The UNC-Chapel Hill Hussman School of Journalism and Media finds itself in a precarious position. It’s impossible to serve two masters, yet, in this calendar year alone, the school has attempted to satisfy the contradicting demands of two authoritative entities. The first is the programmatic accreditor for journalism schools, the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC). The second is the University of North Carolina System, which creates and enforces policies for its member institutions, including UNC-Chapel Hill.
The history of Hussman’s trouble with these dual masters started with a planned ACEJMC site visit in October 2021. The visit came on the heels of the botched hiring of New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones. ACEJMC found the school to be “out of compliance” with a Diversity and Inclusion accreditation standard. The site team noted a climate of low morale among faculty and staff, particularly in the aftermath of the Hannah-Jones upset. Many reported feeling “undervalued and not heard/understood.”
In this calendar year alone, Hussman has attempted to satisfy the contradicting demands of two authoritative entities.For the accreditor, the school’s overt efforts to bolster diversity and inclusion by embedding them in syllabi, activities, research, and strategic goals were not sufficient. Such efforts, according to students and faculty, were superficial and represented merely “going through the motions.”
It seems, then, that the school’s subsequent accreditation downgrading (to “provisional” status) was largely based on subjective and emotional criteria, not on an explicit violation of standards. Indeed, by ACEJMC’s own diversity standards, UNC’s journalism school had at least marginally improved in every criterion since its previous evaluation in 2015.
Curiously, much of the criticism of the journalism school stemmed from the Hannah-Jones issue. But ACEJMC itself recognized that the controversy had little if anything to do with the journalism school’s leadership. Instead, the accreditor blamed the university’s board of trustees. The accreditor’s 2021 report included praise of then-dean Janet King and Hussman’s efforts to hire Hannah-Jones. All these facts together raise serious questions about ACEJMC’s motivations in punishing the journalism school in the first place. It is doubtful that the accreditor truly blamed the school for DEI transgressions and likely that they were instead taking a swipe at Chapel Hill’s leadership.
A possible secondary explanation is that ACEJMC’s actions were not meant to be punitive but rather to assist the journalism school in ramping up its DEI efforts even further. In its 2019-2020 self-study, the school’s enthusiasm for DEI was palpable, but it expressed frustration with institutional constraints that limited its diversity goals. When presenting data on increases in the recruitment of minority students and faculty, the school lamented that the numbers weren’t better but explained that “some of these areas may fall short of the mark because university-level admissions decisions ultimately determine enrollment[,] and university hiring constraints affect our ability to secure additional or replacement faculty.” The implication was that the university was standing in the way of the journalism school’s DEI goals. From the perspective of a school whose DEI aspirations had been frustrated by university leadership, an official censure from an accreditor compelling DEI fidelity could have been seen as a blessing in disguise.
Whatever its possible motives, the journalism school’s DEI activities merit close scrutiny, particularly in view of a new UNC System policy, Equality Within the University of North Carolina. As the Martin Center’s Ashlynn Warta reported last month, the policy, adopted in May, “repealed and replaced Section 300.8.5 of the policy manual, thus effectively banning DEI offices, employees, and funding.” Warta further noted,
The new policy affirms six main points that impact both students and employees: nondiscrimination, equality of all persons and viewpoints, free speech and expression, academic freedom, student success and employee wellbeing, and, finally, institutional neutrality.
The policy’s passage puts the journalism school in a rather awkward situation. For one, the school has DEI employees that it must either let go or assign to different roles. Secondly, the school was recently reaccredited by ACEJMC and praised for its renewed dedication to DEI. Ironically, both the new UNC policy and the ACEJMC reaccreditation decision came out in May of this year.
A journalism faculty member told the reaccreditation team that “DEI is a core ingredient in all we do. It’s baked in.”In its revisit report, ACEJMC noted that the new dean, Raul Reis, had led a “180-degree change” in the school’s climate and institutional DEI efforts. Reis was hired in the summer of 2022 and subsequently developed a far-reaching diversity plan, which the Martin Center reported on here and here.
A journalism faculty member told the revisit team that “DEI is a core ingredient in all we do. It’s baked in.” In its report, the revisit team noted that “DEI work is front and center” in the school. It is here that Hussman’s attempt to serve two masters is most obviously futile. It is highly suspect that the school can truly maintain a position of institutional neutrality, which is mandated by the new system policy, while also placing DEI “front and center” in all its activities.
