Cowboy, I will not be getting clear communications via text. Once I'm back in the office and I see them, I will ask more question. Remember, this persons spouse is a Trustee and they had their emails subpoenaed from the legal action taken.

It is typical for this role to have tenure with it. Every professorship of this type has had tenure in the past. For a reason that no one seems to know, her name was removed from a list for tenure back in Dec and again in Jan with no explanation. This did not happen to anyone else.
Say what you will but what would the reason be that her name was removed? No one seems to know.

burnbarn said:

---

It is typical for this role to have tenure with it. Every professorship of this type has had tenure in the past. For a reason that no one seems to know, her name was removed from a list for tenure back in Dec and again in Jan with no explanation. This did not happen to anyone else.
Say what you will but what would the reason be that her name was removed? No one seems to know.

---

As per usual over there, there seems to be a complete dearth of true leadership.

And also as usual, they wanted to seem rather than to be.

Seems fairly likely that they saw an opportunity to make a huge splash by hiring Hannah-Jones and potentially liked the appearance of being a leader in the academic conversation about race's role in America today.

And as you mentioned, past hires in her prospective role were granted tenure as standard practice.

Yet, at every step of the way those clowns bungled it.

The J-school's biggest current benefactor weighed in heavily against the turmoil the hire would likely cause even though the contractual framing of his gift to the school explicitly denied him the ability to say grace over personnel decisions.

But, evidently his opinion mattered to decision-makers over there. So instead of soliciting his opinion beforehand and/or pitching him on the idea of her hire as them being a true leader in the space by hiring somebody they know is divisive and thought-provoking and being willing to stomach the turmoil that would follow, they didn't talk to him and didn't get his buy-in, then started backtracking when the clearly foreseeable backlash came. They rescinded her offer for a tenured position and gave her a five year contract instead.

They also could've had some balls and told the benefactor to shove it when he clearly started using his sway to influence the terms of the hire, and they didn't do that either.

The whole thing was just so typically poorly thought-through and executed by those asshats. It's yet another colossal embarrassment for the university on the heels of their massive grade inflation exposure, Fat Marvin athletic scandal, the Department of Justice underreported sex assault inquiry, the Silent Sam debaclewe could go on and on.

Those morons over there step on their dicks constantly and I'd take some satisfaction in their bumbling ineptitude if they didn't also find ways to look down their nose at the rest of the world while doing it.

Every time something like this happens it makes me even more appreciative of State's current highly competent leadership.

Sometimes it is "addition by subtraction.."

I loathe that place and all it stands for. When the name on the front isn't as important as the name on the back you have to do what is best.

The BOT was in a no-win situation. And know... they are eating their own.

Typical liberal mindset. You have to out-left the next person or you are an "-ist." FACT.

The direction this country is being steered is horrible. The SOCIALIST/MARXIST contingent, coupled with the "unaffiliated," is exactly what the Soros led group is trying to do. So many are to blind to see it.

After a weekend of elected lefties disparaging this country should wake them up. But it won't. It's all about power and owning the Conservatives. Telling us how we are "rubes," "uneducated," "rural hicks," "rednecks," etc.....

It will all come to a head and come in 2022. You can't walk back 40+ years of indoctrinating, victimizing and telling everyone that if you are white person you start out with a 90 -yard lead in a 100-yard dash and not expect repercussions.

Congrats Comrades... you have once again stepped on your own Richards.

WRAL SUCKS!

Edited to remove mistaken information! My bad.

But... I'd wager you plenty that the sheep on here slurp it up like gospel....

I believe that Mr. Gaddy is still alive.

Tootie4Pack said:

---

I believe that Mr. Gaddy is still alive.

---

You are correct... I mistaken him for his brother that passed away a few years ago.... I'll edit and correct. Thanks for that!

burnbarn said:

---

It is typical for this role to have tenure with it. Every professorship of this type has had tenure in the past. For a reason that no one seems to know, her name was removed from a list for tenure back in Dec and again in Jan with no explanation. This did not happen to anyone else.
Say what you will but what would the reason be that her name was removed? No one seems to know.

---

Look at some of me previous post. I told you why she was left off tenure.

Civilized said:

---

burnbarn said:

---

It is typical for this role to have tenure with it. Every professorship of this type has had tenure in the past. For a reason that no one seems to know, her name was removed from a list for tenure back in Dec and again in Jan with no explanation. This did not happen to anyone else.
Say what you will but what would the reason be that her name was removed? No one seems to know.

