VIII. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING

To transform intellectual life at UNC-CH, we have recommended many changes in six, related domains. Some of our proposals require substantial funds and major institutional changes; others cost nothing besides time and the sacrifice of traditional ways of doing things. No single recommendation will instantly change intellectual life; but taken together, they will fundamentally alter the intellectual climate of the campus.

To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, we provide in Appendix VIII.A. a complete listing of each committees' recommendations. Each separate recommendation is accompanied by an assignment of responsibility for implementation, and where feasible, a rough cost estimate. We anticipate that some of our proposals will be funded through the reallocation of current resources. Others will require new funds; indeed, some of our proposals should be attractive funding opportunities for private donors. Most of our proposals can be phased in so as to spread their cost out over several years.

Still, some administrators and faculty may worry that the overall price tag for our package of proposals is prohibitively high. We disagree. To fund fully all of our proposals immediately (which we are not proposing) would likely cost less than $4,000,000. This is a substantial amount of money; but in the context of what is spent on other important facets of university life it is not excessive. It is, for example, considerably less than the cost of the renovations of Kenan Stadium. Clearly, the intellectual life of the university must be as important as big-time athletics. A vibrant intellectual life is the core of a university; it warrants the university's attention and money.

FUNDING PRIORITIES

All of our recommendations are important and worthy of implementation, nonetheless it is essential to set priorities among them. Towards that end, we compared related recommendations rather than establishing priorities within committee reports. For comparison, we divided our recommendations into three broad categories -- transforming students, faculty and the university -- and set priorities within each category. To change intellectual life at UNC-CH, we must pursue recommendations simultaneously in each of these areas. Thus the university should begin by implementing the recommendations of highest priority in each category, and continue until the plan for change is fully executed.

Changing Student Culture

Change will fail if students are not involved. Engagement in an active intellectual life should begin when students arrive on campus and grow during their years at UNC-CH. Unfortunately, many students are quickly socialized into an anti-intellectual culture that undermines their intellectual life. Accordingly, we believe that the best mechanism for altering student culture is the institution of a first year socialization experience, proposed here as a pilot program: the The First Year Initiative (IV.1-5). This is the single most important recommendation in our report; it should be implemented in its entirety as soon as possible. Beyond the first year, deliberate socialization of students occurs most directly through the advising system, and the mentoring relationships that advising can foster under optimal conditions. Improving the college advising (III.3A, III.3B) and departmental advising (III.3CI-iii) systems is, therefore, a necessary complement to any first year experience. Altering the first year experience and improving the advising systems are likely to be expensive endeavors; unfortunately, they cannot be easily implemented in a piece-meal fashion. But such reforms must be at the core of any effort to improve intellectual life on our campus.

Of somewhat lower priority than the First Year Initiative and advising reforms are three equally important proposals for institutional innovations that will transform student culture by expanding and coordinating opportunities for (1) mentored, research-oriented learning experiences, (2) connecting in-class and out-of-class activities, and (3) service and community based learning (recommendations II.2, III.1-2, and V.1-2 respectively). Specifically, mentored learning can be promoted by establishing an Office for Undergraduate Research (II.2A) and improving institutional support for mentored independent study (II.2B) and cohort learning (II.2C). Similarly, a more integrated intellectual life that blends in-class and out-of-class activities can be fostered by instituting a Central Clearing House to coordinate such activities and ensure greater dissemination of information about them (III.1A-G), and by appointing a new "Committee for Intellectual Life" (III.2A-C) to work with the Clearing House staff to involve faculty and departments in creative initiatives to bring the curriculum and outside activities together (III.5). Lastly, service learning can be encouraged by creating a Center for Public Service (V.1) and increasing support for existing service and community-based learning programs (V.2). When fully implemented, each of these institutional initiatives will command a significant investment of institutional resources. But each one can be developed and expanded over time; in each case, the start-up costs require only modest investments in a core staff and operating budget. Moreover, each of these institutional initiatives will eliminate overlap and redundancy in programs across campus; by facilitating coordination and enhancing communication, they will improve efficiency and thereby make better use of existing resources.

Changing Faculty Culture

Change will fail if students are uninvolved, but it will never begin without the commitment of the faculty. They must be given the means to change and the appropriate motivations for doing so. Accordingly, the most important recommendations for reconstructing faculty culture and motivations are the proposed changes in the faculty rewards structure that can be implemented largely by reallocating existing resources (recommendations VII.1, V.3, V.4, VII.2C). Specifically, faculty change can be instigated by employing teaching portfolios (VII.1A), departmental teaching portfolios (VII.1B), altering the evaluation of research (VII.1C), improving rewards for service learning experiences (V.3 and V.4), and for research excellence (VII.2C).

