A University of North Carolina researcher was fired after three women made vague, non-sexual allegations against him — he&#8217;s <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LlHj13ag8ygtapJabsjoZX88PRneNTeO/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">now suing</a>, alleging that the university violated its own policies when firing him and provided him little to no chance to defend himself.
Christopher Wretman received his undergraduate, master&#8217;s, and doctorate from UNC and was hired as a senior data analyst for the university in 2017. His main job was research, but he also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the university’s School of Social Work. His work focused on the disadvantages of the young and old, and economic and social inequities.
While obtaining his doctorate, Wretman says he fell in love with faculty member Dr. Rebecca Macy, and the two have owned a home together since 2020. The school approved their relationship, and the two worked on research projects together once Wretman was hired by the university, his lawsuit says.
In 2020, Wretman, Macy, and others were working on a plan to develop a research center, and the university hired Jia Luo as a research program manager to work under Macy. This team also collaborated with other faculty and students at UNC, including doctoral student Sarah Godoy and former student Erin Meehan.
During the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement that year, the School of Social Work adopted policies to root out alleged inequalities, leading to what Wretman described as a “call-out-culture” advocating for the community to report any suspected discrimination. This, combined with universities already existing Title IX policies regarding sex discrimination, created a system where people could accuse others of indiscretion without having to provide evidence to back up their claims, almost always leading to punishment of the accused.
According to the court filing, in April 2021, Godoy, the doctoral student who occasionally worked with Wretman and Macy, told UNC’s associate dean for doctoral education that she had concerns about the way her superiors communicated with her, in particular, Wretman. The dean reported these concerns to the school’s Title IX office, but Wretman does not know the actual content of the allegations or how the report was handled.
In early May 2021, Wretman and Macy were first alerted to these concerns when they were invited to a meeting with the school’s Title IX director of compliance. In Wretman’s lawsuit, he says contemporaneous emails show his and Macy’s “communications and interactions with Godoy had been constructive and positive throughout their work together.”
When Wretman inquired about the nature of this meeting, he was told that if he refused to participate, the university would involve his superiors, pressuring him to attend.
In a separate meeting, Macy was told that Godoy was uncomfortable with the team’s close relationships and that she had claimed Wretman made inappropriate comments. Macy was told to restructure the research so that Godoy would no longer have to communicate with Wretman. Because of the information Macy was given, UNC violated its policy about keeping such matters private since the meetings concerned Wretman and not Macy. Conversely, Godoy’s allegations reportedly referred to the team’s communications, but Wretman, the only male on the team, was the university’s sole focus.
During his own meeting, Wretman was told he behaved poorly even though no investigation had been done and no evidence was presented to back up Godoy’s allegations. He says in his lawsuit that he was told “to comport himself more appropriately as a straight White male.” Other than that, he was told the issue was resolved.
Wretman and Macy then worked out a plan so that Godoy wouldn’t have to work with them but could keep her name on all research projects. Godoy indicated in an email that she agreed to this.
But later Godoy apparently had dinner with Luo, who had been hired as the team’s program manager. During this dinner, Wretman alleges that Godoy claimed she was removed from the research team as if it was against her will and not something she agreed to. After this dinner, even though she had never raised any concerns about the team before, Luo claimed to Macy that she had experienced anti-Asian hate while working with the team. She placed the blame on Wretman’s communication style, according to his lawsuit.
Luo also claimed that others had concerns about Wretman without offering details.
It was Macy who reported Luo’s concerns about herself, Wretman, and the rest of the team to the university.
According to the lawsuit, Macy told Wretman about all of this and suggested he step back from work activities to protect himself.
Luo also reached out to Macy requesting to work remotely for fear that Wretman would retaliate against her, providing no evidence that he would do so. She also claimed to be stressed due to trauma stemming from this alleged &#8220;anti-Asian violence.&#8221;
Several months later, a third allegation was made, this time by Meehan, the former student who collaborated with the research team. Macy was Meehan’s internship supervisor, and never raised any concerns with Macy about anyone on the team. Wretman says in his lawsuit that emails show his communications with Meehan were “constructive and positive throughout their work together.”
Wretman had provided a reference for Meehan to work at a non-profit organization after her internship ended, but after Luo made her allegations, he emailed Meehan rescinding his offer to help her get this new job. Wretman’s reason for doing so was that he was afraid of more allegations when trying to help female researchers.
Meehan would later make a report against Wretman to the university, but it is unknown what allegations she made.
Even though the allegations seem vague and thin on evidence, the school investigated the claims against Wretman and determined he was responsible and should be terminated. To get to that conclusion, Wretman says in his lawsuit that the school ignored its own policies, never informing him about the process, breaking deadlines, and allowing his accusers to discuss matters with other people. Further, the vague nature of Luo’s allegations shouldn’t have amounted to an abusive or hostile workplace (she alleged he was overly critical of her work and her in meetings and was passive-aggressive and condescending, though she apparently provided no evidence, according to Wretman).
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The school also decided to investigate Wretman for bullying based on Luo’s allegations and allowed her feelings to dictate Wretman’s guilt. The school, according to Wretman, provided no evidence that he had been vindictive or intended to intimidate or humiliate Luo.
While much of the information in Wretman’s lawsuit came from the school’s report on its investigation into him, he writes that the report lacks substantial information about how it justified its investigations and the evidence provided by the three women. The document, according to Wretman, provides “no documentation or information detailing a rationale that Meehan provided sufficient allegations or evidence of a University policy violation to warrant an investigation of Wretman.” He writes something similar about the allegations of the other two women.
Wretman alleges the school violated its Title IX policies and denied him due process, among other claims. He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

University of North Carolina

University Researcher Fired Based On Vague Allegations From 3 Women. Now He’s Suing.

University Researcher Fired Based On Vague Allegations From 3 Women. Now He's Suing.

Education

Title IX

U.S.

