Defending Education v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, et al.

North Carolinians pay taxes that benefit UNC, and have a right to see what UNC teaches. Defending Education is suing to enforce that right.

In October 2026, Defending Education requested the reading lists and course materials used in 29 courses during the Fall 2026 semester at UNC-Chapel Hill. State law makes clear that these records belong to the public, but UNC-Chapel Hill refused to produce the requested material. Instead, the university closed both requests and pointed to a website of stripped-down “simple” syllabi, which censor the very information Defending Education requested. Challenging the University’s attempt to stonewall legally mandated production, Defending Education sued the University on November 10, 2026, asking a North Carolina state court to order the university to turn over the disputed material.

According to the Lawsuit:

• Public records belong to taxpayers. North Carolina law says records made by state agencies are “the property of the people,” and that anyone may receive copies of those records for free or at minimal cost. This is no less so at UNC-Chapel Hill, a state agency subject to the same public records law.

• Although the records requests were narrow and straightforward, the University produced nothing. Defending Education asked for reading lists, reading assignments, and syllabi for specific named courses on October 16 and October 23, 2026, respectively, and offered to receive the requested records electronically. The university closed both requests within weeks, claiming that no records existed beyond those on a single, limited website.

• The university never sought clarification or raised an objection. UNC-Chapel Hill promised to ask for clarification if a request seemed broad or vague, but it never did. Nor did it cite any law permitting it to withhold the records that DE requested. Rather, it feigned compliance with its public records obligations by pointing DE to an online platform with “simple syllabi” that omit the material most germane to DE’s requests. UNC System rules, for example, tell professors to list reading materials on the “simple syllabus” only if students are required to buy the materials. Everything else, including reading materials provided directly by the professor, other free readings, handouts, and the day-to-day class schedule, is eliminated.

• The real course materials have moved out of public view. UNC tells professors to share anything beyond the simple syllabus through Canvas (a course management website), email, or printouts. Defending Education asked for exactly those records, but the university’s responses give no sign that it searched Canvas or asked a single instructor for the requested material. In fact, the UNC System adopted its “simple syllabus” practice after public interest groups began inquiring about particular course materials. But a “simple” summary is not a substitute for the actual records of the materials being used in UNC classrooms. And UNC-Chapel Hill’s choice to respond to DE’s requests with nothing more than a link to a skeletal syllabus appears to be part of a concerted, system-wide effort to avoid academic scrutiny. DE is suing to ensure transparency and protect the right of the taxpaying public in North Carolina to learn what its flagship university is teaching its students.

Defending Education has requested a court order requiring UNC-Chapel Hill to search for and produce the requested records—including those held on Canvas and with instructors. DE has also requested a formal declaration from the court that UNC-Chapel Hill has violated the North Carolina Public Records Act.