(Update: 140 as of 5/12/15.)
(Update 2: Still stalled at 140 as of December 2015.)
(Update 3: On 9/25/16, I discovered that the page had been removed. I have archived it here.)
Introducing Dr. Schauer's appeal the way I have makes the Move Forward campaign sound like a well-intentioned, collegial call for cooperative engagement from the UNC faculty community in order to finally reach a real resolution to the scandal that has rocked UNC, creating rifts within the community, and just won't seem to die out, even after almost 5 years of discovery, inquiries and pronouncements.
While maybe well-intentioned, I don't believe it is collegial, nor do I interpret it as a call for cooperative engagement. It's a call to silence a segment of the UNC community on the grounds that its dissent is baseless. It's a call-out of the principle dissenters, charging that their motivations are for the purpose of individual attention-seeking; and it's an accusation that the vocal dissent is a principle reason why the scandal persists.
Dr. Schauer's opinions on the matter, expressed in conjunction with the message of the Move Forward statement she's authored, have also been published several times in the Daily Tar Heel:
Now, I'm not UNC faculty, but I've become transfixed by this Move UNC Forward campaign and the list of names of those who've added their digital endorsement to the statement (a couple of which surprised me enough to give me pause and reconsider the basis of my criticism of the "Move Forward" mode of thinking.)
I've taken the liberty of reformatting the statement as a series of tenets, like a creed, without (I hope) altering the message. I wonder if all signatories so far are truly affirming each of these statements:
We, the undersigned faculty and faculty emeriti:
1. Feel shocked and angered by the academic scandal revealed in the Wainstein Report and preceding investigations.
2. Believe faculty and faculty administrators should be at the forefront and have a duty to be vigilant in upholding the academic integrity of our institution.
3. Attest to the detailed and transparent approach of the University's leadership in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems uncovered.
4. Believe effective administrative controls have already been put in place in many cases to ensure that the past won't be revisited.
5. Believe the athletic program has been completely revamped, serving as an example of one of those effective controls mentioned above.
6. Believe the university is well underway toward a comprehensive analysis of all processes that affect the lives and education of our student athletes and optimize their experience on campus.
7. Believe this process stated above, while slow-going, is thoughtful and will position UNC well for the future.
8. Are perplexed by the unbalanced media treatment that fails to acknowledge these aforementioned processes and controls that have been completed or are ongoing.
9. Assert that this media imbalance is amplified by some members of the UNC community who seek media spotlight to rehash resolved issues as if they are ongoing problems.
10. Assert that such members have cast broad aspersions on individual departments; actions that are divisive and counterproductive.
11. Call for all members of the community to move forward from this unfortunate episode, and address the challenges together in a productive and non-divisive way.
If I could, I'd love to ask each professor, lecturer, dean or administration staff member signing this these questions:
A) What if one disagrees with the premise that the university leadership has been transparent in identifying and acting on the FULL SCOPE of the problems uncovered? (Tenet #3)
B) What if one disagrees with the claim that effective administrative controls have been enacted "in many cases," thus not ensuring that the past won't be revisited? (Tenet #4)
C) What if one disagrees with the assertion that the athletic program has been revamped completely, and feels, contrary to the Move UNC Forward appeal, that fundamental issues remain un-addressed (particularly since the author of the letter, herself, has asserted that the primary nature of the scandal is academic and not athletic)? (Tenet #5)
D) What if one does not believe the university is well underway on a path to optimizing student-athlete experiences, at least not until certain hard truths are acknowledged and addressed rather than glossed with platitudes of "transparency," "70 reforms" and feigned "revamping?" (Tenet #6)
E) What if, by disagreeing with the above tenets, the dissenters make their voices heard through media? Is it fair to quiet dissent through argumentum ad hominem about motives ("seeking media spotlight") and disputed claims ("rehashing resolved issues")? (Tenet #9)
F) What is dissent supposed to be if not challenging (aka divisive) to those within the community they feel are being complicit in the failure to adequately resolve the issue by making what the dissenters feel is a Pollyanna assessment of the resolution efforts to date? (Tenet #10)
G) If, by disagreeing with one or more of these tenets, is it sufficient to simply not sign? Or shouldn't, even if one doesn't feel a duty to be vocal in dissent, allow others that freedom who do feel such a duty? Or must one expect dissent to remain silent simply so as not to be divisive, just to ease the angst of those who wish to Move Forward without discomfort of disagreement?
I don't side with Dr. Jay Smith or Mary Willingham on everything they claim, assert or espouse. Criticism of this Move Forward mindset is not an endorsement of their arguments or statements.
However; I can't understand what this Move Forward letter seeks to accomplish other than to try to shout vocal dissent into silence through some show of strength in numbers, particularly when the very premises claimed in the statement are, themselves, disputed and the very reason for the dissent. I'd think faculty at a university would recognize that and see such a statement as this to be anathema to the principles of academia.
Apparently there are at least