---

As per usual over there, there seems to be a complete dearth of true leadership.

And also as usual, they wanted to seem rather than to be.

Seems fairly likely that they saw an opportunity to make a huge splash by hiring Hannah-Jones and potentially liked the appearance of being a leader in the academic conversation about race's role in America today.

And as you mentioned, past hires in her prospective role were granted tenure as standard practice.

Yet, at every step of the way those clowns bungled it.

The J-school's biggest current benefactor weighed in heavily against the turmoil the hire would likely cause even though the contractual framing of his gift to the school explicitly denied him the ability to say grace over personnel decisions.

But, evidently his opinion mattered to decision-makers over there. So instead of soliciting his opinion beforehand and/or pitching him on the idea of her hire as them being a true leader in the space by hiring somebody they know is divisive and thought-provoking and being willing to stomach the turmoil that would follow, they didn't talk to him and didn't get his buy-in, then started backtracking when the clearly foreseeable backlash came. They rescinded her offer for a tenured position and gave her a five year contract instead.

They also could've had some balls and told the benefactor to shove it when he clearly started using his sway to influence the terms of the hire, and they didn't do that either.

The whole thing was just so typically poorly thought-through and executed by those asshats. It's yet another colossal embarrassment for the university on the heels of their massive grade inflation exposure, Fat Marvin athletic scandal, the Department of Justice underreported sex assault inquiry, the Silent Sam debaclewe could go on and on.

Those morons over there step on their dicks constantly and I'd take some satisfaction in their bumbling ineptitude if they didn't also find ways to look down their nose at the rest of the world while doing it.

Every time something like this happens it makes me even more appreciative of State's current highly competent leadership.

---

Civ, you really don't what you are talking about. I am not defending UNC in any way; however, I have a friend that's spouse is a trustee over there. Your statements are opinions at best. The facts don't support you. Unfortunately, I'm not able to provide the facts because of the litigation that went on; however, I'm clear on the facts!

Civ, if you knew what you're talking about, you would understand the gentleman that gave the money knew his gift could not have strings attached; however, as any person can and should do is express dissatisfaction when they see it.

For your information, the gift was not contingent on this lady's position at UNC!!! That's a FACT!!!

Oh and BTW, I have told my friends (one of which is the Trustee) that I refused to pay for my daughters education at UNC. It's just not happening! It's become a poking in each other's side when we are together.

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Civ, if you knew what you're talking about, you would understand the gentleman that gave the money knew his gift could not have strings attached; however, as any person can and should do is express dissatisfaction when they see it.

For your information, the gift was not contingent on this lady's position at UNC!!! That's a FACT!!!

Oh and BTW, I have told my friends (one of which is the Trustee) that I refused to pay for my daughters education at UNC. It's just not happening! It's become a poking in each other's side when we are together.

---

We're not saying different things Cary.

I never said that his gift was contingent on Hannah-Jones' employment status.

And I'm sure Hussman did know that UNC didn't have a contractual obligation to consult him on personnel matters, or to factor in his opinion.

But when he lobbies for a certain personnel decision outcome, and UNC's board and/or administrators listen, the issue of him not having a contractual right to weigh in on personnel matters is a difference without a distinction.

When you gift $35 Million to have your name hung on a journalism school, your opinion is going to matter whether you have contractual hiring and firing authority or not. It's dumb to think otherwise.

So if UNC leaders are going to **** their pants when their huge benefactor cries foul about hiring a journalist whose work is extraordinarily provocative, don't you think they should have managed that risk out?

The order of operations should not be

Make Hannah-Jones tenured offer
Receive complaint from Daddy Warbucks due to her obviously incendiary work
**** pants
Retract tenured offer and offer 5-year contract in its place
Start getting tons of bad national press
Threaten to get sued in federal court by the person you're trying to hire
Get even more bad press
**** your pants some more
Dick around and continue deferring vote for tenure
Eventually cave weeks later and offer tenure
Have prospective hire publicly humiliate you by teaching at another university days after you finally offer tenure

I'm pretty sure that's not textbook hiring or PR practices, especially for an allegedly esteemed institution.

Civilized said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Civ, if you knew what you're talking about, you would understand the gentleman that gave the money knew his gift could not have strings attached; however, as any person can and should do is express dissatisfaction when they see it.

For your information, the gift was not contingent on this lady's position at UNC!!! That's a FACT!!!

