Jessi Rae Morton, News Editor  

On May 23, 2024, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to repeal an existing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy. That policy was replaced with the new “Equality Within the University of North Carolina” policy. Universities within the system were expected to demonstrate compliance with the new policy by Sept. 1, resulting in many quick changes across the state. 

In a report for The Daily Tar Heel on Sept. 15, Sarayu Thondapu and Defne Önal note that “Across the UNC System, there were a total of 59 eliminated positions and 131 realigned positions— UNC-Chapel Hill reported the most eliminated positions and N.C. State University reported the most realigned positions.” Additionally, they said, “All campuses made changes to their job descriptions, admissions of student support centers, employee training and the programmatic content presented to students.” This report is based on compliance reports submitted by UNC system schools and made public by the Board of Governors. 

These changes come with a wide range of concerns, particularly for students from marginalized backgrounds. A student from UNC Chapel Hill told Inside Higher Ed, “It makes me feel like UNC isn’t a place for people like me. It’s turned a very happy, exciting thing into something I’m nervous and kind of sad about.” 

Another student, speaking to The Daily Tar Heel, expressed that “​​students have realized professors feel threatened by the current right-wing influences in the governing boards and administration.” Students also expressed safety concerns. 

A student from Appalachian State, speaking to WUNC Public Radio said, “Students are experiencing hate speech all the time; I have, many of my friends have. Now it’s a little less clear what you’re supposed to do if you’ve experienced something like that.” 

Despite these concerns, some stakeholders remain moderately hopeful. As Liam Knox wrote for Inside Higher Ed, “The Carolina Journal and The Raleigh News & Observer both reported in March that state lawmakers were discussing the possibility of introducing an anti-DEI law this session similar to Texas’s. Wade Maki, a philosophy professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and chair of the system’s faculty assembly, said he supported the board’s DEI measure in part because he’d heard the system pushed to keep the decision in-house and out of lawmakers’ jurisdiction for enforcement.” 

In an earlier article, from April 2024, Knox reported that “House speaker Tim Moore told Raleigh’s The News & Observer that they were open to deferring to system leadership as long as they took action on the issue.” 

The impact of this policy change at UNC Greensboro may appear less obvious because Greensboro was one of only three universities in the system that did not have a DEI office, and thus, Greensboro did not have to eliminate any DEI-specific positions. However, some events and programs for BIPOC students have been eliminated. 

As Brianna Atkinson reported for WUNC Public Radio, “At UNC Greensboro, programs like ‘House of Privilege’ and ‘Tunnel of Oppression’ will no longer be offered. These programs previously taught students about various forms of oppression and privileges people have because of their identities. The school also eliminated a ‘Community Dialogue’ series that focused on social justice.” 

Unlike state legislators in Florida and Texas, North Carolina has allowed this policy to remain with the University of North Carolina Board of Governors. As Inside Higher Ed notes, “Paul Fulton, a former UNC system board member who served on the UNC board of governors with current system president Peter Hans, sees the board’s DEI vote as a sign that system leadership managed to talk legislators down from taking unilateral action on DEI themselves—no small feat, he added, for a higher ed leader in today’s political climate.” 

Though the policy is still contentious, and its effects on students and student success are yet to be seen, it may be that North Carolina has—at least for now—side-stepped the more invasive forms of anti-DEI policymaking.