I. INTRODUCTION

Intellectual climate defines the essence of a university. It is both a source of energy for and a reflection of the engagement of faculty and students in intellectual life: an intellectual life broadly conceived to include wide-ranging discussions about ideas, the nature of the world and society in which we live, personal aspirations and individual beliefs, as well as the many courses, organizations, public events, and artistic performances that foster such conversations. Our conception of intellectual life thus presumes that the exploration of ideas is much more than classroom assignments; it is also a lively, pleasurable, and often unsystematic discovery of new perspectives on problems of our own lives, our immediate community, and the larger world. Intellectual life, therefore, is nurtured in many venues both inside and outside the classroom at UNC-CH.

In the ideal university, all faculty would contribute to the richness of the intellectual climate through cutting-edge research that would inform their teaching and with enthusiasm that would naturally exhilarate their students. Students would learn to develop confidently their own ideas and view their education as of the utmost importance. The intellectual excitement generated by faculty and students would not stop at the classroom door, but would deeply permeate the public life of the University -- the interaction between faculty and students outside the classroom, the cultural and social activities pursued by students and faculty together, the interactions of students and faculty with the community. Faculty and students alike would be engaged with public issues and with citizens of the broader community. Intellectual exchange would be woven seamlessly into the fabric of everyday life, rather than partitioned into fifty-minute segments doled out three times a week in the classroom.

BACKGROUND: CHANGE AND THE PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE

Currently, the intellectual climate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill does not satisfy this ideal. It varies considerably in intensity and direction across the campus -- from exciting cross-disciplinary collaboration, student engagement and public service in some areas to repetitious discourse, student indifference and isolation in others. There is, then, a real need for concrete effort aimed at improving the intellectual environment. In addition, there are fundamental changes in society and the immediate external environment of the University that are propelling us toward change. The information revolution, the management revolution, the cost crisis, greater pressures for public accountability -- these are all forces compelling us to reexamine our goals and methods if we are to maintain our excellence as a public university. To ignore these forces is to risk the future of our University. The outside pressure for the University to change and adapt to its rapidly evolving environment is real and substantial.

Unfortunately, publicizing these needs may not be sufficient to motivate faculty, students, and administrators to change. Too many faculty fail to appreciate the power of outside forces. Too many students are heavily influenced by a popular culture that devalues intellectual life. Too many administrators are wedded to traditional ways of governing the University. For change to take hold, it must be driven by an internally constructed argument about who we are as a University -- by a self-generated change in our basic identity. By looking within the University, we can articulate together a new vision of our common identity that is powerful enough to generate the kinds of changes necessary to maintain our excellence in the 21st century.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conceives of itself as a "leading public university," one that takes seriously its teaching mission. In the changing external environment described above, maintaining this identity compels us to sustain our standing as a "leading public university", as defined by others, while simultaneously altering the educational experience we create for our students. Most faculty are strongly committed to the education of their students; they are devoted to fulfilling their roles as both educators and researchers. But many faculty often experience these as conflicting roles. Already pressured and overworked, many see no way to devote more time and effort to teaching and service while maintaining productive research programs. From our current perspective, change appears too difficult and unnecessary; maintaining the status quo is an easier path to follow. As long as we think of ourselves in terms of the past, there will be little commitment to real change among faculty and students.

To make change more feasible and attractive, we appeal to all members of the University community to rethink their roles and activities. Instead of thinking of ourselves as a "leading public university", let us conceive of ourselves as "the leader" among public universities, thereby freeing ourselves to remake our University. What would this mean? Instead of judging ourselves by the standards developed to assess universities in the 20th century, we should strive to create the standards by which universities will be judged in the 21st century. Instead of asking faculty to fulfill what sometimes feel like contradictory roles, we should redefine what it means to be a faculty member in a way that removes these contradictions. Instead of allowing students to opt out of an intellectual life, we should create an environment in which the value of that life is so clear that students will choose to join it. Instead of shying away from administrative innovations, we should be willing to take risks and make mistakes. We should conceive of ourselves as "the" innovator among public universities, pursuing uncharted paths and breaking new ground. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill should be the definitive model of a public university in the 21st century. By consciously reconstructing how we think of ourselves, we can foster a common identity in which change and innovation are defining features of our self-understanding.

GOALS: A VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Towards this broad end, the Chancellor's Task Force on Intellectual Climate sought to create a dialogue with the University community about the future of our University. The Task Force was charged with exploring "innovative mechanisms for facilitating student-faculty interaction both inside and outside the classroom, and for improving student involvement in the community." To meet this challenge, we sought input from all sectors of the University community -- from faculty, students, staff and administrators. We asked the basic question: how can we best generate a University community whose work -- its intellectual focus -- involves students in education that excites them and prepares them for life after the University, addresses the needs of society, fulfills our important service obligations as a public university, and invigorates faculty and engages them in the University community? Put simply, what kind of intellectual life is suitable for a university of the 21st century, and how can we generate it?  

