Skip to main content

Weil Speaker Judy Woodruff on ‘America at the Crossroads’

March 12, 2024 | Kristen Chavez

Judy Woodruff at the PBS News Hour desk.

In advance of the 2024 Weil Lecture on March 25, Director Patricia Parker conducts a phone interview with speaker Judy Woodruff. During her lecture, Woodruff will speak on her reporting project, Judy Woodruff Presents: America at a Crossroads.  In this podcast, Director Parker asks Woodruff about her distinguished career in journalism, the inspirations for the project, and the divisions and conversations she witnesses throughout it.

Attend the Weil Lecture for American Citizenship, hosted by the Institute for the Arts and Humanities, on the UNC campus on March 25. RSVP at


Listen or subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.





Kristen Chavez: Welcome to the Institute, a podcast in the lives and works of Fellows and friends of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In today’s episode, IAH Director Patricia Parker speaks with Judy Woodruff, the former anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour. On March 25th, 2024, Woodruff will deliver the Weil Lecture on American Citizenship, an event hosted by the Institute for the Arts and Humanities.

Today, she joins Director Parker over the phone in a conversation about her current project, “Judy Woodruff Presents: America at a Crossroads,” in a preview of what will be an enlightening lecture on March 25.


Patricia Parker: It is such an honor to be able to speak with you and we look forward to welcoming you here in March to deliver the Weil Lecture, which is one of the oldest lectures on campus, really. And I just want to let you know how influenced I was by your work and also your work alongside Gwen Iffil, who was a role model for me as a Black woman in those days when there weren’t that many Black women, professional women on camera, and there she was. And then I know that you had such reverence for her as well.

JW: I did. And I mean, she was a role model for me as well, even though I was older than she was. I always looked up to Gwen because she set such an incredible example for everyone in journalism.

PP: Yes, and you’re carrying on that legacy of having impact, which is what she had. You’ve had this distinguished career from being at NBC, CNN, and of course, then the PBS NewsHour co-anchoring with Gwen, and then of course, anchoring. But now you’ve stepped away, and you’ve taken on this project, America at the Crossroads. So we’ll spend most of our time talking about that, especially since that will be your topic when you’re on campus. Can you tell me what inspired you to launch this project?

JW: Yes. What happened was, as I began to think about what I wanted to do, once I knew I was going to be stepping away from the anchor desk at the end of 2022. That was something I had planned for quite some time. And I knew I was – while I was doing that, I was not in any way ready to stop reporting and working. And I thought about, you know, what is it that, to me would be the most valuable thing to work on, the most worthwhile. And it hit me immediately in the face. And that was, that as someone who’s covered American politics for five decades, I’ve never seen the country as divided as it is right now.

And I know people say, well, there was the war in Vietnam, Americans were divided over that. Certainly through the Civil Rights Movement, and both of both the historic Civil Rights Movement in the ’60s and everything that’s evolved since then. Certainly the debates we’ve had over immigration, and so on.

There is something about this moment when Americans are not just in disagreement, but we are emotionally, I think, at odds. People have darker views of people on the other side. And this is borne out by polls that have been done and research, academic research, looking at, you know, why is it that Americans today are not only having a different view from one another, but think worse of each other?

I mean, I’ll just give you an example. And I didn’t know this at the time, but when I started this project, the first place we went into the Pew Research Center here in D.C. They do incredible, they just do respected research on all manner of public opinion. And the finding that struck me finding, the most was what they learned when they asked Republicans and Democrats what they thought about people in the other party. Whereas, I think it was in 2016, just seven years ago, I think 40% — I don’t have this number correct, I need to go back and check it — of Republicans thought Democrats were dishonest or immoral. Today, that number is in the 70s, 70%. It shot up. And it’s gone up as well, not as much, but it’s gone up as well among Democrats in their view of Republicans. And that’s just one small example.

But what we found and what we’ve seen in talking to researchers and writers and thinkers, academics, is that there is a sort of a personalization of politics today. And that’s what drove me. And even without understanding it, I just knew from covering politics that I’d never seen attitudes as hardened and the rhetoric as ugly and the language people were using to refer to other people they disagree with. It was clear to me that there was something different. So I thought, this is something that I could spend the next two years on 2023-2024. And so I came up with a proposal for the NewsHour, fortunately, they thought it was a good idea too. They gave me the green light. And here we are.