A University of North Carolina Chapel Hill physics professor who was found dead in his office in August had been shot seven times, a medical examiner said.
Zijie Yan, an associate professor in the Department of Applied Physical Sciences at the College of Arts and Sciences, had gunshot wounds to his head, face, neck, left arm, chest, and abdomen, as well as graze wounds to his right upper arm, left hand, and left forearm, ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/unc-chapel-hill-professor-killed-office-shot-7/story?id=103780698" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
Police were called to the scene on the afternoon of August 28, just one week into the fall semester, after someone called 911 to report gunshots at Caudill Labs. The caller also identified the alleged shooter, 34-year-old Tailei Qi, a graduate student. Yan was listed as Qi’s academic adviser.
Campus police quickly placed the school on lockdown as they conducted a brief search for Qi. He was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and misdemeanor possession of a gun on an education property. It is unknown why Qi allegedly shot Yan.
The gun used in the shooting has not been found.
An investigation report obtained by ABC showed mixed entry and exit wounds in Yan’s right hand, right bicep, left forearm, right neck area, with additional wounds to his face and forehead.
On September 19, Qi’s attorneys requested that he receive a competency evaluation. Qi responded by requesting new representation, ABC 11 <a href="https://abc11.com/unc-shooting-murder-tailei-qi-zijie-yan/13800127/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The judge overseeing the case told Qi at the hearing that he should follow the advice of his attorneys.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t want you to say anything else today. What I want you to know, is that you have two lawyers beside you who are willing to work for you and with you, and what they need from you is your cooperation and your help. Things will not go at the speed you want them to. Our court system does not work at any one person&#8217;s pace or interest,&#8221; the judge said.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Qi had repeatedly spoken up during the hearing.
Student newspaper The Daily Tar Heel <a href="https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2023/09/university-zijie-yan-professor-news-obituary-caudill-laboratories-applied-physical-sciences" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> statements from the campus community describing Yan as a “gentle” mentor and a good father.
&#8220;Because of how gentle he seemed, I could tell that he was probably a really good dad,&#8221; Bergen Murray, senior and member of Yan’s research group since she was a freshman, told the paper. She added that Yan was always “very, very patient” with her, even though she joined the group with little experience.
Monika Katarina, a postdoctoral research associate who also worked in Yan’s research group, told the outlet that the associate professor would sometimes bring his two young daughters to the lab, adding that his love for his daughters was obvious.
Yan was born in China and graduated from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology before he moved to the U.S. to pursue his Ph.D. from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 2011. He finished his doctoral studies at the University of Chicago in 2015 and became an assistant professor at Clarkson University before joining UNC in 2019, where he became tenured.

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

UNC Chapel Hill Physics Professor Found Dead In Office Was Shot 7 Times, Medical Examiner Says

Crime

Murder

Columbia Law School removed a questionable admission requirement for transfer students on Monday after <a href="https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-law-school-said-it-would-require-applicants-to-submit-video-statements-in-the-wake-of-affirmative-action-ban-then-it-backtracked/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Free Beacon</a> inquired that the application process appeared to have a portion used to bypass the U.S. Supreme Court ban on affirmative action.
Just before SCOTUS broke for recesses at the end of June, a landmark ruling from the court said race-based admissions programs at Harvard University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the University of North Carolina programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision now profoundly affects the admissions processes at universities across the country.
But despite the nation&#8217;s highest court eliminating universities&#8217; ability to accept applicants based on race, some have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/universities-react-to-scotus-affirmative-action-ruling-harvard-vows-to-find-loophole" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> that they would search for a loophole in the ruling.
On Monday morning, Columbia Law School&#8217;s admissions page reportedly said all transfer applicants must submit a 90-second video statement addressing random questions &#8220;to provide the Admissions Committee with additional insight into their personal strengths,&#8221; according to the Free Beacon.
But the video statements from transfer applicants only appeared on the law school&#8217;s website after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action policies.
Columbia&#8217;s decision &#8220;has all the hallmarks of a willful effort to evade the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,&#8221; Edward Blum, the founder of the nonprofit legal advocacy organization Students for Fair Admissions, told the Free Beacon. &#8220;What is a 90-second video supposed to legitimately convey that a written statement could not?&#8221;
Blum&#8217;s organization took the legal challenge to the nation&#8217;s highest court after accusing the so-called elite universities of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of rejected Asian American and white applicants. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Harvard and UNC.
Following the Free Beacon&#8217;s report, a law school spokesman claimed the application&#8217;s video statement component — which was first introduced before the Supreme Court ruling in a pilot program — had been a misunderstanding. By 6:00 p.m. on Monday, officials removed the portion from the school&#8217;s website.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Video statements will not be required as part of the Fall 2024 J.D. application when it becomes available in September,&#8221; the law school told the Free Beacon in a statement. &#8220;It was inadvertently listed on the Law School&#8217;s website and has since been corrected.&#8221;
Campus Reform, a watchdog group, reported that some colleges have drummed up other ways to inquire about a students&#8217; race, including Sarah Lawrence College in New York, which asks applicants how the SCOTUS ruling has personally affected them, according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/08/01/columbia-university-claims-video-requirement-on-application-was-an-accident/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Post</a>.
&nbsp;

Sumpreme Court Rules Affirmative Action Is Unconstitutional In Landmark Decision

Columbia Law School Removes Application Requirement From Website After Report Exposes ‘Willful Effort To Evade’ Affirmative Action Ban

Columbia Law School Removes Application Requirement From Website After Report Exposes 'Willful Effort To Evade' Affirmative Action Ban: Report

Affirmative Action

Harvard

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Harvard University said it would comply with the Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">landmark ruling</a> that said its institution&#8217;s admissions system violated the Civil Rights Act — but indicated it would search for a loophole to accept applicants based on race.
The Supreme Court voted six to three against Harvard University and six to two against the University of North Carolina&#8217;s (UNC) affirmative action policies in a decision that will profoundly affect the admissions processes at universities across the country. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Harvard graduate, and former Harvard board member, recused herself from the Harvard case.
The Court ruled that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the UNC programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
&#8220;The Court held that Harvard College&#8217;s admissions system does not comply with the principles of the equal protection clause embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,&#8221; Harvard University said in a <a href="https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/2023/06/29/supreme-court-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a>. &#8220;The Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions &#8216;an applicant&#8217;s discussion of how race affected his or her life,&#8217; be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. We will certainly comply with the Court&#8217;s decision.&#8221;
The institution added, &#8220;We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.
&#8220;That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us—and every great educational institution—to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders, of deepening human knowledge, and of promoting progress, justice, and human flourishing.&#8221;
A group called Students for Fair Admissions sued the elite schools, accusing them of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of rejected Asian-American and white applicants.
Students for Fair Admissions argued that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by schools that receive federal funding. In the other case, the group accused the UNC of violating the 14th Amendment&#8217;s equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions process.
UNC&#8217;s Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz <a href="https://abc11.com/unc-admissions-supreme-court-affirmative-action-ruling-scotus/13440517/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> while the institution disapproves of the SCOTUS decision, it would &#8220;carefully review the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision and take any steps necessary to comply with the law.&#8221;
&#8220;Carolina remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond.&#8221;
Mairead Elordi contributed to this report.

