A Morning at SCiLL

Earlier this month, I got the chance to be a student again for just one morning. It was an opportunity offered to all members of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Visitors, and I jumped at the chance to go back to campus to observe two classes. Among the options were two courses in the new School of Civic Life and Leadership.

My first class of the day was “Practice of Civic Life and Leadership,” taught by Professor John Rose, which the course catalog thus describes:

This course focuses on the ideas and practices necessary to analyze arguments and disagree in a productive and compassionate way, especially at a time of deep polarization in American culture. Students in this course will debate five contentious, contemporary topics to practice researching multiple sides of an issue significant to civil society, engaging in oral and written argument, and developing criteria by which to evaluate argument, evidence, and debate performance.

Two other BOV members also attended the class. We were all notified ahead of time that the day’s discussion and readings were on the topic of abortion. As I entered the class, I wondered whether, in this age of self-censorship and cancel culture, students would be willing to speak up on such a controversial topic.

Students were willing to share their own positions, admit when they weren’t sure of things, and disagree without rancor. The students exceeded my expectations. They were willing to share their own positions, admit when they weren’t sure of things, and disagree without rancor. How is this possible? In part, the answer is that students had chosen to be in a course that openly advertised that it would tackle hard topics; they were up for the challenge.

But Professor Rose’s methods deserve credit, as well. One tactic was particularly effective. Professor Rose gave the students a survey ahead of time on the topic of abortion and announced the results at the beginning of the class. The survey revealed that the students were split 50-50 on the issue and that most of those who defined themselves as either pro-life or pro-choice said there were exceptions to their general position. This information assured students that they weren’t alone in the positions they held.

Conversation flowed naturally, with professors guiding students rather than lecturing. The course also operated under Chatham House Rules. Students are free to use information shared during the class, but they can’t attribute the information to any other student. (I received Professor Rose’s permission to write about the class, preserving students’ anonymity by keeping within these rules.)

My second course of the morning was Professor Danielle Charette James’s “Foundations of Civic Life and Leadership,” of which the catalog says the following:

This course provides an understanding of the big questions surrounding civic life and leadership. Part I uses classic texts of politics, philosophy, and literature to examine the role of the state in society and the tensions that exist between individual freedom and the powers of the state. Part II focuses on the American founding to understand the American experiment in democracy. Part III covers a set of controversies in modern civic life.

On the day I attended, students were discussing a section of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. I was impressed to discover that the students had actually done the required reading. Moreover, they were able to discuss the day’s reading with nuance and tie it back to previous themes and ideas from earlier in the book. The conversation flowed naturally, with Professor James guiding the students through the text rather than lecturing.

I’m glad I took the opportunity to be a student again for a day (albeit without the pressure of grades or being called on). I found myself wanting to participate in the lively discussions. If I’m invited back next year, I will definitely participate again.

Jenna A. Robinson is president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.