Oh and BTW, I have told my friends (one of which is the Trustee) that I refused to pay for my daughters education at UNC. It's just not happening! It's become a poking in each other's side when we are together.

---

We're not saying different things Cary.

I never said that his gift was contingent on Hannah-Jones' employment status.

And I'm sure Hussman did know that UNC didn't have a contractual obligation to consult him on personnel matters, or to factor in his opinion.

But when he lobbies for a certain personnel decision outcome, and UNC's board and/or administrators listen, the issue of him not having a contractual right to weigh in on personnel matters is a difference without a distinction.

When you gift $35 Million to have your name hung on a journalism school, your opinion is going to matter whether you have contractual hiring and firing authority or not. It's dumb to think otherwise.

So if UNC leaders are going to **** their pants when their huge benefactor cries foul about hiring a journalist whose work is extraordinarily provocative, don't you think they should have managed that risk out?

The order of operations should not be

Make Hannah-Jones tenured offer
Receive complaint from Daddy Warbucks due to her obviously incendiary work
**** pants
Retract tenured offer and offer 5-year contract in its place
Start getting tons of bad national press
Threaten to get sued in federal court by the person you're trying to hire
Get even more bad press
**** your pants some more
Dick around and continue deferring vote for tenure
Eventually cave weeks later and offer tenure
Have prospective hire publicly humiliate you by teaching at another university days after you finally offer tenure

I'm pretty sure that's not textbook hiring or PR practices, especially for an allegedly esteemed institution.

---

Again, your facts are wrong... based on what information I'm receiving, that factually didn't happen... if he ask question, sure, people will listen; however, he never, as I understand it, asked for any outcome of her employment.

That being said, if I were in his shoes, I would have raised hell over her hiring. She is horrible for any education system, including Howard University! Shame on Howard University!!

BTW, speaking about an issue like this, without being in the seat of the leader, making the decision, can usually lead to misguided opinions...

Looks like theyre about to toss the Chancellor on the sword, bet that severance package is nice...

https://www.wral.com/emergency-meeting-at-unc-chapel-hill-comes-amid-concerns-over-chancellor-race-relations/19771440/?fbclid=IwAR3tfiOxrpVyfbhN-0cFkkqfxg0LRPNdSDPZE4sX0Bf9Fc9zogzyOgnOIkY

They go through Chancellors over there like water... The guy from Nebraska, Thorpe, Folt, Spellings, this guy and whoever is next.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-bizarre-martyrdom-of-nikole-hannah-jones/

Quote:

---

Major media and academic influencers alike have hailed Hannah-Jones as a conquering hero for this decision, portraying her as a martyr who one-upped the ranks of racists intent on silencing the Pulitzer Prizewinning, MacArthur "genius" grantwinning New York Times reporter. The Chronicle of Higher Education's postmortem gushed that Hannah-Jones hadn't "idly wait[ed] to see if a group of mostly white men would, at long last, tell her she was good enough." NPR explained that "her decision ignited a conversation on the opportunity for Black academics to flip the script on taking their talents to predominantly white universities." And dozens of UNC staff members signed a statement claiming that "the appalling treatment of one of our nation's most-decorated journalists by her own alma mater was humiliating, inappropriate, and unjust. We will be frank: It was racist."

---

Quote:

---

Amid the media anguish about whether a woke non-academic was feted with sufficient scholarly blandishments, the continued evaporation of right-of-center scholars from an inhospitable workplace is mostly ignored. In 1989, liberal faculty outnumbered conservative faculty by two to one. By 2014, that figure was five to one. In the social sciences and the humanities, self-identified conservatives make up 10 percent or less of the faculty. Yet, while the Hannah-Jones affair has prompted more than 30 stories in the pages of Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education since May alone (almost all sympathetic), the ways both large and small in which trained right-leaning scholars are squeezed out of the academy go unremarked.

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-absurd-end-to-the-unc-nikole-hannah-jones-furor/

Quote:

---

University leaders have been letting standards slide for a long time, but the decision by the University of North Carolina to hire writer Nikole Hannah-Jones as a journalism professor takes the cake. When her job didn't come with tenure, she pitched a fit and the school quickly caved in, offering her tenure. But by that time, she was fed up and moved on to another offer, at Howard University.

Alas, that wasn't the end of the story. Her lawyers concocted a lawsuit against UNC, and, to nobody's surprise, UNC again caved in with a juicy settlement. (This reminds me of the way activist groups often sue the federal government, knowing that the feds will give them just what they want in a "settlement" of the case.)