PP: Yes. Well, well, we’re grateful for that. And I’ve watched some of the episodes, and it’s just fascinating work. And so you’re almost a year in. What do you hope that people will learn from the series? We’ll come back to, you know, your impetus of launching it because I want to dig more deeply into some of that. But for now, what do you hope people will learn from the series? And what impact do you hope the series will have?

JW: Well, what I hope people will come away with is a better understanding of how Americans think about politics, and how they think about people who disagree with them. I want to illuminate exactly what is this divide? And why is it so sharp? And why is it so personal? And anything I think we can do to shed light on that so that — I think you can’t do something about it, presuming that we do want to have it ease up. We can’t do something about it unless we understand it. And so I think this reporting project is primarily about shining a light on it, going in different parts of the country. We’ve been to one over a dozen states in the past year — more than that, I’ve lost count. And we’re planning to go to at least that many this year. You know, and to try to show as many different examples of it, talk to people in different communities and cities and rural areas, suburban areas, and just to get them to explain themselves, and express their views, so that people can hear this, and then try to get to the bottom of you know, how people have come to these conclusions.

And I think often just by listening to the other side, we learn. But you know, people — I’ll tell you Pat — people have said to me, well, at the end of the two years, are you going to have a solution? You know, are you going to be able to tell us what we need to do to get beyond this? And I wish that were the case. But I think this is something that is deeper than that. And I think it’s going to take some time to work its way through the system.

PP: You may not be able to get to a solution. But I’m really curious about the approach you’re taking, that will get us somewhere. As you say that you want to, you know, part of what you’re doing is shining a light, creating the spaces for people to do this deep lit listening.

And in full transparency, you’re tapping into approach that I use in my own research. I study community engagement, following the wonderful example of the human and civil rights activist, Ella Baker. And one of the things I came away with from studying her work is that she did this kind of critical listening – what I call radical listening, because it really was this way of listening to the silence. And sometimes you learn from what people aren’t saying. But at any rate, it seems like what you’re doing is creating these spaces for people to see each other and to have these opportunities for meaningful interaction.

And so I guess, I wonder if there’s something that appealed to you about that approach in terms of doing this work. I mean, perhaps there could have been other ways. But what appealed to you about this particular approach for doing this reporting?

JW: You mean about going out and listening?

PP: Going out and listening. And I might add, and I want to come back to this later. But as I’ve listened to them – again, I’m a communication scholar and I’m looking for interventions into communication problems. That’s part of what I do. And you’ve called several really impactful – it seems like you’re collecting several interventions. I’m thinking of one your recent ones at American University, ‘Disagree with a Professor’ series. There was the Heineken example.

JW: Yeah.

PP: So to me, you have a very identifiable approach to this work that I think scholars can learn from. And I’m learning from them. So what drew you to that, going around and having this particular approach?

JW: It’s such an interesting question. I don’t think anybody’s asked me that before. I think it all stems from my work as a reporter. It’s what I’ve done since I first got out of school, out of college. I started reporting in 1970. Actually, I was a year and a half out of college. My first job was as a newsroom secretary, of course. But after that, when I first started reporting.

I mean, I’ve always had a lot of curiosity. I will tell you that. I was raised as a military brat, my father was in the army, we lived around the world. I was born in Oklahoma, but we lived in Germany and Taiwan, and a number of army bases around the United States, then went to high school and Georgia, college in North Carolina, worked in Atlanta and now Washington. So I’ve lived in a lot of places, I’ve traveled a lot. I’ve always been very curious. I can never stop asking questions. And maybe that’s just in the DNA of every reporter. But I know for me, it’s one of the driving things inside of me.

And so for me, it was it was completely natural. It’s natural, it’s in my DNA. But it is also, I think, something that we don’t hear enough of. We’ve gotten to a point – and maybe it’s social media, it’s you know, what media today looks like – I don’t think we do enough listening. We draw conclusions quickly. We have to move on, you know, we hear something and then we move on to the next story or the next item or the next crisis. And we don’t pause and hear and think. And I think we can’t do enough of that. And I also think that we’re never going to get to a place where we can begin to move through this current divide, and this polarization and address it somehow and take the edge off of it unless we listen, unless we hear. And I know I’m repeating myself, I think I said a version of this a moment ago.

But unless we listen, and we at least soak in for a moment, and try to understand what other people are saying and why they’re saying it. And why they believe it, doesn’t mean we agree with them. It doesn’t mean we could even imagine that we would have that point of view. But at least we can listen to someone and say, ‘oh, okay, well, here’s what they think. And that’s what they base it on. And that may not be what I think and it could be the farthest thing from my own interpretation. But at least I see what they’re saying.’

