University

Students, faculty question UNC System’s response to McMahon’s ‘National Call to Action’ letter

The System’s response details a commitment to free speech and other principles, though some are skeptical.

By Ragan Huntsman, Staff Writer • August 31, 2026

By Aubrey Word

The UNC System issued a response on Aug. 18 to the U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s “National Call to Action” letter. The letter detailed the system’s commitments across seven areas, including merit-based admissions, free speech, intellectual pluralism, degree affordability and artificial intelligence. McMahon’s Aug. 3 letter, sent to university presidents and governing boards nationwide, carried no explicit funding conditions but asked institutions to detail their “commitments to rigorous teaching, pathbreaking research, and national service.”

Critics have referred to the “National Call to Action” letter as “Compact 2.0,” pointing to its resemblance to the Trump administration’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which UNC Chancellor Lee Roberts refused to sign last November. For UNC students, the response raises questions about what these conversations ultimately mean for them. UNC Student Body President Devin Duncan said he is watching how the principles outlined in the response will be practiced, and identified the key question as how these conversations will change what happens in classrooms, research and the broader student experience. “We should distinguish between asking universities hard questions and then prescribing the answers that scholars are allowed to reach,” Duncan said.

“We as a university absolutely should be accountable to the public, but academic freedom requires space for faculty and students to pursue legitimate inquiry without political actors on the left or the right predetermining acceptable inclusions.”  UNC Media Relations did not respond to The Daily Tar Heel’s request for comment.  Speaker of the Undergraduate Senate, Liam Kiley, said he expected the System’s response to lean further to the right, saying its leadership has typically worked closely with the Republican majority in the state legislature and the Trump administration.  The language used in the System’s response regarding dissent and protests on campus could have a “chilling effect,” Kiley said. Still, he’s waiting to see how UNC’s administration will implement policies. In the letter, the System said it will protect free speech, but Kiley questioned how much it will honor this commitment. He said this stood out to him because it shows limits on how much the System plans to crack down on protests, but he is watching to see what it will actually act on.

Kiley said the response reflects what students are seeing from the University’s administration and policies coming from the UNC System, but that the amount of compliance varies across levels of administration.  “I do believe that we have a responsibility, sort of, to engage in dialogue with the board of trustees and the board of governors to try to limit or prevent these kinds of things,” Kiley said. “The challenge is, as you get up higher and higher in administration, they start listening to students less.” Dwayne Dixon, associate teaching professor in the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, said he saw the response as the System’s way of complying in advance with the Trump administration to avoid punishment and potentially reap rewards. He said he doesn’t believe that the leadership of UNC is in full agreement with the Trump administration, but said it looks like they’re willing to be a satellite of what is coming from the White House.  One thing that struck Dixon in the response was the System’s idea of teaching American values, which he said codifies a universal definition of what it means to be American.

He said that part of being American shouldn’t insist that there is a generic, static set of values that everyone is forced to read and agree upon.  “I was sort of repulsed by this idea that you could teach a singular catechism of American values or ideals,” Dixon said.  Diego Quintanar-Dena, a member of TransparUNCy, said he sees the System’s response as a way for the Trump administration to identify its allies and see who’s willing to engage with the federal government. He referred to some branches of UNC’s administration as political appointees, and said that their intrusion into the University’s traditions of shared governance reflects a “very clear political agenda.” “This understanding that as an institution, they are going to do their best to not bolt to political pressures, and yet here they are responding to a Trump official’s beck and call,” Quintanar-Dena said. @dailytarheel | university@dailytarheel.com

Source: Students, faculty question UNC System’s response to McMahon’s ‘National Call to Action’ letter – The Daily Tar Heel