At first glance, the selection of the new chancellor at UNC-Chapel Hill seems ideal. It appears as though Holden Thorp was not just groomed for the job, but created for it.
Thorp has a long track record as a brilliant scientist and as an outstanding educator who relates well to students. He has also held several lesser administrative posts on the Chapel Hill campus, including dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Thorp also bleeds “Tar Heel Blue.” He is a third-generation alumnus. He is young, clever, and charismatic.
But the fact that he has ample leadership ability tells us little about the direction in which he will lead the university. The probable direction of Thorp’s leadership can be gleaned, however, from his words and past decisions.
In his speech accepting his election to the position by a unanimous vote of the university system’s Board of Governors, Thorp referred to outgoing chancellor James Moeser as “my mentor,” and he also rose dramatically under his predecessor’s administration. The policies and ideas that dominated under Moeser for the last eight years should continue to dominate for Thorp’s tenure as well. Given that he is only 43 and has powerful attachments to UNC, that is likely to be a long time.
Whether that is reason to cheer or cringe is a matter of perspective.
One policy of Moeser’s that is almost guaranteed to continue under Thorp is increasing the university’s role in research and development. UNC President Erskine Bowles even said he wanted a scientist in the chancellor’s position for that very reason. Thorp has earned 19 patents and has created a private company to exploit the commercial possibilities of his research.
A comment made in his acceptance speech indicates that Thorp has a remarkably expansive view of academia. “Our to-do list is nothing less than the greatest problems of our time: cure diseases, and get those cures to all the people who need them. Find and invent clean energy. Inspire students in our public schools. Feed 7 billion people. Describe the world, and replace conflict with understanding.”
Another line from the acceptance speech indicates that Thorp is most comfortable when government has considerable influence on economic activities: “There’s one idea that’s even better than a research university and that’s a public research university.”
Thorp also seems likely to make no attempt to counter the emphasis on group-identity pressure politics at Chapel Hill. He seems to favor setting numerical goals for inclusion according to demographic groups, rather than regarding each student or employee as a distinct individual. In a speech to the board of directors of UNC’s General Alumni Association in July 2007, Thorp had this to say: “[W]ith regard to diversity, the college, like most of our peers, is not doing as well as we should at matching the demographics of the faculty to the demographics of the students.”
He might also encourage demographic groups to regard themselves as victims of an oppressive society, as illustrated by his leadership as chairman of the 2005 Carolina Summer Reading Program Book Selection Committee. The book chosen that year was Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story, about racial strife in rural North Carolina, centered on the 1970 murder of a black Vietnam veteran.
At a recent press conference, when asked about political extremism in the classroom and on the campus, Thorp suggested that incidents of inappropriate political activity by teachers are much more rare than perceived. However, the Pope Center regularly covers such activities and is often informed of others.
The above examples suggest Thorp will not alter the present left-leaning political climate at Chapel Hill.
Jay Schalin is a senior writer for the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh.