‘Race will not be a factor’: UNC board updates admissions policy after high court ruling

The UNC-Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees on Thursday approved an amended resolution to prohibit the university from strictly using “race, sex, color or ethnicity” in admissions and hiring decisions.

It’s yet another sign from the university that it intends to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling that struck down affirmative action for admissions processes.

Universities across the nation and in North Carolina are revisiting their admissions processes after the 6-3 decision in late June ruled against UNC-Chapel Hill’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions policy. It said the university’s consideration of race in admissions is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I’m confident that we’re taking all the necessary steps to fully comply,” UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz told a 100-strong crowd, comprising mostly trustees and faculty, gathered for the two-day special meeting in the Chancellor’s Ballroom at The Carolina Inn. It was the board’s first in-person meeting since the court’s ruling.

The university plans to follow “all aspects of the law,” Guskiewicz reiterated, adding that his staff has been meeting with faculty and admissions officers to answer questions “almost every other day.”

“Race will not be a factor in admission decisions at the university.”

The three-page resolution, which the board’s audit committee approved on Wednesday, promises not to grant “preferential treatment” to any individual or group on the basis of race, while citing the UNC Policy Manual’s definition of “diversity and inclusion.” It also resolves not to establish “through essays or other means” any regime premised upon “race-based preferences” in hiring and admissions.

It did not pass without objection.

Trustee Ralph Meekins, a Shelby lawyer, made a last-minute appeal before the board, urging members to postpone the vote to consult with legal counsel. “I have a lot of reasons why I’m against this resolution,” he said. “For a fact, I know [it] goes well beyond the Supreme Court ruling.”

But his plea went unheeded. Without discussion, the board swiftly voted to pass the motion, without Meekins.

Earlier in the meeting, trustee John Preyer, speaking off the agenda, offered a strong critique of the university’s actions leading up to the Supreme Court’s final decision. “This is a moment of humility,” he said, urging those gathered to take stock. “For nine years, we’ve spent in the neighborhood of $35 million to lose a high-profile case. Why did we do that? Was that the right thing to do?”

Guskiewicz, who recently received criticism for plans to offer free tuition to some students, remained silent. The board proceeded with the agenda.

Exploring other options

On Wednesday, the trustees discussed other ways to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

UNC-Chapel Hill chief audit officer Dean Weber discussed the possibility of an internal diversity, equity and inclusion audit, though he didn’t explain what this audit would entail.

Marty Kotis, a board member and chair of the audit committee, agreed with the idea of an internal DEI audit, which he said was the only form of “functional reporting.”

“What we’re trying to do is be proactive with this and make sure that we’re in compliance and that we’re providing equal protection,” Kotis said.

The audit wasn’t voted on because it was brought up as an information item for discussion only.

Campus leadership’s concerns

Employee forum chair Katie Musgrove provided updates on UNC-Chapel Hill employees and faculty, citing multiple issues being faced by employees. Among them: poor recruitment and retention, low wages, campus culture and affordable housing.

She also pointed to “chronic vacancies” in departments like UNC’s housekeeping team, which has led to burnout of many employees. She proposed adding herself and faculty chair Beth Moracco to the Board of Trustees.

“Having representation from each of our critical constituencies — faculty, staff and students — would give this board a well-rounded view of the needs of the university we’re all here to serve and support,” Musgrove said.