I agree, but I’m becoming more pessimistic that we will ever have a free/fair election again. The MAGAs have bought Dominion and now control the means to count and tabulate votes. We will have elections but will Dems ever regain power peacefully?
War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 863
- Views: 27K
- Politics
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
I don't know if buying Dominion means all that much. I don't have a very good sense of exactly how voting procedures work where the rubber meets the road. Maybe it's bad, maybe it's just a thing. I don't really know.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,459
Seems like a very expensive way to get Harvard branding on a community college education. And I don't say community college to detract from it, but because we have a massive infrastructure set up for this type of training. I don't know why we would want Harvard to build this from scratch when their expertise in training is completely different and much more expensive.
donbosco
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,750
"It sounds a little like code for: tenured professors can’t be forced to do anything. So Roberts is creating “incentive-based programs” to move the ball forward, like promoting one of the school’s deans into the role of Vice Provost for AI at the university. That individual, Jeffrey Bardzell, has been a professor for more than 20 years and has “experience both in technology and as a humanist,” says Roberts, adding that Bardzell is “exceptionally well-placed to help the faculty as a whole come further up to speed.”
UNC is barreling ahead on other fronts in the meantime. In its biggest development to date, the university announced this month that it is merging two schools — the School of Data Science and Society and the School of Information and Library Science — into one yet-to-be-named entity with AI studies at the center of the Venn diagram."
The man betting everything on AI and Bill Belichick | TechCrunch
UNC Chancellor Lee Roberts is making big bets on AI and Bill Belichick, and he sounds like a Silicon Valley CEO while doing it.
techcrunch.com
Last edited:
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,185
If he wants to destroy the reputation of Texas universities (especially UT) then by all means go ahead. Not that he cares, of course, because his constituency isn't graduates of Texas state universities - it's his mostly non-college educated MAGA base in rural and suburban Texas that loathes fancy universities and college towns and snooty college professors who teach "useless" liberal arts topics. Again, this is all a part of the final MAGA assault on American universities - just take them over, do away with tenure, and then fire anyone who disagrees with their political views and remake them into right-wing strongholds that will indoctrinate students with right-wing beliefs, just as they think happens now with liberals. Destroy liberalism in universities and you can totally destroy liberalism in America, or so they think.
donbosco
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,750
October 17, 2025
UNC Campuses Split on Whether Syllabi Are Public Documents
After the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill refused to proffer faculty course materials in response to an open-records request, UNC Greensboro officials made the opposite decision.
By Emma Whitford
The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws.
As right-wing groups increasingly weaponize Freedom of Information Act requests to expose and dox faculty members who teach about gender, race and diversity, University of North Carolina system campuses are split over whether syllabi and other course materials should be subject to public records requests.
In July, officials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill determined that the documents are not automatically subject to such requests after the Oversight Project, founded by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, requested that the university hand over any course materials from more than 70 classes that contained one of 30 words or phrases, including “gender identity,” “intersectionality,” “queer” and “sexuality.” Officials ultimately denied the request, writing, “There are no existing or responsive University records subject to disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act. Course materials, including but not limited to exams, lectures, assignments and syllabi, are the intellectual property of the preparer.”
The requested materials are protected by copyright policies, a UNC Chapel Hill spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. “The university has a longstanding practice of recognizing faculty’s intellectual property rights in course materials and does not reproduce these materials in response to public records requests without first asking for faculty consent,” they wrote in an email.
But an hour’s drive west, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, officials decided just the opposite. Professors were asked to hand over their spring 2025 syllabi in response to a Freedom of Information Act request earlier this fall, said Chuck Bolton, a professor of history at UNC Greensboro and chair of the Faculty Senate. He is among dozens of faculty members who were asked to upload their syllabi into a central database.
“The Public Records Act is inclusive in its coverage and unless there is an explicit exception, which this is not, it is covered,” UNC Greensboro spokesperson Diana Lawrence said in an email. “As a matter of public policy, transparency should take [precedence] over questions where there is doubt and we do not believe that the Federal Copyright Act provides a specific exemption or preempts what has been passed in state law.”
Which university is interpreting the law correctly? It’s hard to know, said Hugh Stevens, an attorney who specializes in public records and FOIA law and litigation at the law firm Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych. There is no case law specific to this question, and the answer likely depends on how different course materials—from lecture notes to syllabi to course descriptions—are defined under the law.
