Several years ago, the University of North Carolina began a program called “Arts Everywhere.” Has it made the campus more lovely and the students more appreciative of the fine arts?

In today’s Martin Center article, UNC student Magdalene Horzempa casts a critical eye on the program. It costs plenty of money — this year’s budget is $547,000 — but is heavily loaded with leftist politics and has been used by the university’s administration to distract attention from serious problems such as the big athletics scandal.

She writes:

On the surface, Arts Everywhere makes “the arts a fundamental part of the University culture and daily campus life.” But in reality, Arts Everywhere is another way for the institution to subtly virtue-signal its ‘progressive values’ while diverting attention from real issues. Increasing students’ exposure to and appreciation of the fine arts is incidental at best.

For one thing, Arts Everywhere ladles money into political activism masquerading as art. It’s a way of taking money from taxpayers and giving it to left-wingers who use art to spread their views.

As for its use as a diversion, Horzempa writes:

Perhaps as damage control, Arts Everywhere partnered with UNC athletics to make a video portraying a positive image of college sports. The first video came out March 2017 and featured UNC track and field athletes displaying their talent along with their appreciation for the arts.

That seems more like corporate-PR stuff after some business disaster than an appropriate use of university resources.

I like Horzempa’s conclusion:

As a school known for its struggles with academic integrity and liberal bias, Arts Everywhere allows administrators to rehabilitate the university’s public image (as well as virtue-signal and raise more funds) while diverting attention from the real issues the campus faces, such as a lack of intellectual diversity. Hopefully, UNC-Chapel Hill’s future leaders will not seek to skirt public shame by investing resources in superficial—and often politicized—initiatives. Instead, they could re-invest those funds in shoring up existing programs and teaching students how to think instead of what to think.