Leo Strauss, a 20th century philosopher who serves as a major influence in the current civics revival movement, famously believed that leaders hide their real message behind a popular veneer and that scholars must devote themselves to reading between the lines if they want to truly understand their works.
The same might be said of the public debate over UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Civic Life and Leadership, also known as SCiLL.
There were two SCiLL resolutions on the agenda at last Friday’s faculty council meeting—one demanding clarity on the policies governing the school and one demanding the release of the university’s investigation into it. UNC-CH says it won’t release the report; The Assembly and other media organizations are suing over it.
But a question asked by SCiLL professor Dustin Sebell, who has become the unofficial spokesperson for the school and Dean Jed Atkins, was what caught our attention.
“I was reliably informed recently that those who had made allegations against the dean received letters earlier this month from the university notifying them that their allegations were unsubstantiated,” Sebell said in a Q&A with the provost. “But I also made allegations and never received such a letter. I’m confused as to why the university would be going about this in this way,” he added, specifying that his allegations were against others, not Atkins.
His implication was clear: Though the university has refused to release the report, Atkins, who has received backing from the UNC-CH leaders, was cleared, and his critics were not. (OK, it wasn’t that hard to read between the lines.)
Provost Magnus Egerstedt declined to answer Sebell at the council meeting, saying he could not speak about personnel matters. But The Assembly spoke with two other people involved in the controversy over SCiLL, both of whom said they never received such an update.
“Whatever Professor Sebell may say, I have not received any letter from UNC regarding the substantial wrongdoing I witnessed and reported,” former Provost Chris Clemens wrote in a statement. “But I also recall that he falsely claimed I did not cooperate with the investigation, and UNC has now permitted me to correct that lie publicly. As a Straussian, Professor Sebell apparently believes that lying is not merely allowed, but that it is imperative when it serves the noble purposes of his school.”
Inside Higher Ed reported Sebell’s claim about Clemens not participating in September. Sebell told the publication that he thought Clemens had filed a lawsuit against UNC-CH so he could claim privilege and avoid being interviewed by investigators.
Clemens provided The Assembly an email from McNair Nichols, one of the attorneys leading the investigation, to show that he was interviewed.
After Clemens asked Nichols whether the law firm or he could publicly refute Sebell, Nichols wrote, “We appreciate your vigilance in hewing to the privilege and confidentiality considerations that we discussed when we met last fall.”
He also said Clemens was “not permitted to disclose to anyone the topics discussed, questions asked, or any related substantive information,” but did confirm that Clemens could state “(1) you did not claim privilege pending your ongoing litigation as a basis to avoid participating in the University’s investigation; and (2) you cooperated with the investigation, including by being interviewed and providing documents to the investigators.”
Sebell declined to comment for this article.