Evolving out of the work of nearly 100 people in the committees of the Chancellor's Task Force on Intellectual Climate, this report seeks to answer that question with a vision of a better educational experience at UNC and a plan for implementing it. Three key elements characterize this vision. First, the educational experience should be student-centered, with an emphasis on learning how to learn -- the development of inquiry skills that enable students to locate information and learn through self-guided investigation, beginning in their first semester on campus and continuing throughout their lives. Second, the educational experience should permeate the whole of University life; intellectual exchange should be woven seamlessly into the fabric of everyday life. Thus the barriers -- intellectual, cultural, social and physical -- between inside and outside the classroom and between faculty, graduate students and undergraduates must be broken down. Third, to enhance its relevance, the educational experience should be linked to life outside the University through stronger curricular commitment to community and service-based learning.

How can we best move toward these goals? By recognizing first that what we are proposing is at its core a fundamental cultural change. Implementing this vision will require basic changes in the cultures of students and faculty alike, and in the institutional structure of the University. Transforming the student culture involves examining the way the University socializes and educates students, and improving their opportunities for intellectual exchange. Transforming the faculty culture suggests a rethinking of faculty roles and rewards. And transforming the University will necessitate institutional innovations and attention to the physical character of the campus. Unfortunately, moving toward these goals is hindered by several barriers to change.

BARRIERS TO CHANGE

Though many factors reduce our ability to work together to achieve the ideal of a collective intellectual life, the central issues can be summarized as problems of coordination and commitment; fortunately, both kinds of barriers are amenable to change. First, members of the University community often find it difficult to work together to create a richer intellectual climate because it is difficult to coordinate their activities with related activities in other areas of the campus. Coordination problems are inevitable given the University's diverse constituencies with different interests, different needs, and different locations. But two of the most important obstacles to cooperative, overlapping activities can be improved: namely, a lack of information and a lack of adequate physical space. Many coordination problems can be solved by creating better information channels, centralized clearinghouses, and more public spaces conducive to coordinated, collective activities; therefore, a number of our recommendations seek to enhance intellectual exchanges through such institutional reforms.

Second, coordination problems aside, members of the University community might not pursue the ideal of a shared intellectual life because they lack the commitment. Such commitment will always reflect individual choices and interests, but it can be encouraged by reshaping the reward system or cultural ethos for both faculty and students. Although faculty may lack the time, energy and knowledge to pursue new types and mixes of teaching, research and service, they are more likely to change their familiar patterns when they are rewarded for doing so. Similarly, students may not embrace a more encompassing intellectual life because they lack adequate socialization. A rigorous first year experience can reshape students' norms and alter their expectations. Thus a number of our recommendations are addressed to reshaping the cultural ethos that conditions the commitment of faculty and students to a shared intellectual life.

No set of recommendations can easily remove well-established barriers and magically transform cultural habits to produce suddenly a vibrant intellectual community. Changing intellectual life at UNC-CH will involve fundamentally transforming the student culture, the faculty culture, and the University itself. Moreover, even if we succeed in these changes, success is not assured; we caution that the University exists in a wider culture that often ignores or even ridicules the pleasures or commitments of intellectual activity. Many of the obstacles to intellectual exchanges at UNC-CH are typical of all large universities, of inevitable differences in generations or interests, and of student life since the earliest history of universities. We do not place the blame for shortcomings in our intellectual life on familiar scapegoats such as the Greek system, athletics, or student drinking. Our goal is to build creatively on current strengths and thus weaken many of the existing obstacles to a more active intellectual life both inside and outside the classroom. None of our recommendations can, alone, change the climate; but taken together, we believe that their cumulative effect can and will transform the University, making us the model public university for the 21st century.

TASK FORCE DELIBERATIONS

The Chancellor's Task Force on Intellectual Climate developed its proposals through a highly inclusive committee structure that examined the factors affecting intellectual life in six domains: inside the classroom, outside the classroom, the student's first year, service and community-based learning, the common spaces of the campus, and the structure of faculty roles and rewards. Functioning as a Steering Committee, the Task Force Chair and the six committee Chairs met throughout the summer of 1996 to design a plan of action for the full Task Force. In September of 1996, the Chancellor appointed the remaining members of the Task Force (see Appendix IA for a full list of members). The six Task Force committees conducted their discussions through the fall, soliciting input throughout the University community. During the Spring of 1997, the committee reports were reviewed by the Steering Committee. In some cases, committee recommendations were rejected or substantially revised. In all their deliberations, the Steering Committee worked toward a goal of consensus; there were a few instances where that was not possible. In every case, however, the recommendations of the Task Force represent a collective effort to develop our vision of UNC-CH as "the leader" among public universities, our future strategies for enhancing intellectual exchange across all the current boundaries of University life, and our shared commitment to the vital intellectual debates that must sustain our teaching, learning, research and service in the 21st century.