Of lower priority, faculty change can also be facilitated by two relatively inexpensive proposals: improving access to information about both active learning methods(II.3) and interdisciplinary research (VII.2D). Both these proposals will facilitate innovative changes in the curriculum, and help forge links among faculty in diverse disciplines. Lastly, the process of change can be sped up by offering faculty special opportunities to develop their own ideas: an Intellectual Climate Fund (VII.2A) is thus a critical mechanism for triggering innovations. It could be funded initially at whatever level is feasible; but to engage the creative impulses of faculty, it is essential that it be established at some level of funding.

Changing the University

Finally, change depends on transforming the University as both an institution and a place. To transform the university as an institution, we make two equally important recommendations: the establishment of the UNC Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars (ADTS), and the institution of a meaningful orientation for Deans and Chairs. The ADTS (I.1A, VII.2D) will be an institutional vehicle for the continuous appraisal of the educational enterprise at UNC-CH, while simultaneously providing a means of recognizing outstanding teaching scholars. Like other institutional innovations we are recommending, its implementation would, by design, be gradual. The initial cost could be minimized by utilizing existing resources for endowed chairs; in the long run, the ADTS is a good candidate for support through private fund-raising. In contrast, orientation sessions for Deans and Chairs (VII.3) are not a costly enterprise, but they are just as critical as the ADTS to the task of changing the university as an institution.

To transform the university as a place, the classroom and common spaces of the university must be altered so as to improve the opportunities for intellectual exchanges. Recognition of the importance of the creation and maintenance of interaction space by university leaders (VI.1A), those involved in the design and planning of public facilities (VI.1B, VI.3A-B, VI.4C), and the faculty (VI.1C) is of highest priority. Beyond heightening the university's awareness of the importance of common spaces, we make a number of specific recommendations for physical improvements to the campus. Among them, of utmost importance is protecting the integrity of existing common spaces like the Greater Pit area (VI.4A). Of equal priority are improving classroom spaces to render them more hospitable to active learning (II.4A-D), developing new spaces like Gerrard hall and coffee shops (III.4A, III.4C, VI.4B-F), increasing display and performance space (III.4B, VI.2A-B), and improving access to all spaces (VI.1D, VI.3D). Of these, a particularly critical need that could be easily addressed immediately is the lack of adequate outdoor seating for small groups (VI.4D).

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

If this plan for transforming intellectual life at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill is to be a success, all members of the university community must assume some responsibility for change. Active leadership must come from the Chancellor; he must persuasively initiate the process of change. We call upon the Chancellor, therefore, to set the general tone by articulating publically and frequently the importance of devoting university resources to reinvigorating intellectual life. As a symbolic gesture, for example, the Chancellor might commit some of the NIKE revenues to intellectual climate projects. In more specific terms, we call upon the Chancellor to initiate the process of change by establishing the UNC Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars (II.1A), the Committee for Intellectual Life (III.2A), and the Center for Public Service (V.1); by taking the lead in the creation of new performance and meeting spaces (III.4B, VI.2); and by making clear to the public and the university alike that service (V.3A) is a key aspect of our mission and that maintaining the university as a "place" (VI.1A) is absolutely critical (see Appendix VIII.B for a list of these responsibilities).

We also request the Provost to play an active role in promoting intellectual life. Specifically, we ask the Provost to, among other things, create an Office for Undergraduate Research (II.2A), develop cohort programs of education (II.2C), expand the Inquiry Track Program (II.3A), establish the Central Clearing House for University activities (II.A-B), create new service incentives (V.4), develop Gerrard Hall as a common space (VI.4B), create an Intellectual Climate Fund (VII.2A), and take responsibility for ensuring that all deans and chairs undergo orientation sessions (VII.3.) (see Appendix VIII.C for a list of these responsibilities).

Deans, department Chairs, and other unit heads will have a central effect on the success of efforts to improve the intellectual climate. They either administer or influence directly the various faculty rewards that are available. They are the primary individuals who communicate the institution's expectations to faculty members; they are in positions to describe and model the activities that are desired, and are also the key individuals in position to reassure, encourage, cajole, and even negotiate to obtain them. And they have the authority to pursue many of the initiatives that we are recommending, especially those involving changes to the faculty reward structure (VII.1A-C).