PP: Yes.

JW: Now, does that mean we’re going to fix it all? No. But at least maybe we move closer toward respecting other people’s views. And I don’t want to say that’s my goal. You know, my goal as a reporter is to report. It’s not to come up with solutions. But in this case, I mean, I would love to think that this in any way contributed to our thinking about this polarization and how we get to the other side of it.

PP: Yes, yes. Well, I appreciate how you’ve gone in depth to talk about your approach and talk about how important listening is. And you’re not repeating yourself at all, because you gave more detail, which is related to, as I mentioned a particular way of thinking about communication in context. Again, I’m a communication scholar, and we teach this approach, right, which is related to creating spaces for people to hear themselves think and then to be able to deliberate and as you say, not to necessarily come to the other person’s perspective — although that happens, sometimes when we slow down and start to think — but having that space. So it seems like you’re creating this, what I understand is sort of a container for civil discourse.

And this is certainly an important topic right now for our campus at UNC-Chapel Hill. Surely you’ve read a bit about some of the movement that’s happening around free speech?

JW: Yes.

PP: And certainly the Oct. 7 attack by the Hamas and Israel’s response that has come more even more to the to the forefront. So I guess I wonder what you think you’re learning what we might learn from your, your work about, you know, the struggle to work constructively across differences, particularly in the context of college campuses, and you’ve visited a couple of college campuses. So what can you tell us about what you’re learning there?

JW: For sure. We did visit four college campuses in working on a piece that we did in the fall, looking at both academic freedom and the whole debate over free expression on college campuses. And coincidentally, that piece aired just before the October 7, or maybe it was two days after, but we had done all of our reporting and writing and put the whole piece together. And just I think it was two days, or one day, right before it happened. I’ve got to go back and look at the date that we aired it. It happened too late, in other words for us to include incorporate in our reporting.

What happened on college campuses after the attack on Israel, was allowed — trying to think of the right word for this – it screamed the problem that we were trying to highlight. Which is that colleges across this country, almost every one of them. In fact, I think it’s safe for me to say every one, even though I haven’t been on every campus — is struggling with how to address this question of free expression. Because what one person thinks is, should be allowed, is not going to be what everybody else thinks should be allowed. And, you know, how far can we go and what we allow in the way of free speech? College is supposed to be a place where we go to learn, we hear different points of view, we learn about and hear about things we’ve never heard of before. And never maybe even never thought we would, or things that are just totally objectionable to us. But we learned that they exist. And we learn how to think about them.

Having said that, should there be a limit? I mean, should people be able to go on campus and say things that are racist or that are pro-Nazi? And these are legitimate debates that we should be having. Some campuses and some institutions are going to say under no circumstances. And others are going to say, ‘well, you know, it’s part of the learning process. And, you know, let people have their say.’ And as you know, the courts have addressed this that has not helped resolve it, you know, what can’t, what happens on college campuses? But it is, I think, one of the symbols of the time we live in, that we are having this debate now about what is okay to say out loud? What is okay? What constitutes free expression? And what and what is just too much? And then should it go as far as you know, yelling fire in a crowded theater? Or is it somewhere short of that? And so I’ve heard, I’ve heard arguments across the spectrum. I wouldn’t presume to say that I have the final answer on what’s right for every campus. I watched, what happened the day those four college presidents appeared before that House of Representatives committee.

PP: Yes.

JW: And struggled with it. And we continue to struggle with it. I will say this, that I think it’s healthy that we’re having these debates. We shouldn’t try to smother them, or try to brush everything under the rug. I think we ought to have these discussions, we ought to let students say what’s on their mind, let professors and others say what’s on their mind and then respect the views of the majority. But then you have to decide okay, but what can we let the minority say. If 98% of the campus, you know, doesn’t want Nazis, a pro-Nazi opinion to be expressed — you know, what does that mean? I mean, what else should be considered off limits?

But I think you know, we should be having these discussions and rules should be set in a democratic fashion. That is a system of government we all ascribe too. And we should decide how we’re going to go forward. But I I’m one who thinks it’s healthy. I just think it’s incredibly unfortunate and tragic the way it’s unfolded, you know, with the attack on Israel, and now the war in Gaza.

PP: Yes.

JW: And the strong feelings people have about the Palestinians and the Israelis, and it’s just painful. It’s painful to watch.

