UNC Chancellor Lee Roberts on pushing his university into the AI age

>> Hi, I'm Connie Loisus. >> And this is Alex Gove. >> And this is StrictlyVC Download. [MUSIC] >> Artificial intelligence is reshaping higher education, and few university leaders are moving as fast or as controversially as Chancellor Lee Roberts of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. On a Friday morning in San Francisco, just hours before his football team would lose to Cal in heartbreaking fashion, Roberts and I sat down at the city's university club to talk about his ambitious plan to make AI the university's North Star. You may hear cable cars clanging past in the background. We were seated on the second floor beside a wide open window, but the conversation was anything but scenic small talk. Roberts, who spent three decades in finance before becoming UNC's Chancellor, is betting big on AI at a moment when his 235-year-old institution faces challenges from every direction. $38 million in terminated federal grants, a 900 person petition questioning his legitimacy, and a Bill Belichick football experiment that has sports riders across the country throwing white flags. Meanwhile, faculty are divided on whether AI is the future of education or academic steroids that students shouldn't touch. We discussed the merger of two schools to create an AI institution, the culture war playing out in faculty lounges and whether moving fast and breaking things works in academia. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did. We'll see you back here next week. Chancellor, so nice to meet you. Thank you for making time for us today. >> Thanks very much for having me here, good to be with you. >> So here we are in the University Club of San Francisco. I know that AI is a priority for you right now, which is why your team had reached out in the first place. I'm really curious to learn more. Can you start by laying out your vision for how UNC should be positioning itself in this moment, both in terms of preparing students for an AI-influenced world and in terms of the university's own research and innovation in this space? >> Well, I think every knowledge-based organization is having to grapple with the implications of AI, and that's obviously especially true for a large global public research university like Carolina. And we really see it in three buckets. What should our research priorities be around AI? We can't be all things to all people. We have to place some bets around areas where we're already doing something differentiated. How do we use AI to run our operations more effectively? We have a large, complex, decentralized organization. AI holds the promise of allowing us to run the enterprise in a more efficient and effective way. And then the most important piece in my mind is the instructional piece. How do we make sure that when students graduate from Carolina, they have the skills that they're going to need to be successful in the workforce and to be effective professionals more broadly? Part of that too is raising the floor among our faculty. We have a really wide range of AI adoption among our faculty, and that's okay. That says it should be. We have 4,000 faculty members, and they teach a very wide range of different topics in different ways. But we'd like to minimize the number of faculty who just have their heads in the sand about the technology and are refusing to grapple with it. We'd like to make sure that we're giving faculty the tools to understand how the technology affects what they teach and how they teach it. Sure, and there's a lot there. And I think every enterprise is dealing with these same questions, the spectrum of people who are really leaning forward and leaning back. Students having figured this out, I have a college freshman who is wrestling with some of these same questions right now and also wrestling with what's, I think, acceptable at his school. UNC's current AI policy emphasizes critical evaluation and appropriate use. But students and faculty have said that there's a little bit of confusion about what that actually means in practice. How do you ensure there's clarity, especially for the faculty who are trying to figure out what's acceptable in their classrooms or students who are uncertain about boundaries? Well, right now it's up to each individual professor to set policies for AI usage for their particular course. I worry, though, when students get out into the workforce or even in a summer job, no one's going to say to them, "Do the best job you can, but if you use AI, you'll be in trouble." Yet we have some faculty members who are effectively saying that to students right now, and that's what I mean about raising the floor, trying to encourage all the faculty, and this is going to have to be an incentive-based approach. It's not going to be a top-down mandate, but encouraging the faculty to get more comfortable with the technology, those who are feeling uncertain, and encourage them to think through how to adapt the technology to their particular syllabus. Some of our faculty have really embraced it. I was talking with one the other day who said he is consciously assigning more research than the students could complete without the use of AI. That's much closer to a real-world scenario that students are going to find when they leave Carolina. Yeah, that's really interesting. And when you say an incentive-based program, that's interesting. I guess a lot of people would see the efficiencies as incentive enough. What do you mean if you can explain further? Well, we have 4,000 faculty members, and they pride as they should themselves on their independence and autonomy in how they teach their classes. And so it's not particularly effective to mandate something from the administration when it comes to classroom instruction. But we perceive there are a lot of faculty members