“It’s probably a matter of degree,” Stevens said. “Something that you post online for your class to read, it’s pretty hard to say those are not subject to [public records requests]. But on the other hand, the materials that you use to prepare to teach your class, but which are never published to anybody, are certainly, in my view, copyrightable and proprietary.”
For years, UNC Greensboro put syllabi online as part of an accreditation requirement, said Jeff Jones, a history professor and head of the institution’s American Association of University Professors chapter. After the university’s website was redesigned and accreditation procedures changed, the syllabi were no longer posted.
The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws, leaving the decision up to individual campuses. The policy “does not discuss distribution of course materials” and “essentially covers the basic functions and procedures involved with records requests,” said UNC system spokesperson Andy Wallace.
But the system does define copyrightable works, which include coursework produced by faculty members, Wallace added.
Lawrence, the Greensboro spokesperson, did not respond to questions about whether the university’s records request was also from the Oversight Project and whether it has already provided the material. The FOIA request has not been made public, but Bolton, the history professor, believes it’s a narrower request than what UNC Chapel Hill received and that it is focused exclusively on syllabi.
The opposing interpretations of the law from two universities in the same public system have left faculty confused and worried about their safety as right-wing groups rifle through course materials for any terminology they don’t like, usually related to gender identity, sexuality or race. Faculty members at Texas A&M University, the University of Houston and George Mason University, among others, have been targeted and sometimes threatened on social media for their instruction and teaching materials. Bolton said he knows of several UNC Greensboro faculty members who have been doxed.
“Faculty have been upset and scared and freaked out about it, because there are people that seem to be [making FOIA requests] because they are trying to create gotcha moments by taking certain things out of context,” he said.
Michael Palm, an associate professor of media and technology studies and cultural studies at UNC Chapel Hill, said in an email that while many faculty are glad Chapel Hill decided not to release the requested course materials, some expressed frustration about the lack of transparency. “We were disappointed when we learned through news reports that UNC Chapel Hill’s lawyers had decided not to respond to the requests, rather than having that decision communicated to us by administrators,” he said.
Some professors are also concerned about how long and how vigorously the university will continue to protect faculty. “We are all concerned about the increasing political interference into our classrooms and attempts to quash our academic freedom,” said Erik Gellman, a history professor at Chapel Hill.
Bolton, at UNC Greensboro, has similar worries.
“This is a tough time for universities,” he said. “There are a lot of attacks coming from a lot of different directions, and that increases the anxiety and anger on behalf of the faculty, because we know that these kinds of things are not being done just because people want to find out what’s on our syllabus for intellectual reasons. They’re doing it for more nefarious reasons.”
Link behind paywall (pasted fully above): UNC Campuses Split on Whether Syllabi Are Public Documents
UNC Campuses Split on Whether Syllabi Are Public Documents
After the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill refused to proffer faculty course materials in response to an open-records request, UNC Greensboro officials made the opposite decision.
By Emma Whitford
The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws.
As right-wing groups increasingly weaponize Freedom of Information Act requests to expose and dox faculty members who teach about gender, race and diversity, University of North Carolina system campuses are split over whether syllabi and other course materials should be subject to public records requests.
In July, officials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill determined that the documents are not automatically subject to such requests after the Oversight Project, founded by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, requested that the university hand over any course materials from more than 70 classes that contained one of 30 words or phrases, including “gender identity,” “intersectionality,” “queer” and “sexuality.” Officials ultimately denied the request, writing, “There are no existing or responsive University records subject to disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act. Course materials, including but not limited to exams, lectures, assignments and syllabi, are the intellectual property of the preparer.”
The requested materials are protected by copyright policies, a UNC Chapel Hill spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. “The university has a longstanding practice of recognizing faculty’s intellectual property rights in course materials and does not reproduce these materials in response to public records requests without first asking for faculty consent,” they wrote in an email.
But an hour’s drive west, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, officials decided just the opposite. Professors were asked to hand over their spring 2025 syllabi in response to a Freedom of Information Act request earlier this fall, said Chuck Bolton, a professor of history at UNC Greensboro and chair of the Faculty Senate. He is among dozens of faculty members who were asked to upload their syllabi into a central database.
“The Public Records Act is inclusive in its coverage and unless there is an explicit exception, which this is not, it is covered,” UNC Greensboro spokesperson Diana Lawrence said in an email. “As a matter of public policy, transparency should take [precedence] over questions where there is doubt and we do not believe that the Federal Copyright Act provides a specific exemption or preempts what has been passed in state law.”