What about the terms of the settlement? UNC will pay her $75,000 not to sue again. Far more expensive, however, are the other terms. The authors explain:

Quote:

---

It turns out the $75,000 wasn't quite enough. As part of her settlement, she somehow managed to secure a bunch of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) sinecures for 20 university administrators. Per the agreement, these bureaucrats will be attached to hiring committees for new university employees. They will "receive a stipend to serve as consultants or participants" in hiring searches. The terms of Hannah-Jones's deal also direct UNC to make a new hire for something called a "trauma-informed therapist within the Multicultural Health Program," as if to signal atonement for Hannah-Jones's claims of mental anguish over an insufficiently generous hiring offer in the initial round. Another clause dedicates an annual payout of $5,000 to pay for "meetings, events, and symposia" hosted by an activist organization for university faculty and staff.

---

So, UNC will be paying for its folly for many years to come.

---

I expect this arrangement to be shared amongst all institutions in the "UNC system".

" ... I expect this arrangement to be shared amongst all institutions in the "UNC system".

If not duplicated at all campuses.

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-absurd-end-to-the-unc-nikole-hannah-jones-furor/

Quote:

---

University leaders have been letting standards slide for a long time, but the decision by the University of North Carolina to hire writer Nikole Hannah-Jones as a journalism professor takes the cake. When her job didn't come with tenure, she pitched a fit and the school quickly caved in, offering her tenure. But by that time, she was fed up and moved on to another offer, at Howard University.

Alas, that wasn't the end of the story. Her lawyers concocted a lawsuit against UNC, and, to nobody's surprise, UNC again caved in with a juicy settlement. (This reminds me of the way activist groups often sue the federal government, knowing that the feds will give them just what they want in a "settlement" of the case.)

What about the terms of the settlement? UNC will pay her $75,000 not to sue again. Far more expensive, however, are the other terms. The authors explain:

Quote:

---

It turns out the $75,000 wasn't quite enough. As part of her settlement, she somehow managed to secure a bunch of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) sinecures for 20 university administrators. Per the agreement, these bureaucrats will be attached to hiring committees for new university employees. They will "receive a stipend to serve as consultants or participants" in hiring searches. The terms of Hannah-Jones's deal also direct UNC to make a new hire for something called a "trauma-informed therapist within the Multicultural Health Program," as if to signal atonement for Hannah-Jones's claims of mental anguish over an insufficiently generous hiring offer in the initial round. Another clause dedicates an annual payout of $5,000 to pay for "meetings, events, and symposia" hosted by an activist organization for university faculty and staff.

---

So, UNC will be paying for its folly for many years to come.

---

I expect this arrangement to be shared amongst all institutions in the "UNC system".

---

What the hell is this?

bigeric said:

---

" ... I expect this arrangement to be shared amongst all institutions in the "UNC system".

If not duplicated at all campuses.

---

So....... does that mean that all of the schools have to pay for this clown?

I'm confused....

I'm sure that there are more than one or four people on here that love her... but damn... Is that money from every school in the system???

BBW12OG said:

---

bigeric said:

---

" ... I expect this arrangement to be shared amongst all institutions in the "UNC system".

If not duplicated at all campuses.

---

So....... does that mean that all of the schools have to pay for this clown?

I'm confused....

I'm sure that there are more than one or four people on here that love her... but damn... Is that money from every school in the system???

---

Folks, NC State already pays for clown shows…. If you think NC State is not part of the woke indoctrination, you're kidding yourself.

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

bigeric said:

---

" ... I expect this arrangement to be shared amongst all institutions in the "UNC system".

If not duplicated at all campuses.

---

So....... does that mean that all of the schools have to pay for this clown?

I'm confused....

I'm sure that there are more than one or four people on here that love her... but damn... Is that money from every school in the system???

---

Folks, NC State already pays for clown shows…. If you think NC State is not part of the woke indoctrination, you're kidding yourself.

---

Sadly you are correct.... look at some of the posters on here. You'd think they'd have enough common sense to not buy into the BS they spew.... But... common sense these days is lost in that party.

It's all about power and owning the GOP/Conservatives. Any party that tells you a man can have a baby, can't define what a woman is and openly supports drag queen story time with 5 year-olds tells you all you need to know about them and their characters.

Sorry if that offends any of the lefties on here but the truth is the truth and not a damn one of you can defend that or choose to. Just stay silent with your heads in the sand. It's who you are and who your party is.

Own it.