May 28, 2024 Employee Forum Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting minutes
Attending: David Bragg, Linc Butler, Leah Cox, Elizabeth Dubose, Kamrhan Farwell, Adrianne Gibilisco, Keith Hines, Kira Jones, Nate Knuffman, Arlene Medder, Katie Musgrove, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Audrey Shore, Ally Wardell
Forum Vice Chair Keith Hines called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m., noting that Katie Musgrove was on vacation that week. He recognized Linc Butler as a winner of the C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service award for 2024. Butler thanked Hines for his kind words. Hines thanked all present for taking the time to show up for the day’s meeting given work and personal responsibilities, saying that this commitment is neither unnoticed nor unappreciated. He then asked Kira Jones to read the meeting’s first question.
(Jones) When the changes in how we could discuss diversity in hiring came down the pipe, we were told that UNC was still committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. When the supreme court ruling came down about race/ethnicity in admissions, we were told the same and that UNC would continue to foster an inclusive climate for students, staff, and faculty. Now the BOG has met and signaled they’re making a tactical move to eliminate DEI programs, staff positions, and put a very visible thumb on this work. What is being done proactively to counter this? What information can be shared from any discussions that are being had? If UNC plans to hold the line and not bend on the value it places on diversity, equity, inclusion, then it seems now is the time for proactive rather than reactive work and strategy. It is unrealistic to think that we’re not actively sliding down a slippery slope. What are we doing to protect staff, students, and faculty?
Kamrhan Farwell attempted to answer this question, stating that in terms of communications, the latest decision occurred at the Board of Governors level in a System-wide action. She said that administrators are watching and waiting to see what will happen with this decision along with everyone else. She noted that the System made many of these communication decisions. The System Office has provided talking points to the University’s leaders, but Farwell characterized this step as a System-wide communication. She said that the University will not know what it all means until it has received guidance from the System as to how to execute compliance. This situation leaves the University in a bit of a tight spot in terms of messaging, as all decisions related to the guidance have not been made.
Farwell said that the Board of Governors and the Chancellor have said that diversity and reflecting the overall population of the state is important because these things make the University better. She also said that System-level discussion has focused on student success as the impetus for this decision. Again, the University awaits guidance from the System.
Farwell added that people here in Chapel Hill are left to worry about the future of some programs in the absence of this guidance. She hoped that this wait-and-see period would end soon, because she thought people could see that many things that may worry them might not be put into place.
Jones followed on Farwell’s comments, noting that colleagues and students have repeatedly received this message that “it’s not going to be as bad” as thought. Then another cut or another rollout occurs in an opposing and strategically focused matter. She reiterated that these steps are impacting the visibility of people who fall into these marginalized categories, students and staff also. Jones granted that administration officials could not say much about this subject but she urged continued conversations based on the reports she had received.
Jones also noted that there is a strategy to not backsliding at all on this subject, as backsliding seems to represent a fall from a place that she and her colleagues have spent decades climbing, to create safe spaces. She spoke with emotion regarding her 20 years’ work in women’s health, in reproductive health specifically. She characterized the Board’s changes as a sort of “slow march” and noted how strategic these changes can be in opposition to the diversity effort. She asked if there was anything else that attendees could mention or if there are other strategies being put in place that she could share with people expressing concerns over this change.
Leah Cox said that she shared Jones’ concern, characterizing the situation as a forward march that has become a reversal. She said that diversity has always been connected to student success and employee well-being. Diversity could be said to be a focus on people’s individual identity, not as an overall conception of these people as a monolith. She said that there are some upcoming meetings that will focus on next steps. Cox would push to continue to serve all of the University’s students across the campus in multiple ways, as only one mode of service would not lead to student success. Students would not be successful and would not be retained, Cox said, and neither would University staff employees. She recalled that these folks previously felt like they were not seen or heard and thus exited the campus. She asked how much this effort could be pushed back, through electoral or other means.
Audrey Shore was asked to read her question, and then Hines would read from the agenda’s second question.
(Shore) How is the University planning to retain or restructure staff whose position contains DEI or whose job functions involve DEI?
Linc Butler attempted to answer Shore’s question from a purely process standpoint. He added that larger conversations are occurring now in the background. However, the University still has certain rules that it must follow as part of, for example, its reduction in force process.
Butler said that the Office of Human Resources (OHR) engages with units to find comparable roles or another home within the University for adversely affected positions. Butler granted that OHR is not always successful in this effort but said that the Office works with the unit overseeing staff impacted by any cuts.
Butler said that OHR will try to identify transferable skills and opportunities to leverage the skill sets, knowledge, and experience of individuals impacted. He said that OHR would work to leverage these skills in different ways to fulfill this policy requirement as a legal stricture and the right thing to do. He added that the University will want to ensure that it is doing all possible to protect affected staff as much as possible.
Still, Butler echoed Farwell’s earlier comments about how System guidance will drive University actions in this area. He added that the University’s executive team will pay close attention to this situation and the System’s eventual guidance. He reiterated that his comments were made purely from a process standpoint. Hines then read the second question from the agenda.