who want to get more comfortable with the technology and just don't necessarily know where to start. And so the key is to give them the tools and the time and the opportunity to begin that process. That's in part why we've just announced that we're making one of our deans, a senior vice provost specifically for AI. He's coming from the faculty. He has experienced both in technology and as a humanist. And I think he's exceptionally well placed to help the faculty as a whole come further up to speed. The Career Center at UNC recently partnered with Google Gemini to offer students free year-long memberships, complete with promotional events in the pit. Some students and faculty have questioned whether the university should be actively promoting specific AI tools rather than teaching the critical evaluation of them. How do you think about that balance between exposing students to certain tools while maintaining the university's role as an independent evaluator of technology? That's one partnership. The pit is our principal gathering place for our undergraduate students. And we're going to have an array of partnerships. We were continuing to talk with all kinds of folks during my time here in San Francisco. I've spent time talking with a number of technology companies, AI firms about ways we can work more closely together with them. So we're not going to be in an exclusive relationship with any particular provider. It's important that students understand the range of tools that are out there and how to use them effectively. So you mentioned this new senior provost. Tell me a little bit more about your announcement of, I guess, maybe four days ago. There's a new school. I don't know what it's called, but if you can explain to me what's happening, that would be great. Well, we have two schools, and we're putting them together into one yet to be named school. We have a school of data science and society, which is a relatively new school at Carolina. And then we have a school of information and library science, which is one of our older schools. And we began to realize over time, and this was coming from the deans themselves, that there was quite a bit of overlap between the curricula of the two schools. And given how much activity is underway in this space and how rapidly things are changing, we thought we'd do a better job preparing our students and giving our faculty meaningful opportunities if we were to put them together rather than have them pursue parallel but independent paths. But this is not about shutting anything down. It's not predominantly a cost savings move. It's about working more effectively across our academic silos. You know, the challenge of AI, Connie, is that we have to work relatively quickly, and we also have to cooperate across academic disciplines. And those are two things that universities historically are not especially good at. And rather than have separate silos pursuing independent paths, we thought it would be more effective putting these schools together. The actual process of putting them together and figuring out the implications for the curriculum, that's going to be done by faculty and staff and students and alumni working collectively. That's not something we dictate from the administration. So there's a lot to figure out for the merger of the two schools, but we're excited about it. And we announced that the Dean of the School of Data Science would be the Dean of the Merge School, and the Dean of the School of Information and Library Science would take on this new role, overseeing many of our AI efforts around campus. I'm just wondering if there is a model that you looked to for this. I don't know if there's something like this at Stanford. There's obviously a lot of forward thinking at that school as well. We don't have a particular peer model in mind. You know, I think it's moving so quickly that everybody is trying to figure out the implications more or less in real time. So we spend a lot of time talking with our peer institutions and trying to learn from each other. But we're going to develop a solution that is and an approach that is Carolinos. So I did read a little bit of press. Of course, you're going to always have your boosters and critics. And there was a little bit of pushback about how this came together. You're saying it was very much not top down. Another criticism I'd read was that students of the School of Library Science were just concerned about what this would mean for their degrees. Can you address that concern? I understand the concern. There's a really proud history at the School of Information and Library Science. This is one of the best library programs anywhere. But I really want to stress that the implementation of this plan is not going to be something that we decide in the administration and impose on faculty and students. We think it makes sense to break down the silos, but the practical implications of how that will happen in practice over the course of this coming year is going to be an extremely collaborative effort. And you made note that it's not a cost-cutting measure, which I think is interesting. You know, UNC, like every other school out there, has suffered federal funding cuts this year. You've lost 118 federal grants. Correct me if I'm wrong. Totalling about $38 million with another 29 stop work orders in place. That's roughly 3.5% of your total research funding. Can you talk a little bit about the real-world impact of those cuts, both in terms of specific research that's been halted and the broader effect on the university's research mission? So obviously, when a faculty member or a researcher has a grant terminated, it's devastating to that researcher and that team. It's not an exaggeration to say that in many cases they lose their life's work. So I don't want to minimize the importance and the negative impact of