The UNC System Board of Governors appears poised to take action on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, in North Carolina’s public university system, potentially eliminating administrative positions dedicated to the efforts.
The University Governance committee of the board on Wednesday will consider and vote on a policy that would replace the system’s existing policy and regulation on diversity and inclusion for its 17 campuses, according to meeting materials. The current regulation, among other requirements, mandates that the system office and all schools within the system employ DEI officers and that universities work toward achieving campus-specific DEI-related goals.
With the new policy, it appears those requirements and several others listed in the regulation would be repealed.
The policy appears to indicate that DEI-related positions of employment would either need to be terminated, or that the job titles and descriptions tying them to DEI would need to be changed. By Sept. 1, the chancellors and student affairs directors of each university would be required to certify to UNC System President Peter Hans that they have made the appropriate changes on their campus to comply with the new policy, including “reductions in force and spending, along with changes to job titles and position descriptions, undertaken as a result of implementing this policy.”
Chancellors would also describe to Hans how the “savings achieved” from the actions set forth in the policy, including by eliminating or changing positions, “can be redirected to initiatives related to student success and wellbeing.”
The policy states that the university system will “continue to ensure that diverse persons of any background, from North Carolina and beyond, are invited, included, and treated equally.”
“Diversity means the ways in which individuals vary, including, but not limited to, backgrounds, beliefs, viewpoints, abilities, cultures,and traditions that distinguish one individual from another,” the policy states.
The proposed policy appears to allow some DEI-related efforts, such as those dedicated to student success and performance, to remain, though they could have to be changed in some way. The policy also provides exceptions for student-led organizations, such as extracurricular clubs, that receive funding from student-activity fees.
The proposal maintains a directive for universities to abide by state and federal nondiscrimination laws.
The committee’s discussion Wednesday will come three weeks after UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees member Jim Blaine — who is also Republican Senate leader Phil Berger’s former chief of staff and a powerful political player in the state — said that he believed “the Board of Governors or the state legislature will follow Florida’s path as it relates to DEI this year.” Florida lawmakers last year banned state funds from being spent on DEI efforts, which led to the elimination of related positions at public universities.
Republican House Speaker Tim Moore said last week lawmakers had discussed potential legislation on the issue, but that they were considering deferring to the UNC System and allowing the Board of Governors to take it up first.
DEI has been a hot-button issue in higher education across the country in recent years. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, more than 80 anti-DEI bills have been introduced nationwide since 2023.
Proposed policy details
Universities across the UNC System generally employ chief diversity officers or other officials tasked with overseeing offices or efforts related to diversity and inclusion on their campuses.
At UNC-Chapel Hill, for example, the university currently employs a CDO who also serves as vice provost of equity and inclusion, and operates an Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which has a stated mission “to celebrate all members of the Carolina community, to broaden our collective understanding, and foster a sense of belonging by uplifting diverse identities, cultures, experiences, and perspectives.”
Though the policy to be considered Wednesday would appear to eliminate, or forcibly alter, those offices and positions, they could remain in some way. The proposal states that universities will “implement programming or services designed to have a positive effect on the academic performance, retention, or graduation of students from different backgrounds,” but states that such programming must comply with the policy and other state and federal regulations, including those requiring public universities to remain “neutral” on “the political controversies of the day” and “social policy.” Additionally, contracting with anyone to provide training or consulting services regarding such matters would be prohibited.
The policy would not, however, impact positions of employment, offices or trainings intended to ensure “compliance with federal or state laws,” likely including those dedicated to ensuring compliance with Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
The policy does not appear to limit faculty’s ability to teach subject matter related to diversity. The UNC System will not take “action that would limit the right of academic freedom in its faculty’s pursuit of teaching, research, and service,” the policy states.
The policy emphasizes success and well-being for students and employees, as well as the “equality of all persons,” as priorities.
“The University of North Carolina’s commitment to equality of all persons includes a commitment to equality of opportunity for all students that enroll in a constituent institution and for all employees that serve the University,” the policy states. “Campuses shall ensure that qualified students of all backgrounds are welcomed, included, and supported in their pursuit of a degree or certificate and that employee wellbeing remains a priority.”
The Board of Governors’ University Governance committee is scheduled to take up the policy at its regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday afternoon at the UNC School of the Arts in Winston-Salem.
If the committee votes in favor of the policy, it will go to the full, 24-member Board of Governors for a vote at the group’s May meeting. At that meeting, the policy is likely to be considered on the consent agenda, meaning the board could vote on the policy as part of a package and without further discussion.
If the full board approves the policy, it would become effective immediately.