Commentary, News

No more March madness in NC? Sure looks like it after NCAA adopts new nondiscrimination rule

The good folks at Think Progress have even more bad news for the state of North Carolina in the ongoing wake of HB2:

UNC hoopsOn Wednesday, the NCAA Board of Governors adopted a new requirement: Sites bidding on NCAA events must demonstrate that they will provide a safe environment, free of discrimination.

The directive could have a serious impact on North Carolina, which is scheduled to host NCAA tournament games in both 2017 and 2018, and has been the focus of widespread backlash after the recent passage of an anti-LGBT law.

In March, Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed HB2, a law that blocks North Carolina cities from passing their own non-discrimination ordinances and forces transgender men and women to use the bathroom that aligns with their birth certificate, not their gender identity, into law. Mississippi passed a similar law, scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

While the NCAA statement doesn’t officially mention HB2, the writing on the wall seems clear: If North Carolina doesn’t say goodbye to HB2, it might have to say goodbye to hosting March Madness.

“Currently awarded sites must report how they will provide an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination, plus safeguards the dignity of everyone involved in the event,” the NCAA said in a statement to Andy Katz of ESPN. “The information must be reported to the Board of Governors Ad Hoc Committee to Promote Cultural Diversity and Equity, and full implementation is expected during the current bidding process.” Read more

Commentary

More trickledown pay raises for top one percenters at UNC

UNCLogoThere they go again. A few months after the UNC Board of Governors dropped some big cash on system chancellors, UNC Chapel Hill trustees have bestowed big, retroactive raises on an array of already extremely well-paid administrators. This is, of course, at a time when other North Carolina public employees of more modest stature are mostly doing without.

As Jane Stancill of Raleigh’s News & Observer reports this morning:

“UNC-Chapel Hill’s athletic director, Bubba Cunningham, recently received a 10 percent raise, bringing his annual pay to $642,268.

The $58,388 increase for Cunningham was the largest among those approved for nine high-ranking university administrators, who got raises or bonuses ranging from 1 percent to 10 percent.

The increases were part of the annual raise process, according to a university spokesman who said new salary levels were retroactive to July 1, 2015. Trustees initially approved the increases in a December mail ballot, which was ratified last week. The vote last week was unanimous.”

The article goes on to report that the trustees hope to “make adjustments in faculty pay” as well, but as always seems to be the case, that will come after the folks at the top are taken care of. No word about adjunct instructors, food service workers, janitors, etc….

Of course, it seems likely that the conservative leaders in state government will be all in with this approach. After all, they always talk about wanting to “run government like a business” and what could be more business-like in modern America than bestowing big raises on the bosses first and leaving the crumbs for everyone else?

(As an aside, it’s also worth noting that all of the folks receiving raises have received extremely large state income tax cuts in recent years thanks to the the shortsighted policies at work in Raleigh).

Click here to read the rest of Stancil’s story ans see the full list of raises.

Commentary

Nobel prize for UNC prof highlights ongoing folly of higher ed cuts

UNC Nobel prize

Image: UNC Chapel Hill

As one of the first acts of his governorship back in 2013, Pat McCrory went on a national right-wing radio show to attack “the educational elite” in our university system who supposedly weren’t doing enough to gets student “butts in jobs.” Since that time, his administration has waged a more or less permanent war against academia by repeatedly allowing faculty salaries to slide and just generally under-investing in public colleges and universities.

Whether a sincerely held belief or just a convenient scrap of red meat to toss to the intellectual-hating far right, McCrory’s stance is predicated on the notion (regularly championed by denizens of the Art Pope empire) that universities should be more like training institutes in which faculty devote the overwhelming majority of their time to preparing students for employment. Meanwhile, “luxuries” like the liberal arts and research for the sake of advancing knowledge are just that — extravagances to be left to the vagaries of the “market” and the “demand” provided by well-off students and parents willing to underwrite their cost via private school tuition.

This morning, North Carolinians received yet another powerful reminder of the absurdity of the Governor’s stance on these issues when Prof. Aziz Sancar of the UNC School of Medicine was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. According to the Associated Press:

“The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said their [Pro. Sancar’s and his fellow recipients’] work on DNA repair had provided ‘fundamental knowledge’ about how cells function and shed light on the mechanisms behind both cancer and aging.”