SCOTUS Affirmative Action

Universities React To SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling, Harvard Vows To Find Loophole

In the face of public exposure of DEI programs that sought to “integrate social justice into the curriculum with anti-racist components,” the University of North Carolina School of Medicine has since backtracked a number of its public commitments to the ideology.
On February 23, 2023, the University of North Carolina Board of Governors <a href="http://foxnews.com/media/university-north-carolina-moves-ban-diversity-equity-inclusion-statements-anti-woke-backlash" target="_blank" rel="noopener">banned</a> mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements from admissions, hiring, promotion, and tenure processes. The board’s resolution asserts that the University of North Carolina “shall neither solicit nor require an employee or applicant for academic admission or employment to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principals regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement.”
On May 11, 2023, in a public letter, UNC <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/university-of-north-carolina-med-school-renounces-its-own-dei-framework?intcmp=tw_fnc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> that it will not implement one of its DEI Task Forces. Then, on June 16, UNC effectively <a href="https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1670874218123108352?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">watered down</a> its public stance on another DEI Task Force to the point where it refused to defend any of its recommendations.
Although UNC’s public reversals on DEI are welcome, we can’t let them off the hook yet. UNC has gone so far as to deny that they had ever implemented policies that conditioned promotional prospects or financial incentives on advocacy for DEI principles of anti-racism and gender theory. It writes in the June 16th letter, “The SOM Task Force did not result in the medical school faculty being assessed in the area of social justice.”
Evidence gathered by my non-profit advocacy group Color Us United suggests this statement is not true.
Back when DEI was all the rage in health sciences, UNC’s own DEI Officers publicly bragged that participation in “unconscious bias trainings” (one of the cornerstones of UNC’s DEI program) was tied to UNC employees’ financial compensation. In an <a href="https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.20.0589" target="_blank" rel="noopener">audit</a> of UNC’s DEI programs, authors who had been working for UNC wrote that “participation in these training activities is now tied to incentive compensation of departmental leaders” after the release of UNC’s Task Force to Integrate Social Justice.
Talks with senior UNC Medical staff confirm this account. One senior UNC Medical official shared a note that he was required to take training conducted by the Racial Equity Institute (REI), an anti-racism advocacy organization. Another UNC Health doctor, orthopedist Bill Andersen M.D., <a href="https://colorusunited.org/merit-over-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">testified</a> that “with sensitivity training for all and quick dismissal of anyone who offends another because of the other person&#8217;s ‘lived experience,’ DEI personnel dictate what everyone can say and do at work.”
DEI is additionally baked right into the financial package that UNC Health staff receive for their work. Although 85% of a staff members’ package is guaranteed, the other 15% is contingent upon a staff member’s willingness to participate in UNC’s “organizational goals” — one of which is DEI.
<div id="attachment_575785" style="width: 595px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-575785" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-575785 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/UNC-Chart-Picture1-585x576.png" alt="" width="585" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/UNC-Chart-Picture1-585x576.png 585w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/UNC-Chart-Picture1-300x296.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/UNC-Chart-Picture1-768x757.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/UNC-Chart-Picture1.png 936w" sizes="(max-width: 585px) 100vw, 585px" />UNC’s Organizational Goals. Source: Freedom of Information Act.</div>
Although DEI doesn’t form the entirety of the 15% of pay that could be cut off, it is an emphasis in UNC staff trainings and one staff member tells me: “It may be theoretically possible to attend 80% of the weekly meetings [on organizational goals] and skip the DEI-specific sessions but it would likely be noticed and pointed out.”
There is simply no question that doctors and UNC Med School faculty have been assessed based on their participation and enthusiasm with DEI activities.
Why is this so chilling? Because instead of seeing rewards based strictly on their performance, UNC faculty see their ability to get promoted contingent upon side constraints of compliance. Doctors feel pressure to demonstrate conformity to UNC’s organizational goals of DEI, distracting them from their work.
“The most important issue should be educational excellence but it’s the one thing missing in all these DEI policies,” <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/06/02/african-born-surgeon-why-i-helped-defeat-unfair-dei-at-top-medical-school/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Dr. Nche Zama, a world-renowned cardiothoracic surgeon assisting Color Us United with our campaign to fight UNC’s DEI policies. And he is exactly right. UNC doctors should have as few distractions from professional excellence as possible. And DEI activity, by focusing exclusively on gender, race, and political activism, rather than the care of an individual patient, is a huge distraction.
My organization Color Us United will continue to monitor, expose, and present on UNC School of Medicine’s DEI Policies, calling them out for bald-faced lying when necessary, and making sure the school lives up to its vested commitment to North Carolinians to provide the best quality healthcare, bar none.
This July, at its next faculty meeting, trustees have informed me that the UNC School of Medicine will present on their DEI programs. Following their presentation, I will counter-present and independently verify the claims they will make to the trustees.
From there, UNC School of Medicine has an opportunity to formally renounce DEI and embrace meritocracy and excellence. The school&#8217;s leaders have a very important choice to make, one that could change the course of modern medicine in America. They can choose to stay in line with the seeming status quo in medicine and watch the quality of their institution decline, or they can be bold. They can take a firm stand against DEI and become the nation&#8217;s leading medical school, championing freedom of thought and meritocracy over political correctness, and paving a better future for medicine.
I look forward to seeing what direction they will take.
Kenny Xu is the President of Color Us United and the author of the book “School of Woke.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Academic Building

