OUR OPINION: The panel’s activities have been obscured and made inaccessible to students — the people who will see the effects of any policy changes.

Five months after the hate speech found in the Free Expression Tunnel following the presidential election that sparked its creation, the UNC Hate Crimes Panel released its final report.

As the incident occured at N.C. State in the Free Expression Tunnel, the University should have strong representation on the panel.

Yet the main voice for the University on the commission is alumnus Geoffrey Hunter. And the panel’s recommendations were vague and claimed reforms regarding hate crime were beyond its ability to evaluate, advocating for a presidential task force to analyze and establish best practices for building strong, appropriate and effective campus cultures.

This is a hot-button issue, and students are entitled to hear the full details of the panel’s recommendations, as they are the ones who will feel the effects of any changes to codes of conduct. The panel needs to release more than just token information, regardless of Bowles’ final approval.

Future precedings should also be as transparent and open to input to reflect student opinions, as potential policy changes will have a direct influence on them.

The final report summary also hinted at potential reform of diversity and campus environment education on campuses in the UNC system. While such changes may be beyond the scope and power of the Hate Crimes Panel to advise on, they are worthy of the input of current and prospective students.

Failing this, the chancellors at UNC schools need to be as accessible as possible in soliciting input from students. Since chancellors attend Board of Governors meetings, they need to represent students, particularly as the next meeting is May 8, when many students are either taking exams or leaving for the summer. And the hate speech policy should be the primary focus of the meeting — mandatory hard-waiver health insurance for students is also on the agenda. The chancellor should urge the board to delay discussion until the hate crime debate is settled.

If students are busy or not in the area, then the chancellormust be their voice. In order to accurately reflect that voice, the chancellor must give students every opportunity to provide feedback. Setting up town hall meetings for students to voice their opinions to the chancellor would provide a direct, effective way of getting student opinions to the person who will be representing the University at the Board of Governors meeting.

Regardless, the debate over hate speech policy on campus attracted too much attention to be buried away in a few press releases. The Hate Crimes Panel, chancellors and Board of Governors members need to give students as much information as possible and make themselves available to hear feedback if they hope to see an honest, transparent consensus on hate crimes policy.