NCAA Committee Issues New Warnings on Offensive Mascots

INDIANAPOLIS – A NCAA committee has issued new demands to several colleges and universities across the nation seeking justification for their continued use of offensive mascots, NCAA officials announced today. At issue is enforcement of the NCAA’s new edict against “hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery,” with which schools must abide in order to have eligibility to participate in NCAA postseason events.

The Executive Committee on Making Foolish Pronouncements During the Off-Season, reputed to be the NCAA’s busiest committee, initiated the latest spate of demands. Their purpose is to clarify and expand the NCAA’s position on offensive mascots, said committee head Giselda Knickertwist.

NCAA issues ban on Indian mascots

Last week an executive committee for the National Collegiate Athletics Association decided to prohibit the use of Indian mascots and nicknames by colleges and universities participating in the organization’s postseason tournaments. The NCAA also strongly encouraged institutions to cease scheduling athletic competitions with schools who use Native American nicknames, imagery or mascots.

UNC President Search is California Dreamin’

There’s an old North Carolina joke about bad ideas in California taking 10 years to arrive here. But one seems to be making record time. Exponential salary growth for public-university executives has the UNC president search committee California dreamin’.

Readers will recall that last year Marye Anne Fox, then chancellor of North Carolina State University, left Raleigh to take the same position at the University of California at San Diego. The West Coast school had offered Fox $102,000 a year more than N.C. State paid her. Fox was making $248,000 a year here; she picked up $350,000 in San Diego.

Learn the ins & outs of pursuing “culturally correct” funding

A rising senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recently won a scholarship worth up to $20,000 to study Tajik and Russian languages in the Asian nation of Tajikistan. Since that scholarship obliges him to work in national security upon graduation, UNC-CH’s Prof. Charles Kurzman is worried about what kind of “dirty deeds” he might be up to.

Diversity Movement Threatens Academic Freedom

Just for fun, imagine how the academic Left would react if dozens of colleges incorporated patriotism into their guiding principles and evaluated people according to their “patriotic dispositions.”

Then think how they’d respond to a plan to “Develop Patriotism” among university faculty that would:

“Revise 3rd year, tenure, and post-tenure evaluation criteria to assess ongoing skill building and demonstrable commitment to patriotism.”

“Tie evaluation of patriotism to raises, promotions, etc.”

“Recommend that all instructional faculties participate in ongoing patriotism professional development, including a module from the Patriotism Project.

“Include meaningful emphasis on patriotism development in orientation programming.”

How dare you question the Edwards Center at UNC?

All right, you skeptics, just why is it so hard to believe that John Edwards’ center at UNC Law isn’t really about solving poverty? Why don’t you believe all those statements about how Edwards’ interest in the center is not political? Why do you continue to think it’s simply about giving Carolina publicity and Edwards an issue for 2008?

Is it because of the timing of the center’s creation? Is it because no one’d heard a peep out of Chapel Hill about a poverty center until the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity was announced in early February? Does it have anything to do with the fact that shortly after Edwards lost in November, UNC Law School Dean Gene Nichol openly talked about his desire to get Edwards into UNC Law? Could it be that you’re suspicious over the center’s whirlwind creation in a matter of weeks without input from lawmakers or the public? Did all that make you think UNC’s real interest was in rescuing a darling of a desperate politician on the brink of political irrelevancy?

How not to get folks to believe your kooky conspiracy theory

For Christensen, Jones, and their ilk, it seems, you’re either with them or against them. Either you believe without question that there’s a grand conspiracy of global domination as manifested by the massive, U.S.- and Israel-orchestrated hoax called 9/11 — or you’re part of it.