UNC School Of Medicine’s New Strategy For Keeping DEI Alive

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

medical school

North Carolina

Readers Pass

Woke Culture

Hundreds of academics and faculty members at the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/university-of-north-carolina" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of North Carolina</a> (UNC) are opposing a bill in the state legislature that would require students take a course on the U.S. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/constitution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Constitution</a> and other key American documents.
A letter <a href="https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/more-than-670-unc-chapel-hill-faculty-oppose-overreach-by-legislature-political-appointees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed</a> by 673 professors from UNC-Chapel Hill called two proposed bills and other efforts undertaken by Board of Governors and Board of Trustees on campus an attack on the “principles of academic freedom and shared governance.” The letter was published Tuesday in <a href="https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2023/04/opinion-letter-to-editor-aaup-campus-politics-intervention" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Tar Heel</a>.
One of the bills, House Bill 715, would eliminate tenure at UNC, instead putting in place a contract system of one to four-year contracts. It would also give the Board of Trustees authority to “[e]nsure efficient use of institutional resources, including regularly evaluating and eliminating unnecessary or redundant expenses, personnel, and areas of study.”
The second bill would require that all college students, before graduation, take an American history course that includes reading the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.&#8217;s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and the Gettysburg Address, according to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/673-university-professors-sign-letter-opposing-courses-americas-founding-constitution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News</a>.
“In its current form, the bill would prescribe what is taught in this course and even determine much of the content and weight of its final exam,” the letter says. “H.B. 96 violates core principles of academic freedom. It substitutes ideological force-feeding for the intellectual expertise of faculty.”
The UNC professors also took issue with the Board of Governors’ “ongoing assault on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at UNC schools.”
“Led by people apparently opposed to equity and made uncomfortable by the concept of inclusion, these anti-DEI efforts violate the First Amendment and interfere with the unfettered pursuit of truth and enlightenment,” the letter says.
The Board of Trustees’ proposed School of Civic Life and Leadership, a plan to build a new school <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/02/01/unc-school-civic-life-leadership-sparks-debate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dedicated</a> to ideological diversity and open debate, constitutes “a clear violation of the established principle that faculty, not politicians, are responsible for a college’s curriculum,” the letter said.
<a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9125">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Trustees Chair Dave Boliek has previously <a href="https://alumni.unc.edu/news/new-school-of-civic-life-draws-criticism-as-process-is-laid-out/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defended</a> the new school initiative as a way to teach students to “recognize members of political outgroups as friends to learn from rather than foes to vanquish.”
“This is all about balance,” Boliek said in January. “At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we clearly have a world-class faculty that exists and teaches students and creates leaders of the future. We, however, have no shortage of left-of-center progressive views on our campus, like many campuses across the nation, but the same really can’t be said about right-of-center views. So this is an effort to try to remedy that with the School of Civic Life and Leadership, which will provide equal opportunity for both views to be taught at the University.”
The professors said the initiative was an attack on their expertise.
“[O]ur leaders continue to disregard campus autonomy, attack the expertise and independence of world-class faculty, and seek to force students’ educations into pre-approved ideological containers. We must protect the principles of academic freedom and shared governance which have long made UNC a leader in public education,” the letter concludes.

Hundreds Of Professors Attack Proposal To Require U.S. Constitution Class: ‘Ideological Force-Feeding’

673 UNC Professors Attack Proposal To Require Course On U.S. Constitution: ‘Ideological Force-Feeding’

Constitution

Recently, The University of North Carolina has come under scrutiny for the radical diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives being pushed in its School of Medicine. Disturbed by the blatant racism and political activism coming from the medical school, North Carolinians have begun asking questions. In response to these questions, Wesley Burks, the dean of the School of Medicine, has been essentially telling inquirers their fears are unfounded.
But a public records request has revealed that Dean Burks gets all of his DEI talking points from the UNC School of Medicine’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The DEI officers coached Dean Burks on how to respond to the backlash and criticism caused by the UNC DEI task force’s recommendations for implementing social justice into the curriculum.
But the talking points that the DEI office gave the dean are dishonest. The UNC School of Medicine’s own internal documents and diversity initiatives refute them. 
First, the talking points try to shift responsibility and downplay the number and importance of the recommendations outlined in the report. They state, “Most recommendations were created as a response to concerns highlighted by our accreditation agency, the LCME … others were modified following their original posting or not adopted…” They don’t specify which goals were merely created at the behest of the LCME, nor which recommendations they chose not to adopt. 
Moreover, the UNC School of Medicine DEI office’s <a href="https://www.med.unc.edu/strategicplan/strategy/diversity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">website</a> demonstrates that, even if certain recommendations from the report were scrapped or consolidated, the overarching themes of the report are still alive and being actively pursued by the school. The website lists three priorities: (1) “recruit and retain diverse faculty, staff, and learners”; (2) “Cultivate an environment that promotes a more inclusive culture”; (3) “Strengthen institutional infrastructure and systems to support diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.” 
These goals are all worded with pretty language that makes them sound like noble objectives that anyone would support, but they are just vague rewordings of the same social justice priorities outlined in the task force’s report. 
For example, one goal of the task force report is: “The work of the admissions committee should be guided by the UNC School of Medicine’s education and patient care missions to recruit students from highly diverse backgrounds to create a socially responsible, highly skilled workforce…” One need only look at UNC’s discriminatory admissions practices to see that they are very much still working toward this aim in the worst possible way. UNC uses a so-called <a href="http://foxnews.com/media/unc-chapel-hill-defends-race-based-admissions-amid-supreme-court-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener">holistic admissions</a> approach that factors race into admissions decisions. This approach unfairly disadvantages Asian and white applicants and, because of this violation of civil rights, has landed UNC in a Supreme Court case.
And it doesn’t even stop there. UNC’s Department of Neurosurgery is offering a summer research <a href="http://med.miami.edu/departments/neurosurgery/summer-research-scholarship-in-neurosurgery-for-black-medical-students" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fellowship</a> open only to black medical students. The blurb for the fellowship openly declares: “The purpose of the award is to provide a neurosurgical-based research fellowship for black students … who wish to gain research experience in the fields of neuroscience and neurosurgery, and have early exposure to the field of neurosurgery.”
The UNC School of Medicine also <a href="http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11711351/Group-advocating-race-blind-America-demands-UNC-medical-school-stop-integrating-social-justice.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">subjects</a> its faculty to mandatory implicit bias training.
So Dean Burks and the diversity office can’t claim that their diversity goals are “no big deal.” The university has devoted itself to the cause of DEI — and all that entails — enough to force woke ideology down its faculty’s throat, enough to openly discriminate against Asians in favor of blacks and end up in court. 
The talking points claim that negative reporting on the school’s DEI initiatives “misrepresents and sensationalizes our great work at the UNC School of Medicine.” But that is simply not accurate. If you look at The College Fix <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/unc-med-school-moves-ahead-with-plans-to-root-instruction-in-dei-teach-organs-arent-gender-specific/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> that these talking points reference specifically, that article sensationalizes nothing. The author of the article merely quotes excerpts of the SOM’s own report. The author does not embellish or add any objectives that the social justice task force itself did not create.
Also of note, the DEI office’s talking points assert in the very next sentence: “We have prioritized and are proud of our work in DEI.” If Dean Burks and UNC leadership are so proud of their DEI work, why would they need to rush to deny the validity of statements found in their own DEI report? If they are proud of their work, why not just honestly own and defend all the details of their DEI priorities? If you believe your work is admirable and there is nothing insidious in it, why try to downplay or deny certain aspects of it?
The talking points claim that the UNC School of Medicine’s DEI work “has no political agenda.” This is a flat-out lie. A presentation slide from the UNC SOM Health Equity Speaker series explicitly credits Critical Race Theory as the foundation on which UNC’s DEI work is based. And Critical Race Theory is political, no matter how much UNC’s DEI executives deny it. The Health Equity presentation slide states that Critical Race Theory “recognizes that racism is ingrained in the fabric and system of the American society” and “identifies that these structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.” CRT’s claims are political claims. So once again, the talking points mislead and obscure the truth.
The UNC School of Medicine is actively pursuing a destructive DEI agenda, and the school’s leaders don’t even have the decency to be honest about their agenda. That is why Color Us United has created a <a href="https://colorusunited.org/unc-petition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> urging Dean Burks to abandon this poisonous ideology and realign the school’s focus to what should matter most — excellence in health care. North Carolinians deserve good doctors, not political activists.
Emmie Lo is a writer and Latin teacher currently living in Jacksonville, Florida. You can read her personal blog at <a href="https://blindgirldreaming.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blindgirldreaming.blogspot.com</a> and follow her on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/Teabooksgirl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@teabooksgirl</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Welcome to North Carolina vintage rusty license plate

