Civic education is crucial for cultivating informed and engaged citizens. Unfortunately, the University of North Carolina (UNC) has been criticized for not providing a solid foundation in civics. For instance, UNC-Chapel Hill does not require its students to take a course in American government. However, students must complete a three-credit course in Global Understanding and Engagement. This emphasis on global perspectives over foundational American civics has raised concerns about the civic literacy of UNC graduates.
Surprisingly, even majors where knowledge of civics is particularly important, such as history and journalism, do not require a course in American government. History majors must take at least one course in areas like African, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Latin American history, but not necessarily in U.S. Government. Journalism majors can choose American Government as one of seven elective courses. This lack of a mandated civics education is problematic, as it can leave students with significant gaps in their understanding of American government and history.
This issue is not unique to UNC but reflects a national trend of civic ignorance among college students. According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, over half of college students do not know the term lengths of members of Congress, and nearly 40 percent do not know which branch of government has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, 70 percent misidentified Thomas Jefferson as the father of the Constitution, and 16 percent mistakenly believed that Independence Day commemorates the signing of the Constitution. Such findings highlight the urgent need for improved civics education.
In response to this civic ignorance, the North Carolina legislature is considering House Bill 96, also known as the “North Carolina Reclaiming College Education on America’s Constitutional Heritage” (NC REACH Act). Filed on February 13, this bill aims to ensure that students graduating from public two- and four-year institutions in North Carolina possess foundational civic knowledge. If passed, the act would require students to complete at least three credit hours in American history or American government to graduate with a baccalaureate degree or an associate degree.
The course criteria outlined in the bill include reading significant historical documents such as the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” the Gettysburg Address, and the North Carolina State Constitution. Additionally, students must take a cumulative final exam on the principles contained in these documents, with the exam accounting for at least 20 percent of the course grade. Exemptions are available for students who have fulfilled these requirements through Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate courses, or dual-enrollment courses.
The bill’s primary sponsors, Representatives Keith Kidwell, Jon Hardister, and Ray Pickett, have faced various arguments against the bill as it moved through the North Carolina House of Representatives.
One argument is that the bill is too punitive in cases of non-compliance. If a UNC-System school fails to adhere to the new requirement for more than one academic year, the Board of Governors may remove that institution’s chancellor. This provision has been criticized as too extreme, with concerns that it threatens the job security of hardworking university presidents. In response, Hardister acknowledged the initial concern but emphasized the need for enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the law. He believes that the likelihood of non-compliance is low, and the provision serves as a necessary safeguard.
Another concern is that the civics requirement would create barriers for community-college adult learners. Some representatives worry that this additional requirement would hinder adult learners’ efforts to improve their competitiveness in the job market. However, Kidwell clarified that the requirement applies only to degree-seeking students and not to those enrolled in non-degree technical training. This distinction aims to address concerns about potential barriers for adult learners.
Critics also argue that the civics requirement merely repeats high-school civics education. Since high school students already study many of the documents prescribed in the bill, some representatives question the need to study them again in college. Instead, they suggest improving high-school civics education. Kidwell countered that subjects like algebra and biology are also studied at both high school and college levels to provide a deeper understanding. He believes that re-reading important historical documents in college can reinforce their significance.
Another objection is that the bill is too prescriptive and limits students’ ability to explore their interests. Representative Cunningham argued that mandating a specific course is unfair, especially when students are paying for their education. Kidwell responded that universities already have a prescribed set of general education courses, and the civics course would simply be part of that curriculum. He contended that ensuring students have a foundational understanding of American history and government is essential.
Some critics argue that the bill is not diverse enough. Representative Prather noted that only one of the required authors is black and none of the documents were written by women. Representative Hawkins expressed a desire to include more diverse perspectives in the list of documents. Kidwell responded that he was open to discussing the inclusion of additional documents but emphasized the foundational importance of the required ones.
Additionally, concerns have been raised about the precedent for such legislative mandates. Prather argued that legislatively mandating a course on civics constitutes “micromanaging” since there are no other statutory requirements for college graduation. Kidwell pointed out that the UNC System was created by the General Assembly, which has the authority to influence the curriculum to some extent. He emphasized that the bill represents a small portion of the curriculum and aims to ensure that students have a solid grounding in American history and government.
Another potential objection is the risk of accreditation problems. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges requires faculty to have primary responsibility in curricular decisions. However, Broggi, the bill’s author, argued that the legislative civics requirement constitutes only 2.5 percent of the curriculum, which does not undermine faculty’s primary authority. He also noted that other states, such as South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, have similar statewide curricular requirements without threatening accreditation.
Despite these objections, proponents of the NC REACH Act argue that it fulfills a fundamental duty of the state: to produce knowledgeable and civically responsible citizens. Kidwell stressed that the bill ensures students understand America’s history, principles, and founding documents. Hardister echoed this sentiment, stating that understanding these documents is essential for constructive civic engagement.
In conclusion, the NC REACH Act addresses a significant gap in civic education at UNC and other public institutions in North Carolina. By requiring students to complete a course in American history or government and study foundational documents, the bill aims to ensure that graduates possess essential civic knowledge. While the bill has faced various objections, its proponents argue that it fulfills a crucial responsibility of the state and enhances students’ understanding of American history and principles. In an era of increasing civic ignorance, such legislative measures are vital to fostering informed and engaged citizens.