(Shamblin) Given the current climate with everything happening – Chancellor search/interim Chancellor controversy, DEI initiatives threatened (if not gone by the time of the meeting), what steps will be taken to allow faculty, staff, and students to respond to these issues in a peaceful manner, and without fear of retribution. Will individual units be allowed autonomy to continue their own DEI efforts? Will we call DEI something else? Will we lose valuable people who have spearheaded these efforts (Leah Cox, Karla Slocum, etc.)?
Butler responded that he was not aware of a specific list of programs and positions that would be affected by these moves. He said again that the University is in a wait-and-see mode regarding its eventual marching orders, along with other System institutions.
Regarding whether individual units will be allowed autonomy to continue their own DEI efforts, perhaps due to donor based funding or grants from 3rd parties and not from the State, Butler was similarly reluctant to comment beyond the aforementioned System guidance. He did think that any directive from the UNC System Office would likely be funding agnostic, with little flexibility likely provided to differentiate between programs based on funding type. He granted that OHR has certain rules that parse out in that manner, but conjectured that he would be surprised if the System would bind itself in that way in this policy question.
Kamrhan Farwell said that the University’s current set of talking points is based on the basics of past policy. She recalled that one of the talking points of this past policy is not calling for the wholesale elimination of programs which are devoted to supporting students of different backgrounds. Along this line of thinking, targeted initiatives to welcome and support underserved students are well within the University’s mission, provided that they abide by non-discrimination statutes and do not require students, staff, or faculty to adopt a political viewpoint as a condition of participation. Farwell emphasized that this thinking represents a talking point, rather than a written policy. She did not think this viewpoint would be terribly useful until guidance is approved as to application. Hines read the next question on the agenda.
(Williams) As of this writing, the Board of Trustees signaled yesterday they will defund DEI programs and positions at the University. Is there a specific list of programs and positions that will be affected? And has the Board of Trustees indicated whether those programs and positions will be banned entirely, or will departments and business units of the University be able to fund those programs and positions from alternative sources (such as, for instance, grant funds obtained from 3rd parties)?
Nate Knuffman said that this was a good question, noting that the University’s Board of Trustees had approved its budget with a couple of caveats, one being an identification of the $2.3 million allocated to DEI efforts. The Board specified that this $2.3 million be reallocated to Public Safety. Following the Board of Governors’ customary review of the UNC-Chapel Hill budget, System President Peter Hans clarified that the Board’s direction was counter to governance, policy, and interest (???). Knuffman said that any savings from DEI would have to be reallocated towards student success, according to President Hans’ clarifications. Hines noted that an addition of $2.3 million to UNC Public Safety would make that department among the most highly funded public safety departments in the country. Hines then read the next question on the agenda.
(Holman) Facilities workers are complaining that summer splash date is always on a Wednesday. They would like to see summer splash on Friday. Can this be changed to Friday in the future?
Knuffman said that Summer Splash represents a chance for Facilities workers to get together. He said that Wednesdays have been chosen previously because that is a date on which most people can attend. He recalled worries that Fridays typically miss some folks who are either travelling or are not as available. Nonetheless, he suggested that Facilities could consider changing to whichever date would maximize attendance at this event. Katie Musgrove said that the Summer Splash June Wednesday also conflicts with the Employee Forum meeting. Knuffman said that any conflict was coincidental and unintentional. Hines read the next question.
(Teal) What role do UNC-Chapel Hill staff employees play when a protest occurs on campus? How and when is that expectation communicated to staff employees? What training do those staff employees receive to prepare them for such a situation?
The Daily Tar Heel recently published an op-ed from a University grounds employee alleging that the University’s response to protests about the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is continuing “a dangerous precedent of forcing workers to become embroiled in campus politics.” After citing the role of “low-paid facilities workers” in several historical examples of managing protests on campus, the author alleges that University grounds workers were most recently “asked to disrupt a peaceful protest [about the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza] while UNC Police looked on.” The author claimed that “UNC Police are supposed to know the law and be able to deal with any situation while remaining cognizant of people’s constitutional rights and protections – not something generally demanded of low-paid grounds workers.” Of course, UNC Police are staff employees too, but do receive specialized training in safely managing crowds. Finally, the author asked, “if [the] protest had turned ugly, what then would be the role of grounds workers?”
Linc Butler summarized that the question’s main thrust was that some Grounds staff employees were tasked with doing some activities related to the protest encampment. The question seems to compare these employees with the University’s public safety officers who have specific training in de-escalation and crowd management. He thought that the question asked more about the expectations for these employees and what training these employees are receiving to prepare for these expectations.
Butler then read from a Facilities statement (???) reminding Grounds staff and other Facilities groups that if they are uncomfortable participating in work that needs to be done, they could decline. The safety of our staff is the number one priority, meaning that Facilities will continue to review processes about how its staff support enforcement of facilities use policies.