North Carolinians Deserve Good Doctors, Not Woke Political Activists

Critical Race Theory

Imagine you’re under the scope. The operating room lights partially blind you as you drift into an anesthetic-induced coma. Barely clinging to consciousness as the doctors surround you and prepare to fix your heart, you can only hear flickers of conversation before you go. But one line is unmistakable: the last thing you hear out of your surgeon is “I don’t know how to handle these tongs …”
You may think there is no chance our medical schools would ever produce such an unqualified physician. But the lowering of standards in medicine is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unc-med-school-to-base-instruction-on-diversity-claim-organs-arent-gender-specific" target="_blank" rel="noopener">already happening</a> – and it will get consistently worse until Americans put a stop to it.
New evidence emerging from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine shows the school pledging to “integrate social justice into the curriculum with anti-racist components” into the entirety of their health system. They wrote it all down in a 2020 document called <a href="https://colorusunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Social-Justice-Task-Force-Report-and-Recommendations-Final-Final_12-9-20.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“The Task Force to Integrate Social Justice into the Curriculum”</a> and reaffirmed their transformation of the medical system in a February 2022 <a href="https://colorusunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/TaskForce_WebUpdate-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">update</a>.
So focused is the UNC School of Medicine on “anti-racism” that a new study shows they have a <a href="https://donoharmmedicine.org/2023/01/23/the-unc-school-of-medicine-scores-92-on-the-aamc-dice-inventory/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">92%</a> compliance rate with a national Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) inventory. DEI is an extremely dangerous ideology that threatens to label institutions as racist unless they comply with outrageous demands made by DEI officers. These demands include forcing medical faculty to sign DEI statements, cutting doctor hours to learn about “unconscious bias,” and grading doctors on their “inclusivity” rather than their medical performance.
I don&#8217;t know if UNC is being held hostage by the DEI lobby <a href="https://www.med.unc.edu/inclusion/about/our-team/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">or by their own VPs.</a> All I know is this has to stop.  
One of the immediate harms that DEI is inflicting upon UNC’s medical quality is its recruitment of doctors. UNC School of Medicine has already pledged to practice “holistic admissions,” meaning they actively admit lesser-qualified doctor candidates who happen to be black and Latino over more qualified white and Asian doctors. They justify this practice in the name of “anti-racism,” <a href="https://donoharmmedicine.org/2023/01/23/the-unc-school-of-medicine-scores-92-on-the-aamc-dice-inventory/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">newly released documents</a> from their School of Medicine show.
In other words, they are admitting black and Latino doctors with lower MCAT scores and grades over white and Asian doctors with higher MCAT scores and grades. (The entire school is <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707" target="_blank" rel="noopener">currently facing</a> a Supreme Court lawsuit for this practice in their undergraduate program).
The lowering of standards for different groups in admissions represents a shift from producing the best-qualified doctors possible to producing doctors who fit racial and gender quotas in the name of DEI.
Is it possible that MCAT scores are not predictive of how good a doctor will eventually turn out (although MCATs are <a href="https://www.cureus.com/articles/28573-correlation-of-medical-college-admission-test-scores-and-self-assessment-materials-with-the-united-states-medical-licensing-examination-step-1-performance#!/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">correlated</a> with performance on Medical Boards)? Sure, but is medicine really the place to practice such social experiments? These are patients’ lives we’re talking about here. The margin of error between life and death rests in the doctor’s hands, and you want the best qualified doctor possible.
Another grave issue with DEI in medicine is the bad health advice indoctrinated doctors will soon give to patients. UNC School of Medicine’s required textbook, the Social Medicine Reader, analyzes health disparities through the lens of “intersectionality,” talking about how “racism” impacts health outcomes.
But any good doctor knows the predominant cause of ills in a person is that person’s own family, genes, environment, and life choices, not “racism.” That is why COVID predominantly affected those who were <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-who-is-at-risk/art-20483301" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sick</a>, <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/why-covid-19-more-deadly-people-obesity-even-if-theyre-young" target="_blank" rel="noopener">obese</a>, <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-who-is-at-risk/art-20483301" target="_blank" rel="noopener">old</a>, and <a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/19/1099" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sedentary</a> – yet the progressive medical community tried to blame the pandemic’s effect on black Americans on <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/with-covid-spread-racism-not-race-is-the-risk-factor/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“racism.” </a> 
A good doctor would tell his patient, honestly but frankly, if he wants to lower his risk for disease, he should commit to a pattern of diet and exercise. But UNC Medical School now claims in its Task Force to Integrate Social Justice that “health disparities are primarily determined by structural factors, rather than by biological ones or by individual behaviors.”
This is bad advice and bad medicine. DEI is leading UNC Medical School – and other medical schools across the nation – down to road to shamanistic, feelings-based healthcare.
Medical mistakes are the <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us" target="_blank" rel="noopener">third-leading cause</a> of death in the United States, right below heart disease and cancer, according to a study. Although good medicine saves lives, bad medicine kills. We cannot have bad medicine leaking into our medical institutions in the name of DEI.
UNC-Chapel Hill’s medical campus was most recently investigated by the federal government for putting patients in “<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/feds-threaten-unc-hospitals-funding-over-immediate-jeopardy-to-patient-health/ar-AAZsx9w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">immediate jeopardy</a>.” Only 3%of all hospital systems are so ignobly designated, with UNC’s issues with patient rights, quality assessment, and infection control cited as evidence.  
In this precarious medical environment, should UNC really be realigning its focus to combat “racism” rather than the immediate health needs of its patients?  
How bad can it get? The Chinese immigrant Helen Raleigh, whose mother worked as a doctor during the Cultural Revolution, <a href="https://helenraleigh.substack.com/p/the-danger-of-woke-medicine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">states it best</a>: “Medical students spent less time learning medicine but more time on political indoctrination. … Once graduated, these young doctors didn&#8217;t know much about how to treat patients in real life.”
It’s time to say: we don’t want Cultural Revolution healthcare.
My organization, Color Us United, <a href="https://colorusunited.org/unc-petition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">started a petition</a> protesting DEI in healthcare at UNC and other Medical Schools. We need to stand up to the DEI lobby before it completely transforms our health care system from one of high quality doctors to one excessively focused on social justice at the expense of your health.
Kenny Xu is the President of <a href="https://colorusunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/TaskForce_WebUpdate-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Color Us United</a> and the author of the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Minority-American-Excellence-Meritocracy-ebook/dp/B08MQN8J6D/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“An Inconvenient Minority.”</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Stethoscope and tablet,Close-up of stethoscope against white background