PP: Well, I’m with you there. And, you know, that takes us back to something that you said at the beginning, when you were referencing the Pew study, that people are emotionally at odds and the fact that people think worse of each other and, you know, add to the mix the incredible events that are happening right now. I mean, it seems like that’s getting exacerbated. And so given that – and thank you for that wonderful response earlier with regard to the college campuses, and kind of bringing that, so I want to bring this all together – coming back to your project. It seems like you are taking this interdisciplinary approach — our conversation so far, you’ve laid out all these complexities, from the emotionality to add to the legal aspects. And so you’re engaging with, it seems like when you go to these different places, you try to engage with historians, legal scholars, and so forth. Can you talk more about that, and why that’s important to thinking about these complex problems?

JW: Sure, because you’re right. I mean, the initial the genesis of this was to get out and listen to voters, listen to American citizens, and talk to them about what they think and why they care so deeply, or why their views, why they hold the views that they do, what they think about people on the other side, and so on. But we also wanted very much to hear from people who studied all this: academics, or writers, thinkers.

And, for example, we’ve done solo interviews, I sat down and did a solo interview early on with Ted Johnson, who is a former Navy commander who retired from the Navy, did some more graduate work and is now a columnist for the Washington Post, a writer. Someone who has is thinking very hard about, you know, where we are with regard to race in America. And I mean, he’s read voraciously. He writes beautifully, brilliantly. I don’t know if you’re familiar with his work.

But he, I think, for me, helped me understand so much of the connection between what is going on today with regard to race attitudes, and American history and how relevant that is. He talks about raising three sons growing up as Black teenagers in the in the 2010s. I guess, yeah, the 2010s and the 2020s. And what it’s like for them and how he tries to talk to them about the history of the Black experience in the United States. I mean, he just brings a whole other level of understanding. And so talking to people like Ted Johnson, talking to people like Heather Cox Richardson, you know, who was a historian at Boston College who writes us daily Substack. Is it Letters to an American or from an American? Yes,

PP: Yes, I subscribe to that. Yes,

JW: Yeah, she was phenomenal. And then the retired federal judge, Mike Luttig, the respected conservative, who everyone looks to for his judicial opinions. Being able to sit down with him and have him have him analyze where we are with regard to our democracy given everything that’s gone on. And, and a couple of others. For me to be able to talk to these folks, in addition to being able to sit down with, as I said, ordinary people, going into different communities as we did. Canadian, Texas. Tulsa, Oklahoma. Milwaukee and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Rural Meadville, Pennsylvania in the northwestern part of Pennsylvania. We’ve been to Mississippi, looking at their news desert. We’ve looked, as you know, we looked at the absence of local news, which contributes to polarization because people don’t know what’s going on in their own communities. They then tend to watch national news, which is, as it turns out, is more polarizing in the way it’s presented than what people see locally or what they would otherwise read. And then just social media. I mean, there’s so many different aspects of this that we still haven’t had a chance to look at. But this is my long-winded answer way of saying that, yes, in addition to quote, “ordinary Americans,” I wanted to speak with people who’ve done a lot of thinking and writing and scholarly work on this research.

PP:  Yes. And certainly appreciate that. We just have a few more questions, and then we’re going to ask what I think are fun questions.

You’re going to be here on March 25, to deliver the Weil Lecture. Do you see that as an opportunity to advance the work you’re doing? I don’t know how much other speaking engagements you’re taking on in addition to this reporting that you’re doing. How might you see your visit to our campus as an opportunity to advance the work you’re doing?

JW: I prepare a speech or a lecture like this, it forces me, it makes me pull my thoughts together and into some sort of coherent form. And that’s useful for me and my work. I mean, as I go along, like, you know, like most reporters, I just keep an endless collection of notes, information, and it just all piles up. And I think what’s helpful to me occasionally is when I’m asked to speak about it, and especially in this format, where I’m asked to deliver a formal lecture, it causes me to sit down and spend some time thinking hard about what we’re learning and pulling it together in some sort of coherent whole. I don’t want to pretend that I’ve got some sort of wisdom that nobody else has. But it’s useful for me in the in that way. If that makes sense.

PP: It does. I appreciate that. Last things I want to ask you about your project is – and maybe you might think about this, as you’re pulling together your thoughts for the for the lecture. What gives you hope, from all the stories that you’re hearing? I mean, I know that you’ve sort of talked about, you know, talking to some of the folks, like Johnson and Heather Cox, and so forth. But is there anything that gives you hope that these divisions can be bridged? Including the ones on college campuses?