Which university is interpreting the law correctly? It’s hard to know, said Hugh Stevens, an attorney who specializes in public records and FOIA law and litigation at the law firm Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych. There is no case law specific to this question, and the answer likely depends on how different course materials—from lecture notes to syllabi to course descriptions—are defined under the law.
“It’s probably a matter of degree,” Stevens said. “Something that you post online for your class to read, it’s pretty hard to say those are not subject to [public records requests]. But on the other hand, the materials that you use to prepare to teach your class, but which are never published to anybody, are certainly, in my view, copyrightable and proprietary.”
For years, UNC Greensboro put syllabi online as part of an accreditation requirement, said Jeff Jones, a history professor and head of the institution’s American Association of University Professors chapter. After the university’s website was redesigned and accreditation procedures changed, the syllabi were no longer posted.
The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws, leaving the decision up to individual campuses. The policy “does not discuss distribution of course materials” and “essentially covers the basic functions and procedures involved with records requests,” said UNC system spokesperson Andy Wallace.
But the system does define copyrightable works, which include coursework produced by faculty members, Wallace added.
Lawrence, the Greensboro spokesperson, did not respond to questions about whether the university’s records request was also from the Oversight Project and whether it has already provided the material. The FOIA request has not been made public, but Bolton, the history professor, believes it’s a narrower request than what UNC Chapel Hill received and that it is focused exclusively on syllabi.
The opposing interpretations of the law from two universities in the same public system have left faculty confused and worried about their safety as right-wing groups rifle through course materials for any terminology they don’t like, usually related to gender identity, sexuality or race. Faculty members at Texas A&M University, the University of Houston and George Mason University, among others, have been targeted and sometimes threatened on social media for their instruction and teaching materials. Bolton said he knows of several UNC Greensboro faculty members who have been doxed.
“Faculty have been upset and scared and freaked out about it, because there are people that seem to be [making FOIA requests] because they are trying to create gotcha moments by taking certain things out of context,” he said.
Michael Palm, an associate professor of media and technology studies and cultural studies at UNC Chapel Hill, said in an email that while many faculty are glad Chapel Hill decided not to release the requested course materials, some expressed frustration about the lack of transparency. “We were disappointed when we learned through news reports that UNC Chapel Hill’s lawyers had decided not to respond to the requests, rather than having that decision communicated to us by administrators,” he said.
Some professors are also concerned about how long and how vigorously the university will continue to protect faculty. “We are all concerned about the increasing political interference into our classrooms and attempts to quash our academic freedom,” said Erik Gellman, a history professor at Chapel Hill.
Bolton, at UNC Greensboro, has similar worries.
“This is a tough time for universities,” he said. “There are a lot of attacks coming from a lot of different directions, and that increases the anxiety and anger on behalf of the faculty, because we know that these kinds of things are not being done just because people want to find out what’s on our syllabus for intellectual reasons. They’re doing it for more nefarious reasons.”
Link behind paywall (pasted fully above): UNC Campuses Split on Whether Syllabi Are Public Documents
- Messages
- 30,351
It sounds like the Heritage Foundation overstepped with the demand to Carolina and refined it for the UNCG request. Based on the story itself, I don’t know that these decisions are broadly contradictory. We don’t have the actual requests to analyze, but course syllabi were a fraction of the course materials requested from Carolina; UNCG was asked only for the syllabi for all courses one semester, whereas Carolina was asked for all course materials related to specified classes that had key words in the course title (it is not clear over what time period).
I note that the article says that UNCG had quit publishing syllabi online (I assume meaning for general public consumption, not for students enrolled in a given class) to comply with accreditation requirements. On a quick google, Carolina’s position appears to be consistent with the Southern Association (SACSCOC) policy that treats syllabi as IP of the professor, subject to limited disclosure requirements without the consent of a professor (like accreditation and internal administrative oversight).
In any event, there is an obvious political effort afoot to find a target/gotcha opportunity by taking a course syllabi (or other course materials) out of context to fuel a political attack.
- Messages
- 30,351
WUNC article on the FOIA request: Who owns a public university syllabus?
“… Robinson is the founding director of Wake Forest University's intellectual property law clinic and used to direct a similar program at UNC-Chapel Hill. She said copyright can sometimes be a "gray area" in higher education.