You got that? Prof. Sancar helped advance an important piece of “fundamental knowledge” that has the potential to greatly benefit all of humankind. From this vantage point, that sounds like a pretty darned good use of tax dollars.

Let’s hope Sancar’s award spurs the Guv and his allies to think a little harder about their simplistic takes on higher education — especially when it comes to the numerous would-be Aziz Sancars who continue to be driven out of North Carolina by the administration’s shortsighted approach to faculty compensation and duties.

News

UNC asks court to stay affirmative action case pending U.S. Supreme Court review of similar Texas challenge

UNCAttorneys for the University of North Carolina have asked U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs in Winston-Salem to stay proceedings in the case challenging its admissions policies pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of an affirmative action case out of Texas, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

How the high court rules next term in Fisher will have some bearing on the case filed here in November, Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC, alleging similar flaws in the university’s admission policies. (A separate lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal court against Harvard by the same group on the same day.)

As SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston described the Harvard and UNC lawsuits:

The basic thrust of the new lawsuits is that Harvard and the flagship university in North Carolina are using admissions programs that cannot satisfy the tough constitutional test for judging race-based policy — “strict scrutiny.”  But their broader theme is that the Supreme Court’s affirmative action efforts beginning with the Bakke ruling have failed to end racial bias in admissions programs, so it is now time to overrule Bakke and at least one other decision.

In the lawsuits, filed under the name “Students for Fair Admissions Inc.,” attorneys for plaintiffs  selected after a nationwide search by backers of Project for Fair Representation argue that diversity at the schools can be achieved by race-neutral alternatives and that public colleges and others receiving federal funds should be ordered to end the use of race in admissions altogether.

As counsel for UNC pointed out in papers filed yesterday:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court in Fisher II—whether the Fifth Circuit properly concluded that the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in its undergraduate admissions program complies with the Supreme Court’s precedents—is the central issue in this case brought by Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. challenging the University’s undergraduate admissions policy. Critical questions in Fisher II will be whether UT-Austin’s admission policy is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, what evidence UT-Austin must present to prove that proposition, and how a court must apply strict scrutiny to evaluate whether UT-Austin has met its burden. Because Fisher II presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify further the law governing how public universities may consider race in the admissions process, it is certain to affect the standards that govern this litigation.

The same attorneys representing Fisher at the Supreme Court are representing the students in both the UNC and Harvard cases.

###

 

News

Affirmative action heads back to the Supreme Court

In a case with implications for admissions policies at UNC-Chapel Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to review for a second time admissions policies at the University of Texas at Austin.

The high court first reviewed the case filed by Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin allegedly because of her race, in 2012. In a 7-1 decision the following spring, the justices sent Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.

Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the Court said that “because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, its decision affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incorrect.”

“[S]trict scrutiny does require a court to examine with care, and not defer to, a university’s ‘serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives,’” Kennedy added.

The appeals court did that and upheld the university’s admissions policies again in July 2014, finding that they withstood the strict scrutiny test.

In the second petition filed at the court and granted today, Fisher’s attorneys ask the court to “strike down UT’s unjustified use of race, and once again make clear that the Equal Protection Clause does not permit the use of racial preferences in admissions decisions where, as here, they are neither narrowly tailored nor necessary to meet a compelling, otherwise unsatisfied, educational interest.”

How the high court rules next term in Fisher will have some bearing on the case filed in federal court here against UNC-Chapel Hill in November, alleging similar flaws in the university’s admission policies. (A similar lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal court against Harvard by the same group on the same day.)

As SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston described the Harvard and UNC lawsuits:

The basic thrust of the new lawsuits is that Harvard and the flagship university in North Carolina are using admissions programs that cannot satisfy the tough constitutional test for judging race-based policy — “strict scrutiny.”  But their broader theme is that the Supreme Court’s affirmative action efforts beginning with the Bakke ruling have failed to end racial bias in admissions programs, so it is now time to overrule Bakke and at least one other decision.

In the lawsuits, filed under the name “Students for Fair Admissions Inc.,” attorneys for plaintiffs — selected after a nationwide search by backers of Project for Fair Representation — argue that diversity at the schools can be achieved by race-neutral alternatives and that public colleges and others receiving federal funds should be ordered to end the use of race in admissions altogether.

The same attorneys representing Fisher at the Supreme Court are representing the students in the UNC case here, which is pending in Winston-Salem and is now assigned to U.S. District Loretta Copeland Biggs, who took her seat on that court this past December.

###