The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, in particular, will play an especially critical role in implementing our recommendations. We ask that Dean to take the lead in implementing our most important recommendations: creating the First Year Initiative (IV1.-3) and reforming the advising systems (III.3B-C.). We also recommend that the Dean of the College promote changes in the faculty reward structure (VII.1A-C) and establish funds for special activities outside the classroom (III.2Ai), Faculty/Student Meals (III.2Aii), and course development to promote better linking of outside the classroom activities to courses (III.5A) (see Appendix VIII.D for a list of these responsibilities).

Chairs will also play a key role in improving intellectual life. They stand at the intersect between individual faculty and the university administration; their full cooperation is essential if change is to occur. We ask the chairs to take responsibility for facilitating communication among faculty (III.1E, III.5B-C), creating department-based student organizations and recognizing their advisors (III.2B-C), in changing the departmental advising system (III.3C), promoting service learning (III.5D, V.3B-C), in staffing the First Year Initiative (IV.2, IV.3A), and most importantly changing the faculty reward structure (VII.1A-C) (see Appendix VIII.E for a list of these responsibilities).

Individual faculty will also necessarily play a central part in the implementation process. Though we have asked faculty to assume relatively few formal responsibilities, their active participation is, nonetheless, critical to the successful implementation of many of our proposals (see Appendix VIII.F for a list of these responsibilities). Thus transforming the in-class environment depends upon faculty engaging students in their research, and embracing active learning methods and then sharing their experiences with other faculty (II.2, II.3). Strengthening the links between inside and outside the classroom depends upon faculty using new funds to support faculty-student interaction (III.2Ai, III.2Aii); creating stronger links between course content and outside activities through course development funds, regular class announcement of events, support of departmental e-mail "chat" groups, service learning and travel (III.5A-D); and supporting reforms of departmental advising systems (III.3C). Similarly, the success of the First Year Initiative pilot program rests upon faculty developing a diverse offering of first year seminars (IV.2.). Creating an educational experience that more tightly links coursework to the community and broader world necessitates that faculty make more substantial commitments to service and community based learning (V.3).

But the greatest requirement of faculty is that they embrace this opportunity to redefine their roles. Creating an individual teaching portfolio will give faculty the opportunity to articulate a personal conception of how their teaching, research and service come together (VII.1A), while contributing to the preparation of a departmental teaching portfolio will afford individual faculty opportunities to define their place in our collective educational enterprise (VII.1B). More clearly defining the reward structures to take account of advising and service activities that most faculty already do will allow individuals to be appropriately rewarded for their full range of contributions to the university. Some faculty and administrators may worry that in creating new incentives for teaching and service, these proposals will upset the current balance between teaching, research and service so much that it will undermine the research mission of the university (e.g. by "requiring" faculty to engage in more non-research activities, time will be diverted from research; high-powered scholars will be more difficult to recruit). We disagree. We do not believe that the stature of UNC-CH as a research university will be subverted by the implementation of our proposals. On the contrary, we are convinced that the mutually reinforcing nature of research, teaching and service will be strengthened by rethinking faculty roles, employing active learning methods, forging stronger links between course content and outside, paying closer attention to the socialization of first-year students, and utilizing more service and community based learning. Similarly, we believe that reconstructing faculty roles will make UNC-CH more, not less, attractive to the kind of professors we really want -- those who wish to be deeply involved both with students and scholarship. But these are debatable matters that the faculty, as a whole, should be discussing. We, therefore, call upon faculty leaders -- the Chair of the Faculty, the Executive Committee of Faculty Council, and Faculty Council -- to take responsibility for creating a campus-wide conversation around the topic of changing faculty roles as we have recommended.

Finally, we invite all students -- undergraduate and graduate, part-time and full-time, young and old -- to join in reshaping our university. Students will be affected in some fashion by each of our recommendations. And though we do not assign to them any formal responsibilities, their full participation and cooperation is essential. We, therefore, ask student leaders and the Daily Tar Heel to help engage students in a campus-wide dialogue around our proposals for reinvigorating intellectual life at UNC-CH. And we challenge all students to examine critically their educational experiences and to begin enriching their own education by: trying courses with active learning methods, seeking out opportunities for student research, striving to connect course content with outside activities, exploring new kinds of outside activities, engaging faculty in discussions outside of class, supporting the First Year Initiative, and pursuing opportunities for service learning and involvement in the community.