Bad Medicine: How DEI Is Dismantling UNC’s Medical School And Endangering Patients

Bad Medicine: How DEI Is Dismantling UNC's Medical School And Endangering Patients

COVID

There is a certain pride that comes with being a University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill student, and we are about as Carolina blue-blazing as they come. Take one look at the excessive UNC apparel in our wardrobes, the bumper stickers on our cars, or the smiles we get whenever someone says “Chapel Hill,” and it is clear just how honored we are to attend our institution. However, as “Tar Heels born and Tar Heels bred,” we are concerned that free speech at UNC may soon be dead — at least for pro-life Tar Heels.
In spite of the fact that UNC-Chapel Hill has historically painted itself as a “diverse place, making room for an array of different viewpoints,” as Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unc.edu%2Fposts%2F2022%2F07%2F29%2Funiversitys-role-in-political-discourse%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683831150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=Reo6qFad%2B7ifSYfx64k4VI6UqHkqLN5EaKaCXxNnSfw%3D&amp;reserved=0">stated recently</a>, pro-life students on campus are essentially being told “except for you” — and unfortunately, it is our peers leading the charge against us.
Taliajah Vann, our student body president, recently issued an <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexecutivebranch.unc.edu%2Fexecutive-order-no-2%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683831150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=hZLXV4n0wYv7c6Q40YdJmeXWNstLMKjnB87R796rXpI%3D&amp;reserved=0">executive order</a> that specifically targeted pro-life speech, as she prohibited the Undergraduate Student Government Executive Branch from contracting or funding any individual, business, or organization that is openly pro-life. In addition, Vann <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexecutivebranch.unc.edu%2Fredirect-the-rage-unc-community-marches-to-stand-up-for-reproductive-rights%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683987382%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=fuLTg6Kw2Tk7W1D7dEWWiddb2VKtE6a7I%2FtYW8RgZ4Q%3D&amp;reserved=0">announced</a> that her administration would be sponsoring a “Redirect the Rage Rally,” a march that is explicitly pro-abortion.
While Vann <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefire.org%2Func-chapel-hill-student-government-response-to-fire-concerning-executive-order-no-2-august-5-2022%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683987382%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=vqWqgVh05lQ%2F%2FYRzs001dan2ffh%2BiPEu%2BogdQUUcGGU%3D&amp;reserved=0">clarified</a> that the executive order would not affect the funding of our Students for Life of America (SFLA) group, her attempt to placate outside media attention did not work on us. Funding is not the problem — promoting a hostile environment for students who hold different beliefs, however, certainly is.  
Instead of upholding UNC’s commitment to intellectual diversity, Vann’s executive order has allowed a governing student organization to take sides in a political debate (although ending the life of a preborn child shouldn’t be political). While we respect the personal opinions of all Tar Heels, the expectation of a student government is to remain neutral in outside politics; by choosing to take such divisive action, they are foregoing holistic representation and severing off parts of the student body.
Unfortunately, this student government-sanctioned attack on speech is only the tip of the iceberg. A <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffecdsurveyreport.web.unc.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F22160%2F2022%2F05%2FFECD_Report_5-17-22.pdf&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683987382%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=HGKR7RO2J4RjhKEfc5OeT7RxkoWRoq9WY3OIrAnRQ7Y%3D&amp;reserved=0">recent study</a> conducted across eight UNC-system campuses found that at UNC-Chapel Hill, 74% of conservative students said they were concerned their peers would have lower opinions of them if they expressed their political views — for example, being pro-life — and 57% were concerned their professors would have lower opinions of them. In addition, more than 40% of conservative students worried their grades would be negatively affected by advertising their political beliefs, whereas only 7% of liberal students were concerned.  
As a background for these students’ fears of ostracization, the study also showed that while conservative students leaned toward an indifference of ideology when making friends, liberal students reported a preference for being close friends with other self-identifying liberals over conservatives.
With such concerns over making friends, experiencing potential disdain of fellow classmates and professors, and receiving biased grades, it is no wonder that more than 40% of conservative students at Chapel Hill reported self-censoring at least once. That’s a sad number for a school that claims “respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints” is the bedrock of its institution.
Additionally, while UNC-Chapel Hill has won awards for many different reasons, it was recently handed a not-so-honorable mention when it landed on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s  10 Worst Colleges<a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefire.org%2F10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2022%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683987382%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=vcsSYvXSMyqTwCcr8ppEt%2FHc%2BPcCnDff2TIGciFI%2BQA%3D&amp;reserved=0"> for Free Speech: 2022</a> list.
The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees <a href="https://bot.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/160/2022/07/Meeting-Book-University-Affairs-Committee_Strategic-Initiatives-Committee-July-27-PUBLIC.pdf">University Affairs committee</a> did <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchapelboro.com%2Fnews%2Func%2Freport-on-free-speech-details-unc-students-comfort-concerns&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ckhamrick%40studentsforlife.org%7C274f2b468b854c8109d708da807b27e5%7Cb3f92ab929b141449c57d11e0e7a368a%7C0%7C0%7C637963563683987382%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=P2xJFZ%2FiMlLM0GeA6s8LN40fIJdHyGLDsQ7rE8J7m%2B0%3D&amp;reserved=0">recently address</a> concerns and passed a resolution affirming UNC’s commitment to freedom of speech. However, without any real action, a resolution is at best just a nice thought and at worst a collection of empty words.
We truly love being called UNC students because UNC is more than just its name; it is a place of rigorous academics, rich history, meaningful research, and beauty. Behind its prestigious title, UNC is worthy of the pomp and circumstance — but, due to recent events, we must seriously discuss whether free speech on campus isn’t being allowed to similarly live up to its name.
After all, when conservative and pro-life students are afraid to use their free speech because of rampant and condoned hostility on campus, is it really free?
In order for free speech at UNC to once again become more than a shell of a word or a drop-in line for compliance purposes, the university needs to stop actively condoning the silencing of pro-life voices — starting with the rectification of Vann’s executive order, which intentionally seeks to intimidate pro-life students. Until obstacles to free speech such as this are removed, UNC-Chapel Hill students’ First Amendment rights will continue to be stifled.
Abigail Buxton and Brianna Shobert are co-presidents of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Students for Life of America group. Buxton is a sophomore and Shobert is a senior at UNC.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Daily Wire.