those kinds of terminations. At the same time, from my position, looking out across the entire university, 3.5% is well within our average annual variance in terms of federal research funding. So it's not quite as severe an impact as maybe we would have feared at the beginning of the year. It is concentrated in some particular areas and they've been hit harder than others. But again, given how much anxiety and trepidation there was at the beginning of the year, we feel relatively optimistic about where we are in terms of not just the grants that had been interrupted, but also the prospects for future federal research funding. So there was a concern at the beginning of the year that federal research funding across the board was going to see significant cuts. Obviously, the federal budget process is not over, but we're now less worried about that. It seems as though for our two main funding agencies, which are the National Science Foundation and NIH, that both the House and the Senate are inclined to actually increase the funding for both of those agencies, which would be a good thing, not just for our university, but really for society, because the research that those dollars fund is literally saving lives. You mentioned that there were cuts to certain areas. Can you say what those were and were they surprising in any way? I think where you've seen the most concentrated areas of cuts have been around, for us, our school of public health, which is the number one public school of public health in the United States. And I think it's probably safe to characterize some of the cuts as being around what some of the terminations as being around what people might characterize as focused on more DEI type of projects. I'm not sure we would characterize them that way, per se, but if I were to try to identify a theme around the terminations coming from Washington, that's probably one angle. So underserved populations, essentially? I think there's that kind of theme in what we've seen. Again, when a research team has its funding terminated, it's a devastating experience for that particular team. So it sounds like you're not concerned. I guess I just wondered if the federal funding continues to lessen. Are you looking at alternative funding sources? So I didn't say I wasn't concerned. I said I wasn't as concerned as maybe I might have been. And I think as my peer chancellors and presidents might have been at the beginning of the year, we're always concerned about the nature, availability, priorities, process of federal research funding, given how important it is to our university. We're a top 10 recipient of federal research funds, and we need to be especially vigilant right now when there's so much uncertainty around federal research funding that is really changing the basic structure of how large research universities have been funded in the 70-year post-war period. And some of those changes are salutary. There probably was an overdue updating of the priorities of some federal research funding. I think everybody agrees that the grants-making process is unduly cumbersome and could be streamlined and improved. But we remain really focused on that, and I spend a lot of time talking with policymakers and legislators in Washington about the tremendous good that federal research funding represents. I'm going to be back in Washington in a couple of weeks. In terms of alternate sources of funding, of course we should be trying to develop as many alternate sources as possible in partnership with industry and with private philanthropy, but we received $1.55 billion in federal research funding last year. I don't think there's an alternate source that replaces that funding. It doesn't have to. It's not going away, we don't believe. But just in terms of diversification and continuing to be able to do as much good work as we can, we and our peers absolutely should be exploring other sources as aggressively as we can. Chancellor, I am a native Ohio and native Clevelander. I have to talk to you about Bill Belichick, which has UNC and the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Growing up in Cleveland, he was really reviled. I don't know if you know that backstory. I'm sure you do, and he cut Bernie Kosar, local hero. And I don't think the city ever forgave him. But of course, he went on to have this storied career. You were very excited, obviously. You brought him to UNC. You committed $10 million annually to him plus assistant coaching pools, matching national champions like Georgia and Ohio State. This represented a major shift for a school that hasn't historically cracked the top 25 in athletics spending. The team's record right now is terrible. This comes on top of, I guess, UNC losing this federal research money. Can you just walk me through how you're thinking about these resource allocation decisions and whether the football investment is delivering what you expected? So college sports are changing very rapidly, as everybody knows. And when we look out across our peers, whether it's Michigan or Virginia or Texas or Florida or UCLA or Berkeley who are playing tonight, and we're excited about that game, all of those schools spend at least as much money as we do on football. And some spend significantly more. That's true, not just for that peer set of large public flag ships. But if you look at schools like Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, Duke, all trying to spend more on football. And the reason for that is that football is in the driver's seat when it comes to generating revenue for the overall athletics program. We're unusual at Carolina in that we field 28 sports. In fact, Cal is one of the few schools that fields as many sports as we do. And we don't just field them, we excel. So we just won our fourth national championship in women's lacrosse, our 23rd national championship