Knuffman said that these scenarios represent difficult problems that involve law enforcement and escalation situations. He said that other staff may lack appropriate training for these situations. He thought that the University might better navigate these situations via the use of non-uniformed officers or contracted entities. Knuffman said these processes are under review with the hope to provide more clarity to line staff about expectations in these situations.
Arlene Medder read the meeting’s final question.
(Medder) I understand the University won’t be doing J1 visas anymore, which means that either grad students are single, or they have the choice of splitting their family or try to support their family on a graduate student stipend. Is this information accurate, and if so what is the basis of this decision and is there any possibility this will revert? Is this a matter of not having the staff to process J1 forms and if so, what plans are being made to increase staff?
Linc Butler said that he would provide comments in lieu of Ioana Costant from International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS), who unfortunately had a conflict and so could not attend the day’s meeting. Costant indicated that this statement was not accurate, as for years it has been ISSS practice to prioritize F1 sponsorship for degree-seeking graduate students, resorting to J1 visas only when their external funding source necessitates this practice. Costant said that ISSS staff has greatly increased in recent years, with recruitment for two additional positions occurring now. (Please see the attached addendum that provides Director Costant’s written response to this question.)
So, Butler said that staffing level has no bearing on the practice, which stems from several reasons. According to the US Department of Homeland Security Student and Exchange Visitor Program, the F1 visa is the best for the purpose of graduate studies. The F1 process is more straightforward compared to the J1, which often requires students to undertake additional actions throughout their studies to maintain their status and also carries a higher compliance burden.
A significant issue with J1 visas pertains to long-term academic training, as timing and post-graduation position requirements are much stricter with J1 visas as compared to the F1 visa optional practical training, which does offer some greater flexibility. Costant noted discrepancies between the two related to post-graduate challenges and leading to difficulties in fulfilling requirements, in some cases requiring a switch to an F1 visa or a return home after completing graduate studies.
This outcome would obviously result in missed opportunities, Butler said. He offered to share Costant’s more complete answer on this subject with the Forum. Butler also advised Medder to reach out to Costant to raise follow-up questions directly.
Keith Hines circled back to the question of Facilities staff who may not feel comfortable refusing to act in concert with other staff in law enforcement or escalation situations due to the power dynamics governing their working position. He said that this presents difficulties when the University tasks its employees to make decisions in these situations. Many employees may question if they have the ability to say ‘no’ to an administrative direction without retribution.
Knuffman granted that this was a good point. He said that this is one reason why the department would refine its policy, reconsidering not only the use of these employees but also the use of non-uniformed officers or contracted entities in these situations.
Hines thanked all for their attendance. He noted that his mother had turned 70 years old the previous day. Butler said that he and Becci Menghini really appreciate the partnership with the Forum on these questions. He encouraged all to take time to take care of themselves.
The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary
Here is what Ioana Costant from ISSS sent related to the J-1 question at the VC Reps meeting:
(Medder) I understand the University won’t be doing J1 visas anymore, which means that either grad students are single, or they have the choice of splitting their family or try to support their family on a graduate student stipend. Is this information accurate, and if so what is the basis of this decision and is there any possibility this will revert? Is this a matter of not having the staff to process J1 forms and if so, what plans are being made to increase staff?
No, this information is not accurate. For years, it has been our practice to prioritize F-1 sponsorship for degree-seeking graduate students, resorting to J-1 visas only when their external funding source necessitates it. ISSS staffing has greatly increased in recent years and we are in the process of recruiting for two additional positions. ISSS staffing has no bearing on this practice.
Instead, this practice stems from several reasons:
- According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), the F-1 visa best aligns with the purpose of graduate studies.
- The F-1 process is more straightforward compared to the J-1, which often requires students to undertake additional actions throughout their studies to maintain their status and carries a higher compliance burden.
A significant issue with J-1 visas pertains to long-term academic training. The timing and post-graduation position requirements are much stricter with J-1 visas compared to F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT), which offers greater flexibility. This discrepancy has posed challenges for students on J-1 visas, leading to difficulties in fulfilling requirements and, in some cases, requiring a late switch to an F-1 or return home after completing their graduate studies, representing missed opportunities.
As part of both the F-1 and J-1 visa application processes, the applicant must provide evidence that they have the financial ability to support themselves and their dependent family members. J-2 dependents are eligible to apply for work authorization through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) but it is not guaranteed. Employment will not be authorized if income from the J-2 dependent’s employment is needed to support the J-1 primary status holder.
We recognize that it is very difficult to uproot one’s life and start anew in a different country to accompany a spouse in support of their career. This can be overwhelming and isolating. Therefore, ISSS has made a concerted effort to offer programming not just to our international students and scholars but also to their spouses and partners. This is essential for their well-being and the overall success of the family. Opportunities for networking and social interaction are particularly important for spouses and partners. We hope to continue to expand our programming and welcome ideas to support these efforts further.
For specific case questions, please contact ISSS@email.unc for further assistance.