Buxton – UNC Tar Heel First Amendment Rights Under Attack

Is Speech On Campus Really Free? How Pro-Life Views Are Stifled By Universities

College

Pro-Life Movement

Universities

Students seeking an education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine will have social justice front and center in their studies.
The College Fix <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/unc-med-school-moves-ahead-with-plans-to-root-instruction-in-dei-teach-organs-arent-gender-specific/">reported</a> that after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis by ex-cop Derek Chauvin, the school convened a task force to figure out how to integrate social justice into the medical school curriculum. In October 2020, the task force, led by Vice Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) E. Nate Thomas III, <a href="https://www.med.unc.edu/inclusion/wp-content/uploads/sites/1220/2021/04/Social-Justice-Task-Force-Report-and-Recommendations-Final-Final_12-9-20.pdf">recommended</a> 42 changes to the school’s curriculum in order to inject social justice into medical students’ teachings.
“To meet the needs of a growing diverse state, a curriculum embedded in social justice and anti-racist components is essential to patient care, health equity, reduction of health disparities, and most importantly, social change,” the report said.
The report added that “COVID 19 and the murder of George Floyd (and countless other people of color) has unveiled an ongoing reality that race has been and continues to be an extreme problem in America.”
“To navigate this problem we must continue to address the implications of race in our educational system and history. If we fail to meet this challenge, we will continue to experience and witness the disparities that disproportionately affect people of color. Ultimately these disparities, and the structures that perpetuate their growth, undermine the quality of life for all individuals and the vitality of the state,” the report continued.
The report recommended that those wishing to be hired by the medical school demonstrate a “growth mindset as it relates to social justice.” This would mean, according to the report, that professors and other instructors “will be assessed regarding their contributions in the domain of social justice and incentivized for such contributions.”
Professors should “see work related to social justice or DEI as central to their work as faculty members,” the report added.
The report recommended that 50% of departments develop evaluation tools that “assess and incentivize a faculty member’s contributions to social justice” by 2022. By 2024, 100% of departments should have this tool.
Another recommendation from the report included the development of a curriculum that trained instructors on “implicit bias, the history of discrimination and racism in the US and their relationship to health and health care, and skills to effectively incorporate issues of discrimination based on race/ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, nationality, religion, veteran status, socioeconomic status, body size, and other factors” in their teaching.
According to the Fix, the medical school is on track to meet every goal set in the report.
The report also listed five requirements for promotion and tenure request, with requirements such as research accomplishments and teacher evaluations last on the list. Second on the list is their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The report included examples of how a professor could demonstrate their commitment to diversity, one of which was displaying an equity sticker on their laptop.
“Task force members also <a href="https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2021/11/unc-school-of-medicines-quiet-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-revolution/">sought to dictate</a> what was taught in the classroom, including adding requirements that all lectures addressing known health disparities ‘will attend to those disparities and WHY they exist,’ and suggesting each lecture have a ‘structural context’ section, in addition to basic science and clinical material,” the Fix reported. “Instructors would also be required to ‘explain the difference between sex and gender and how specific organs and cells do not belong to specific genders.’”