After the initial site visit in 2021, the school renamed its Diversity and Inclusion committee the Access, Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity and Equity (ABIDE) committee. It promoted the ABIDE director to the level of associate dean and created the ABIDE program-coordinator position. According to the revisit report, an ABIDE subcommittee is working with the Undergraduate Advisory Committee to replace the journalism school’s Philosophical and Moral Reasoning/Ethical and Civic Values requirement with a DEI requirement. Faculty who want to adapt their courses to place them in line with the new DEI requirement are guided to focus their classes on communication that “empowers those traditionally disenfranchised in society, especially as grounded in race, ethnicity, ability, gender, [and] sexual orientation.” Notably, the most important form of diversity for an institution of higher education—diversity of thought—is missing from this list. Faculty are also advised to “state explicit DEI goals in the course learning objectives.”
The revisit team highlighted the school’s expansion of DEI training and how the school’s assessment committee had “changed the measurables to evaluate DEI infusion throughout the school.” DEI-related questions were added to a knowledge quiz that is administered to students “as they are accepted” into the journalism program. The same quiz is given to outgoing seniors, as are student experience surveys “that explore student awareness of DEI-related committees, activities and the inclusion of DEI in the curriculum and school events.”
Of the DEI measurables introduced by the assessment committee, the most concerning is the addition of a DEI rating system for students’ capstone projects. According to the report, capstone projects will be externally evaluated for their “sensitivity to DEI issues” after final exams each semester. It is unclear whether this evaluation will impact students’ grades.
The UNC System should keep a close eye on the journalism school to ensure its commitment to human dignity and equality.A final concern is the school’s goal to recruit more “diverse” hires. It is not against the law to have recruitment goals targeted at specific populations, as long as anyone is allowed to apply for the job. There is a danger, however, that aspirations—and outside pressures—to increase the number of minority faculty by a certain percentage may incentivize discriminatory hiring practices. The revisit team predictably reported that the school has “enhanced” its targeted recruitment strategies. But what’s striking is that, for each search, the dean now reviews the applicant pool for diversity and inclusion and must certify it “before the search can move forward.” It seems, then, that if the school cannot get enough “diverse” applicants, the search will have to be extended or paused. With the school going to such lengths to identify its preferred applicants, it’s reasonable to question whether “non-diverse” applicants have an equally fair chance of landing a job.
Given the myriad ways in which the journalism school is aggressively promoting DEI, it is fair to wonder whether such actions put it at odds with UNC policy. At least on paper, the school is compliant. The new policy requires that all institutions annually certify full compliance by September 1. The policy states that each institution
shall certify in writing to the president that the constituent institution fully complies with the University’s commitment to institutional neutrality and nondiscrimination required by law and this policy and shall describe in substance the actions taken to achieve compliance.
UNC-Chapel Hill submitted its certification and report on August 30. The report indicates that the journalism school has made some changes to at least appear compliant with the policy, but it’s unclear whether these reflect any meaningful redirection. The compliance report, for example, notes that
the Access, Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Committee is being refocused to: Access, Belonging, Inclusion, Dignity, and Excellence. and will be reviewing its charter documents and guiding principles, as well as its tasks, responsibilities, and structure, to ensure alignment with revised Policy 300.8.5.
Additionally, Chapel Hill’s report states that the roles of the ABIDE dean and program coordinator are being adjusted to comply with the policy. Even so, the UNC System board and UNC-Chapel Hill leadership should keep a close eye on the journalism school to ensure that its commitment to human dignity and equality translates into real changes. A formal compliance audit may be in order.
UNC should also seriously consider dropping ACEJMC as an accreditor. The reality is that ACEJMC’s claim to authority is weaker than some would like to admit. ACEJMC accreditation is optional and is not needed for the journalism school to receive federal or state funding. Nor is it required for a journalism graduate to get a job in the field.
As much as the school may try to reframe “diversity” and “inclusion” as neutral, they are loaded terms that reflect an ideologically charged worldview. It’s time for all schools of journalism, UNC’s included, to refocus on their real purpose: to teach students to be accurate, fair, and impartial journalists.
Shannon Watkins is the research associate at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
This article was originally published at www.jamesgmartin.center
