she’s heard cautious optimism; faculty have said the school could help, for instance, with the vigorous debate that may arise due to the election results.

“We as a society are quite polarized,” Moracco said, and “there’s always room for more engaged, constructive civil discourse.”"
Click to expand...
That paragraph stood out to me, as well.

Because why in the world would anyone be surprised by the students' response to a question asking whether their friends and family were motivated by sexism or racism ?

An interesting question would have been how many students voted or supported Trump ?
 
Last edited:
heelinhell said:
That paragraph stood out to me, as well.

Because why in the world would anyone be surprised by the students' response to a question asking whether their friends and family were motivated by sexism or racism ?

An interesting question would have been how many students voted or supported Trump ?
Click to expand...
I think he was trying to push back on the narrative that the only reason someone would vote for Trump is because they were racist or sexist or whatever else CarolinaFever's broken record has mentioned for the 19th time today.
 
nycfan said:
Jay Smith Trigger Warning ⛔️
Click to expand...
It is pretty funny when you read the school’s mission statement, or listen to what its faculty say about the need for the school, how much of the language is around the need for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think he was trying to push back on the narrative that the only reason someone would vote for Trump is because they were racist or sexist or whatever else CarolinaFever's broken record has mentioned for the 19th time today.
Click to expand...
He was creating a situation where it appears you have data to push back on that narrative, but in a way that is completely invalid as a statistical model.

It lets everyone feel good, but does nothing to actually address what statistical studies show us, that support for Trump has strong correlations to racial and other bigotries.
 
donbosco said:
Click to expand...

In an email to The Daily Tar Heel, Brodey said the "improprieties, slander, vindictiveness and manipulation" surrounding the recent faculty search have convinced her "that SCiLL is currently the least civil department" she's encountered on campus.

“I can see that there is no point in my trying to help build SCiLL any longer, and that decisions have been made, a direction has been set, over which I can have no input,” she said in an interview.
 
donbosco said:
Click to expand...

In an email to The Daily Tar Heel, Brodey said the "improprieties, slander, vindictiveness and manipulation" surrounding the recent faculty search have convinced her "that SCiLL is currently the least civil department" she's encountered on campus
 
mpaer said:
In an email to The Daily Tar Heel, Brodey said the "improprieties, slander, vindictiveness and manipulation" surrounding the recent faculty search have convinced her "that SCiLL is currently the least civil department" she's encountered on campus
Click to expand...
Too bad. Nice idea and sounds like there were some people that really wanted to make it work but looks like they picked the wrong Dean. I hope they can right the ship.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Too bad. Nice idea and sounds like there were some people that really wanted to make it work but looks like they picked the wrong Dean. I hope they can right the ship.
Click to expand...
It’s* a dumb idea.

* The idea that a separate school was necessary to achieve the alleged goals of the school.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Too bad. Nice idea and sounds like there were some people that really wanted to make it work but looks like they picked the wrong Dean. I hope they can right the ship.
Click to expand...
They didn't pick the "wrong" dean, they picked the dean to carry out the school's never-directly-stated-but-always-known mission...to be a school of conservative thought.

It appears that there was an attempted whitewashing of that mission for the introduction of the program via the initial hires, but they've now mostly been run off since they aren't needed any longer to keep up the charade.
 
SnoopRob said:
They didn't pick the "wrong" dean, they picked the dean to carry out the school's never-directly-stated-but-always-known mission...to be a school of conservative thought.

It appears that there was an attempted whitewashing of that mission for the introduction of the program via the initial hires, but they've now mostly been run off since they aren't needed any longer to keep up the charade.
Click to expand...
So what is your theory? "They" picked the dean to carry out some conservative plot and were wildly successful but weren't able to pick seven or eight other people that could also do it? That doesn't really compute. Can you explain why you think that?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So what is your theory? "They" picked the dean to carry out some conservative plot and were wildly successful but weren't able to pick seven or eight other people that could also do it? That doesn't really compute. Can you explain why you think that?
Click to expand...
I see it something like this - someone floats an idea for a program promoting “free thinking, discussion and an intellectual basis for pro-Western thought” and some conservative or moderate scholars think it sounds great and sign up, despite their liberal colleagues warning “it’s all a big scam to give credibility to people who are incapable of earning any and pump out a new wave of conservatives.”
Then, the liberal warnings come to fruition and the legitimate scholars don’t want to be covered in the stench of duplicitous, incompetent imbeciles and decide to flee.
Basically like the relationship between MAGA and traditional, serious conservatives.
 
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket said:
So what is your theory? "They" picked the dean to carry out some conservative plot and were wildly successful but weren't able to pick seven or eight other people that could also do it? That doesn't really compute. Can you explain why you think that?
Click to expand...
It's the timeline of the SCiLL itself...

There had been discussion of creating a "conservative center" at Carolina for a number of years, led by conservatives in NC (in the NCGA, on the UNC BoT, and those who help direct such efforts from behind the scenes). The consultants who were brought in to advise how to do this cautioned against calling it a "conservative center" and instead advised expressing that it "expanded" the ideological offerings of the university.

The creation of the school was achieved by passed motion by the BOT in an atypical manner in January 2023.

The initial interim Dean and faculty were announced in October 2023, all pulled from existing UNC faculty. These faculty had a fairly broad background, judged as a whole, and provided support for the idea that the school wasn't a "conservative center".

Jed Atkins was named as first full-time Dean of SCiLL in March 2024. Atkins is well-known and well-considered in conservative academic circles. After Atkins was named Dean, most of the initial faculty of SCiLL left the department over the next few months.

Under Atkins, 11 new faculty were named in August 2024. All have ties to conservative academic groups and are consistent with the known-but-denied mission of SCiLL to be a "conservative center".

The BoT, under the direction of the NCGA, were quite successful at creating a "conservative center" on campus, as was the design of SCiLL. Their initial appointments of those who weren't aligned with the actual mission was nothing more than PR whitewashing of the purpose of the center and was remedied quickly once permanent faculty were hired.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
"After the pro-Trump mob entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Rose said he asked students if they “had a family member or friend who voted for Donald Trump. In a class of 56, 50 hands went up. I then asked them to keep their hands up if they thought this person’s vote was motivated by anything unsavory—say, sexism or racism. Every hand but two went down.”
Click to expand...
well, that settles it! he surveyed the class and by jove, their friends/family aren't racist/sexist!!!!!

Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
 
It's such a contrived anecdotal story. Also, the follow up question was terribly worded. I'd have taken my hand down, too. And not because I don't have racist family members who voted for Trump, because I definitely do. I'd have lowered my hand because I would have given up on figuring out the purpose of the exercise and I was tired of keeping my hand up. Also, group think/give the professor what he wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top