UNC can keep report on controversial program secret, judge says

An Orange County judge decided Thursday UNC-Chapel Hill does not have to release records from its $1.2 million investigation into the School of Civic Life and Leadership.

A coalition of news media organizations, including Carolina Public Press, sued the university for access to the 400-plus-page report in April. Plaintiffs claimed the state public records law requires the university to release the report on its internal investigation into SCiLL because it was paid for with taxpayer funds.

[Subscribe for FREE to Carolina Public Press’ Daily, Weekend and Election 2026 newsletters.]

Superior Court Judge John Morris heard arguments earlier this month after attorneys for the university filed a motion for summary judgment. Instead of ruling immediately, he opted to personally review the report.

“The Court, having concluded the in-camera review of those documents referenced in the motion, having reviewed the court file, Defendants’ motion, legal briefs in support of and in opposition to the motion, and after considering arguments from counsel, grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” Morris wrote on Thursday.

UNC program under fire

SCiLL has drawn criticism since 2023 for its faculty turnover rate, connections to conservative scholars and hasty confirmation by the UNC Board of Trustees and the legislature. On account of turnover, the university said it would bring in outside firm K&L Gates to conduct an “independent and impartial” review of SCiLL in September 2025. 

UNC announced K&L Gates had completed its review of the school March 6 but swiftly denied public records requests seeking the full report, or even a summary, and issued a public statement that the report would not be released.

In court, the defendant’s primary argument for keeping the report from public view was that its contents are trial preparation materials, and there is a prospect of litigation. UNC’s attorneys also cited attorney-client privilege and North Carolina’s Human Resources Act.

It’s not clear what trial the university is preparing for in relation to the report, though UNC’s attorney Wes Camden said at the hearing there have been allegations related to employment and hiring decisions and anti-discrimination laws like Title VII and Title IX.

‘Inexplicable and unexpected’

Media law attorney Hugh Stevens of the Stevens Martin Vaughn and Tadych firm, which represented news media organizations in the lawsuit, told defendants that Morris’ ruling is “the most inexplicable and unexpected decision” he has encountered in nearly 50 years of litigating public records cases.

“Given the applicable law, it is unfathomable to me that every page, every line and every word of a 400-page investigation that was conducted at significant public expense and that concerns a manifestly public matter — i.e., the establishment of a new and controversial school at our flagship university — is exempt from public disclosure,” Stevens wrote.

“Judge Morris did not disclose why he believes that the SCiLL report is completely beyond the reach of the North Carolina Public Records Act. Since we, unlike both him and the University’s lawyers, have never had the opportunity to see the report, we cannot cogently comment on the rationale for his terse but sweeping secrecy ruling.”

There were public demands from faculty and students for the university to release the report. The UNC Faculty Council approved two resolutions April 17 calling for transparency related to SCiLL and the report, including a suggestion the university release it with redactions, if necessary. Students also protested shortly after the news media coalition filed the lawsuit, calling for the university to “release the SCiLL files.”

It’s not clear whether members of the news media coalition will opt to appeal the decision.

Related