Is Health a Priority?

Summer, 2022. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stands as a beacon of discovery and service in the Research Triangle Park. Students from Robeson County Early College explore environmental science under the direction of Dr. Coleman. When the students attempted to test the purity of water fixtures on campus they found something alarming.

High concentrations of lead, above all limits set by the government and various environmental and healthcare organizations for safe drinking water, set off a massive testing process coordinated by UNC Faculty, EHS (Environmental Health and Safety) and third party corporations. (1) Lead in high concentrations is deadly to the human body as it impairs memory, kidney function, nerve signals, muscle function, and brain development. (2) That is why in 1991, the US Government passed the Lead and Copper Rule, instructing institutions to put in place systems reducing corrosion in pipes and fixtures and establishing a 0 ppm MCL (maximum contaminant level) for lead as well as a 15 ppb action level. These guidelines suggest that water in all fixtures throughout the US should have 0 ppb lead and that if over 15 ppb of lead is detected, the organization responsible for the water should take immediate action. High lead levels on UNC’s campus are all the more worrying considering UNC is one of the world’s preeminent research universities, home to the current #1 pharmacy school (Eshelman), #2 public health school (Gillings), and #25 medical school for research in the United States. (3,4) In total, approximately 146 UNC buildings had detectable levels of lead with 29 buildings having lead levels exceeding the Action Level. (5)

This “health scare” raises two important questions about the role of institutions in prioritizing health. How do students and faculty hold an institution responsible for a perceived “health scare”? Additionally, how do universities work proactively so that scares such as these do not happen? In this article, I use the term “health scare” to refer to any perceived or actual health threat felt by members of an institution which can be in some part reduced or prevented by the institution itself.

Now there are two sides of this issue, before the “health scare” arises and after it occurs. I argue that the catalyst for “health scares” is most often budget mismanagement. UNC is suffering from a maintenance backlog issue; as the oldest public university, UNC has structures built in the 18th and 19th centuries with minimal refurbishment over the many decades since their construction. UNC has a maintenance backlog of roughly $1.1 billion with $357 million required for HVAC, $82 million for plumbing, $70 million for fire protections, and $47 for elevator and lift maintenance. (6)

So why is this an issue to begin with? UNC receives billions of dollars of funding every year from donors, the government, and from external organizations. So how does UNC administration prioritize what gets fixed and when? I argue that institutions refuse to change what already exists insofar as it does not pose a pressing issue.

UNC is well known for its community outreach efforts in the Research Triangle and broader North Carolina, research in the humanities, medical, and applied sciences, hospitals serving thousands of patients, and D1 sports teams (most famously its men’s basketball team that has accumulated 6 NCAA wins). Each of these “involvements” require extensive funding and thus, the university allocates more funding to aspects that affect the institution’s reputation and progress. Billions of dollars of funding are allocated towards sports teams and research institutes yet with slightly increased annual funding the university could have saved money and ensured that this lead “health scare” did not happen.

As a state university, funding is allocated for specific purposes by the government. Maintenance funding in particular comes from the General Assembly and from special State Appropriations. (7)

Most of UNC’s maintenance backlog is for architectural restoration, fixing old buildings that have fallen into disrepair. Plumbing also represents a significant (7.35%) portion of deferred maintenance. (8) While this issue does not wholly fall on the university, more steps could have been taken to prevent the scare; funding should have been allocated more effectively by the North Carolina government and by upper leadership at UNC. The government must decide whether to prioritize their state’s reputation as a leader in academic research and collegiate sports or the health of students and faculty.

After a “health scare” arises, institutions must take all necessary steps to resolve actual and perceived threats. In specific, institutions must communicate when an issue arises, identify steps to solve the issue, and share information about safeguards in place to prevent the issue from happening again. While UNC as an institution did in part allow a lead level spike in campus water sources, the university took many steps to resolve the issue, including testing every water source at the time of the crisis, announcing repeated testing every few years, publicly reporting test results, and providing free blood tests to affected individuals. (9)

Brandeis University experienced a similar lead contamination issue as UNC; when conducting routine tests of water fixtures, university staff identified lead contamination which had likely been the result of water stagnation in metal fixtures during the COVID pandemic when the university was operating remotely. (10) Lead contamination was found specifically in the Brown (Social Sciences) and Edison-Lecks (Science) buildings. Not only were faculty and staff given minimal warning about fixture closures with no substitute water sources, but the university also did not provide clear communication about when and which faucets tested positive or how repairs would be structured. This scenario raises further questions: do we hold Brandeis, the institution, responsible for lead in their water? Regardless, are they at least responsible for communicating results and future plans to students?

A university is a place of learning and exploration. However, the prerequisite for academic, extracurricular, and sports achievement is the health of students, faculty, and staff. Universities must thus build healthcare and preventative health measures into the annual budget.

Sometimes, events may occur out of an institution’s control that harm the health of those within the institution; in this circumstance, leaders of the institution must communicate promptly, indicating what the danger is, who is affected, and how the institution itself will take action. Universities must ensure that faculty continue to work and students continue to apply and enroll in the institution for long term success. Thus, a university’s long term health is tied with that of those who work within it; we must therefore ensure that universities adequately prepare for health threats and coordinate a prompt and effective response with other organizations to ensure needs are met. By creating a culture of wellness and making health a top priority, universities can foster a more supportive and sustainable environment for all members of their community.