"As the copyright owner, you get to control where things go and how it's treated, but public records law is a little bit different. FOIA is a little bit different. It depends on the nature of the request," Robinson said. "There's so many other things that you have to weigh that copyright doesn't necessarily trump but you need to be aware of."
As state employees, faculty at public universities are held to North Carolina's public records law. The mandate requires information dealing with university business be an open record. This ranges from salaries and promotions to professor's email communications.
But there are many exceptions that protect confidential information like ongoing research or students' personal records. UNC-Chapel Hill administrators have made it clear they believe that exemption also extends to syllabi, lecture notes, and other course materials.
"Faculty members have the opportunity to provide their course materials to whoever is doing the request, but are explicitly not required to do so," said Interim Provost Jim Dean at a faculty council meeting last week. "Per university and UNC System policy, the faculty member is the holder of the copyright for their course materials. I think that's a really important point to stress."
Howell, the Oversight Project president, said he believes it's an "audacious move" for UNC-Chapel Hill to claim course materials like syllabi are protected by intellectual property rights.
"(Syllabi) are often shared not only with the student body writ large, thousands and thousands of people, but accrediting bodies and elsewhere," Howell said. "To act like it is the secret recipe for Coca Cola or KFC's seasoning recipe is laughable legally."
Howell said his group is considering suing UNC-Chapel Hill for the materials.…” [my note - no one is comparing a syllabus to the secret recipe for Coke and he is describing as a laughable the accreditation policy exception of the accrediting agency, which I’m sure he knows, but this is a good example of a lawyer exploiting a layman’s lack of understanding of the legal issues and details to portray a political opinion as a legal position]
“… Robinson is the founding director of Wake Forest University's intellectual property law clinic and used to direct a similar program at UNC-Chapel Hill. She said copyright can sometimes be a "gray area" in higher education.
"As the copyright owner, you get to control where things go and how it's treated, but public records law is a little bit different. FOIA is a little bit different. It depends on the nature of the request," Robinson said. "There's so many other things that you have to weigh that copyright doesn't necessarily trump but you need to be aware of."
As state employees, faculty at public universities are held to North Carolina's public records law. The mandate requires information dealing with university business be an open record. This ranges from salaries and promotions to professor's email communications.
But there are many exceptions that protect confidential information like ongoing research or students' personal records. UNC-Chapel Hill administrators have made it clear they believe that exemption also extends to syllabi, lecture notes, and other course materials.
"Faculty members have the opportunity to provide their course materials to whoever is doing the request, but are explicitly not required to do so," said Interim Provost Jim Dean at a faculty council meeting last week. "Per university and UNC System policy, the faculty member is the holder of the copyright for their course materials. I think that's a really important point to stress."
Howell, the Oversight Project president, said he believes it's an "audacious move" for UNC-Chapel Hill to claim course materials like syllabi are protected by intellectual property rights.
"(Syllabi) are often shared not only with the student body writ large, thousands and thousands of people, but accrediting bodies and elsewhere," Howell said. "To act like it is the secret recipe for Coca Cola or KFC's seasoning recipe is laughable legally."
Howell said his group is considering suing UNC-Chapel Hill for the materials.…” [my note - no one is comparing a syllabus to the secret recipe for Coke and he is describing as a laughable the accreditation policy exception of the accrediting agency, which I’m sure he knows, but this is a good example of a lawyer exploiting a layman’s lack of understanding of the legal issues and details to portray a political opinion as a legal position]
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,185
And it's not just public NC universities - NC public high school teachers are also having to do something similar. I have a number of teacher friends who said that a new state law that took effect this year requires, for example, high school social studies teachers to now post any primary source document they're using along with all materials for whatever assignment they're doing, and any parent can challenge whatever documents they're using or have on their bookshelves in their classroom. Also, any teacher that has a bookshelf of books in their classroom now has to make sure that all book titles that are in the bookshelf are publicly posted.
Of course most parents won't care, but any of these "Moms for Liberty" or other "gotcha" right-wing types in any NC county with nothing better to do could now spend (waste) time perusing through a teacher's posted materials and could try to get them into trouble by challenging whatever they have posted or are using in their classroom. As if teacher's jobs aren't hard enough. This is nothing but an all-out assault on education, plain and simple.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,351
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,185
Academic freedom in America was certainly nice while it lasted. The goal here is to enforce conformity to right-wing doctrines or else, and an end to teaching critical thinking.
MOUNTAINH33L
Honored Member
- Messages
- 892
Thanks, MAGA!