JW: What I say to that question is that I have to have hope in the American people. When I think of what this country has been through, when you contrast where we are in the United States, with the rest of the world, and for all the challenges we face right now. And certainly we do face them, on the international, the global stage, and certainly domestically, here at home. There’s a long list of challenges we face as a country.

But we are a country and a people who keep moving forward. We tackle our challenges, we talk openly about our problems, sometimes I think, more than more than any other place on the planet – we air our dirty laundry, and we talk about things that are that are a problem. I mean, to a point of you know, some people think it’s damaging. But I’m a believer in transparency. I don’t think you solve problems unless you air them. And you get them out there, and you talk about them, and you work your way through.

In a way, it’s the beauty of the human condition. And there’s just, you know, we all have to say, there’s just something about United States of America, its place in the world. I mean, we are a relatively new country. But we’ve already dealt with a whole lot of adversity. We’ve been through two World Wars, fought our own Civil War, got through that somehow. We’re still facing all these other issues. But we just keep trying to do better. We keep trying. And we’ve surely failed at a number of things.

But I do have ultimate hope in the American people. I think, ultimately, the American people will work our way through it. Does it mean I agree with everything we’re doing or that I think, you know, everybody’s trying to do the right thing? No. I mean, we’re all flawed. We’re all human. But I think collectively, and given our system of government, I think our forefathers, the Founding Fathers were pretty brilliant in the way they wrote the Constitution and created a system of government we have which, as you well know, — is it what Winston Churchill said, ‘ it’s the worst form of government on Earth except for all the others.’

And so we very painfully work our way through these through these crises, and it is painful. But I have to believe in that, because other why’s it’s just such a dark and sad outlook. And that’s not who I am. I mean, I’m somebody who just has to believe in that we’re going to keep doing better. We’ve got to get to a better place. Because I care about my children. I have one grandchild, who is six.

PP: Congratulations.

JW: Yeah, I have to be positive for them. I because I do think Americans — we are the place where people are just never satisfied. We just keep trying. We keep trying to work through. We do have our traditions, but we don’t always let them you know, hold us back. And I think we have to find a way through this.

PP: Yes. Well, we could end our podcasts there. Except I have three questions I asked him of all our interviewees, I’m about to ask that. But I really appreciate that and that response.

So here’s the last three questions. So what would listeners be surprised to hear is your greatest accomplishment?

JW: Oh, gosh, I’m terrible at coming up with something like. That’s for others to say. I mean, I would like to believe that the thing that I’m going to care about the most, when I take my last breath is, ‘was I a good mother and a good wife, and a good citizen?’ Hopefully I did some good journalism. You know, it’s pretty basic. There’s nothing that I would point to in particular. I mean, I’m certainly proud of my long association with the NewsHour, it’s been 27 years and climbing, and having the incredible opportunity to anchor the program for as long as I did. And to work with an amazing team of journalists. Wow, have I have been lucky.

PP: Well, we’ve been lucky to have you in those in those roles, for sure. What was your favorite undergraduate or graduate course. We always ask that since we’re on a college campus. If you remember, any classes in particular that stood out in terms of undergraduate or graduate study?

JW: Well, I loved I mean, I love political science. I started out in math, I will tell you.

PP: Oh, wow, that’s surprising.

I didn’t have a didn’t have a great experience freshman year math at Meredith College. I’ve told this story a number of times. I had an instructor who, frankly didn’t think—and Meredith was woman’s college — didn’t really think women should be taking calculus. And so, I didn’t get a lot of encouragement or help from him, unfortunately. But simultaneously, I was taking a course in political science my freshman year, and the professor was just amazing. It was like, you’d go in there and I mean, she’d be on fire talking about some issue or some aspect of whatever we were studying, and I fell in love with political science. And then two years later, I transferred to Duke and I have to say– I mean, so I had that course at Meredith. Her name was…. Goodness, Judy. I know I know her name. I’ll think of it in just a second. I’ll tell you when I finished the answer.