in women's soccer. And we're not going to be able to compete at that level in as many sports without football being really successful. And again, that's not just a calculation we've made at Carolina. You look across the division one landscape and you'll see every school trying to figure out how to invest more money in football. And I think what's different about Carolina is not that we're investing in football, but that we're trying to use our investment in football to support so many other sports at such a high level. In terms of where we are this season, we're two and three. Obviously, everybody wants to be undefeated, but as I said the other day, it's not the kind of thing you judge after a few games or even after one season. You know, if we had hired somebody else and we were two and three, everybody would be saying, "Hey, man, you could have had Bill Belichick. What are you doing?" So we'll see how the rest of the season goes. We're optimistic about the game here tonight against Cal. I have to say there was so much unhappiness with him specifically again, because I think it's a personality issue. He's a little bit aloof in ways, or at least he was perceived that way in Cleveland, just because it's much in the news. One more question here. You know, local outlet had published an investigation last week that included accounts from players, parents, coaches, administrators. Everyone describing this as dysfunction. I understand how these things sort of become a movement, but I'm just wondering there seem to be serious allegations inside the program. And I'm wondering if you're planning to do anything to address it, or you want to kind of see it play out? Again, we don't make these decisions based on a couple of news stories. I will say that the coach Belichick, in my view, has done a really good job integrating with our campus. So he shows up at other teams, games, other sports. I know the other coaches have really enjoyed having a legendary football coach on campus and having the opportunity to work with him and learn from him. He does things like send pizzas out to all the fraternities on a Saturday night. You know, Coach Belichick grew up on a college campus. His father was the coach at Navy, virtually his entire career, having earlier had stops at Vanderbilt and at Carolina when Coach Belichick was very young. So he knows what a college campus is all about. I think he enjoys being on a college campus. And we're going to continue to stay the course with our football program. Well, I wish you a lot of luck, although not tonight, because I have got a roof for Cal. But Chancellor, I also just wanted to ask you because it was, you know, very public at the time. When you stepped into this role a year ago, it was reported that more than 900 students signed a statement in the Daily Tar Heel saying they wouldn't recognize you as chancellor. They called your appointment a coronation, not a search. They said it was political. Can you take me back to when you first learned about that statement, how you received that message and what went through your mind? Well, first of all, I don't think it was 900 students. I think it was 900 people, regardless of whether they were students, faculty, staff, or just people in the world who signed an online petition. I don't think there was any qualification there. But look, I was appointed interim chancellor in January of 2024. A search committee process was run that included faculty, staff, students, deans. It was chaired by the head of our medical school. It included the faculty chair. They ran a broad search process. And I was fortunate enough to be chosen as the permanent chancellor, the full-time chancellor, as a result of that. I haven't heard anybody say that that process didn't include a broad representation of constituencies from around the university. And it included a lot of really well-respected professionals from across our community who I don't think feel as though they answered anybody besides their own conscience. So I feel as though we're off to a really good start here at Carolina. There are a lot of excellent things going on. And we're going to try to make Carolina the number one public university in America. One last question, Chancellor, and thanks again for your time today. The statement focused heavily on your lack of higher education administration experience specifically, noting that among the top of 50 universities, you're the only leader without that background. Do you think that criticism is at all fair? What would you say to students who question whether somebody without traditional academic credentials can effectively lead a university? Is this a new model? I don't know if it's a new model or not. But I would say that no matter what your background was before you came into a job like this, you would have a lot to learn. I obviously have a lot to learn about the academic side of what happens at Carolina. And I leaned heavily on our Provost and our 15 world class deans. But if you were a Provost before him, which is a very common path to being a Chancellor or a President, you would have had no exposure to any of the business or finance or budgetary or political or operational or real estate sides of the university, which are a crucial part of the role. And so I think almost no matter what you did previously before coming into a job like this, there would be a learning curve. I continue to try and learn as much as I can every day. Well listen, it's a pleasure meeting you. Thank you for making time again for this today. Thanks again for having me. The Strictly VC Download podcast is hosted by TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos and me, Alex Gove of Strictly VC. Strictly VC Download is produced by Maggie Nye with editing assistance by Teresa Lankensolo and Kel. Thanks for listening. We'll see you back here next week.