Healthcare Professionals Using Electronic Gadgets

UNC Med School To Base Instruction On Diversity, Claim Organs Aren’t Gender-Specific

Health Care

Social Justice

A dean at the University of North Carolina (UNC) emailed an ABC News reporter insisting that the outlet “protect” “1619 Project” author and Pulitzer Prize winner Nikole Hannah-Jones in her battle for tenure at the university. 
According to emails obtained by <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=17917">Campus Reform</a>, ABC News’ Averi Harper — an alumna of the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media — emailed the Journalism and Media Dean Susan King asking why the university had yet to offer Hannah-Jones tenure. 
Harper emailed: 
<blockquote>We’re not losing sight of the big picture, we’re trying to gauge what the issue is and where the breakdown in the process was. 
The university-wide tenure committee didn’t put it on the agenda? Or the committee of faculty within the J-School? Who is on this committee? 
Richard Stevens seemed to place blame on you yesterday, which is partly why [I] reached out to you for clarity. I know your character and given your role in trying to bring Nikole to the school, it didn’t sound like you would intentionally snub her. </blockquote>
King responded to Harper saying that the Board of Trustees declined to consider Hannah-Jones’ tenure. She insisted that the news outlet “protect Nikole.” 
King said: 
<blockquote>It’s clear there was NO DENIAL of tenure. The committee didn’t put it on the agenda… best I can tell. The package was ready since the fall — so the specifics of when and timing of board activities get away from the big issues. 
She deserves tenure. Her package is perhaps the best I’ve ever seen. … 
Protect Nikole. She deserves it and I’m doing all I can to make this right. We really want her here.” </blockquote>
The emails were exchanged amid the battle between UNC and the New York Times author, who had never taught a college class, over whether to grant her immediate tenure. The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-rescinds-offer-of-tenure-to-creator-of-1619-project-report-says">reported</a> that the UNC Board of Trustees initially denied Hannah-Jones immediate tenure, instead offering her a five-year term with the potential of tenure down the road.  
The board ultimately voted in favor of granting Hannah-Jones tenure in July, despite opposition from a donor with direct ties to the Republican-dominated UNC Board of Governors. One of the top opponents to Hannah-Jones’ immediate tenure approval was Walter Hussman, the UNC donor whose name adorns the university’s journalism school. 
Hussman told <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/06/30/1011880598/after-contentious-debate-unc-grants-tenure-to-nikole-hannah-jones">NPR</a> that he was “given pause by some prominent scholars’ criticism that Hannah-Jones distorted the historical record in arguing that the protection of slavery was one of the Founding Fathers’ primary motivations in seeking independence from the British.”
Despite receiving tenure, Hannah-Jones rejected UNC’s position and opted to accept a tenured position at Howard University’s school of communications as the newly created Knight Chair of Race and Journalism. Hannah-Jones will also lead Howard University’s Center for Journalism and Democracy, which will allegedly train students in investigative journalism. 
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/1619-create-nikole-hannah-jones-rejects-unc-tenure-offer-after-weeks-of-complaining">‘1619’ Creator Nikole Hannah-Jones Rejects UNC Tenure Offer After Weeks Of Complaining</a>

Nikole Hannah-Jones

UNC Dean Emailed ABC Reporter Amid Nikole Hannah-Jones Tenure Battle: ‘Protect Nikole’

1619 Project

A student club at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC) is demanding that the university create “anti-racist alerts” to inform students when “white supremacists” come to campus. 
Black Student Movement, a black student club, <a href="https://twitter.com/UNC_Alerts/status/1414280994568482825">announced</a> via the Twitter account “Anti-Racist Alerts” that they had sent a list of demands to the university’s Chancellor. The group is demanding that the school send out “anti-racist alerts” as part of the school alert system because “students should not have to sign up for a new service in order to hear when dangerous white supremacists are on campus.” 
“[We want the university] to include anti-racist alerts in the Alert Carolina system with the goal of increasing safety on campus for Black students ahead of what will likely be a tense year for our community,” the letter reads. “To prioritize transparency with students ahead of a dated and untrue image of campus as a utopia of diversity.”
Black Student Movement’s demand list also calls for “no agents of white supremacy” to be allowed on campus to help “protect Black students from hateful White Supremacist rhetoric.” Examples of white supremacist conversations include when the UNC College Republicans brought in former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and the pro-life group. 
“The demand from UNC Black Student Movement to discourage free discourse on campus is a dangerous one and should not be adhered to,” the UNC College Republicans said in a comment to <a href="https://www.yaf.org/news/student-club-at-unc-demands-anti-racist-alerts-when-white-supremacists-come-to-campus/">Young America’s Foundation</a>. “It is inappropriate and outrageous to say that Corey Lewandowski and President Trump are white supremacists and UNC College Republicans denounce that premise.”  
The demand list insists that the university erect a monument for James Cates, a 22-year-old black man from the Chapel Hill area who was stabbed to death on campus in 1970. The group demands that “the university should fund all costs for its creation.”
Black Student Movement also called on the university to remove the UNC police department from residence halls during move-in day. The group is particularly concerned with police presence on the south campus, “the region of campus with the largest concentration of Black students.” 
Left-wing activists on UNC’s campus have a history of calling even the most milquetoast conservative efforts “racist.” The school’s right-leaning, student-run paper had its website hacked and distribution boxes vandalized for putting out conservative commentary. 
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-north-carolina-student-publication-vandalized-hacked-nazi-scum-fk-off">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>On April 25, the Carolina Review had its newly installed magazine distribution boxes vandalized. The boxes had the letters “CR” imprinted on the side. A vandal used a black sharpie marker to write “Racist” using the “R” in “CR.” 
A few hours after students noticed the vandalism, a hacker got on the publication’s website and “destroyed” 15 years of online content … The new masthead displayed Editor-in-Chief Bryson’s Piscitelli’s name with the message “Nazi scum f**k off.” </blockquote>
UNC has also been embroiled in controversy over the past weeks after the university offered a tenured position to the New York Times’s “1619 Project” author Nikole Hannah-Jones. UNC’s Board of Trustees expressed doubts about giving Hannah-Jones immediate tenure, though ultimately approved of it. Hannah-Jones <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/1619-create-nikole-hannah-jones-rejects-unc-tenure-offer-after-weeks-of-complaining">rejected</a> UNC’s offer after spending weeks complaining.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-school-student-letter-details-culture-of-bullying-at-university-of-north-carolina">Law School Student Letter Details ‘Culture Of Bullying’ At University Of North Carolina</a>

Live Action Sign

UNC Activists Demand School Use ‘Anti-Racist Alerts’ For ‘White Supremacists,’ Examples Include Pro-Life Groups

Anti-Racism

White Supremacists

Menu