PP: Okay. [laughs]

JW: And then I transferred to Duke at the end of sophomore year. I would say the two courses that made the most difference for me were two political science courses I took under Allan Kornberg and David Paletz. You know, they were all about understanding… Paletz’s course was all about understanding American politics and the relationship with a voter. And why politics matters, I mean, it’s at its basic. I don’t remember what the title of the course was. And he was such a phenomenal teacher. And then Alan Kornberg taught a course in politics and mass communication, which, what I didn’t realize at the time, it foretold my interest later and going into journalism. Journalism was not on my radar then. I didn’t even think about it until I was just about graduated. And I’m drawing up a blank. I am so embarrassed, I know the Meredith–

PP: I mean, so many people don’t remember their, their undergraduate teachers and the fact that you remembered from Meredith, your days at Meredith. And I have to tell you, there are lots of people who are so looking forward, friends of yours who are looking forward to your visit back to North Carolina. You’ve got some great, obviously great fans all over the world, but here in North Carolina, there are some folks who have been trying to vie for your time, and so I can tell you more about that later.

JW: Well, I’m so excited.

PP: Oh, good.

JW: Oh, it’s Carol. Okay, I just remembered! Something you said triggered it. It’s Carolyn Happer. Carolyn Murray, I think she was at the time, and she became Happer. In any event that was the freshman, political science.

PP: Freshman political science at Meredith College.

You know, all of your stories that you just told about your time at college, I think, are timeless in that every student who’s at a college campus is looking for that teacher who impacts them. And you know, you can come away saying that there are great teachers, and we certainly have that at UNC-Chapel Hill. These are the folks that we support at the Institute for the Arts and Humanities. Our whole mission is to support our faculty, and so glad to hear you talk so fondly about your professors.

Last question: what is a book that changed your life?

JW: Oh, boy. And this is one that I also really wrestled with, because there’s no – it’s impossible. I wouldn’t be honest by saying it was one book.

I mean, clearly the Bible. I mean, you know, I was raised by Baptist and Methodist, Southern Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals, in my family, who took me to church. So the Bible was very much a part of growing up.

But I mean, I just think of a string of books growing up that made a difference, from Little Women to Great Expectations, Charles Dickens, and on and on. And then I think, more recently. I mean, I will confess so much of my reading now is current events. It’s who’s written the latest book about American politics. But in terms of changing my life, that’s a tough one. I just can’t point – I mean, there are books that have meant a lot to me. I read Barbara Kingsolver is Demon Copperhead. I don’t know if you’ve read that.

PP: I’ve been on avoiding it, actually, to be honest with you.

JW: Yeah, I know. I know. It’s, I’ve had people tell me, you got to read it. But just brace yourself.

PP: Yes, exactly.

JW: And I did read it. And anyway, so that’s one and you know, but there are so many others, Toni Morrison. I’m trying to think of one book. I wouldn’t be honest to say one book changed my life.

PP: And that’s okay.

JW: I mean, life is too diverse and too multifaceted for me to say that.

I’m on a crusade right now to try to go back and read some of the classics, you know, that I read in college, that I want to go back and read again. I don’t know that you, but I’ve all I’ve had that on my to do list for a long time.

PP: Yes, yes. I mean, I’m with you in terms of going back to read some of the classics, and to read in a wide variety of areas. And, you know, I think your response is fitting to the work that you’re doing it. It tracks with everything that you say that’s important to you. And in terms of the work you’re doing.

So just you know, thank you so much for this work really is impactful. And I for one am learning so much from your series. And we’re going to try to find a way to– we always try to engage with our speakers work prior to their coming to campus. So you can expect folks who will have watched your series and to be in attendance at your lecture. And yeah, we’re just looking forward to having you here, Judy.

JW: Well, thank you. Thank you. I am deeply honored by the invitation and very much looking forward to returning to Chapel Hill. I do have some good friends who live there and very close by and I’m looking forward to trying to see them when I’m there. But this is just a just a real treat.

PP: Well, thank you.

JW: As well as an honor.

PP: Well, the honor is all ours. And so thank you again for this time for the podcast. We look forward to meeting you and having you on campus. So thank you so much for joining us.

JW: Absolutely. Pat, thank you so much.

PP: I look forward to seeing you in person.

JW: Same here. Thank you so much.

KC: Thank you for listening to the Institute Podcast. Join us when Judy Woodruff delivers the Weil Lecture on American Citizenship on March, 25 2024, on the UNC-Chapel Hill Campus. You can find more information at our website, You can also learn more about our upcoming events, programs, grants and leadership opportunities for UNC-Chapel Hill faculty, and read stories that feature our arts and humanities fellows. Find new episodes of the institute podcast at our website, or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for joining us.





Original transcript generated by Otter, and edited by IAH staff.

Categories: IAH Podcast

Comments are closed.