(Et tu, Timmy?) Will the tubby little one screw us ONE MORE time on his way out the door?

It seems like just yesterday that we were big-time spun about a possible wipeout of DEI in the UNC system.  The spinner, UNC-CH trustee Jim Blaine, led us to believe that we could very likely see action toward that end in the up-coming short session.  It’s pretty smart to take Blaine’s commentary on the state legislature seriously.  He is, after all, Igor to senate president pro tem Phil Berger‘s Frankenstein.  Renfield to Berger’s Dracula.  Berger is well-known to be the power in political Raleigh.  Blaine has been, and continues to be, Berger’s right hand man. Hearing it from Blaine is just about as good as hearing it from Berger.  

Leave it to lame duck House speaker Tim Moore to throw a wet blanket on Blaine’s exciting pronouncement.  In March, Moore hood-winked just enough voters in his corner of the state to promote him to the major-league grift on DC’s Capitol Hill.  He’s got big things waiting for him in The Nation’s Capital, and is apparently not interested in hanging around our state capital any longer than he has to:

North Carolina lawmakers may wait to pursue legislation that would limit or ban diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at the state’s public universities, instead deferring to the UNC System, Republican House Speaker Tim Moore said Wednesday. Speaking to reporters on the House floor, Moore said lawmakers have discussed “if we’re going to take up any legislation regarding DEI,” but added that any potential measures are “still at the conversation stage.” Moore did not rule out pursuing legislation on the hot-button issue in higher education, but said legislators may allow the Board of Governors or Boards of Trustees — which oversee the 16-university UNC System and individual campuses, respectively — “to take a look at it first.” […]

Oh, please.  For anything in re: state government to have any teeth, it needs to be addressed in legislation blessed by Jones Street or in a gubernatorial executive order.  Neither Cooper nor Josh Stein is going to deal with this.  THIS is the kind of thing supermajorities are actually made for.  They’ve had years to deal with this already.  Moore had his buddy installed as the shot-caller at UNC for years.  This could have been already handled if Moore wanted it handled.


[…]“There’s no big push to immediately do something,” Moore said, adding that he is more concerned about ensuring universities allow for “free and open exchange of ideas” on campus.

Moore’s comments Wednesday came two weeks after Jim Blaine, a member of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees and a former chief of staff to Republican Senate leader Phil Berger, said in a trustees meeting that he believes the UNC System Board of Governors or the legislature “will follow Florida’s path as it relates to DEI this year.”

Florida has dominated much of the national conversation over higher education in recent years, with efforts to ban DEI — among other decisions made by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and state lawmakers — becoming flashpoints.

DeSantis signed legislation defunding DEI programs at public colleges and universities in Florida last year, and the governing board that oversees the state’s university system passed a policy in January to conform with the law. As a result of the law and policy, the University of Florida last month closed its Office of the Chief Diversity Officer, eliminated DEI employee positions and ended DEI-focused contracts with outside vendors. Several other states have considered, and in some cases passed, similar legislation targeting DEI spending, as well as related issues, such as the use of diversity statements and writing prompts in hiring. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, more than 80 anti-DEI bills have been introduced nationwide since 2023. The short legislative session begins April 24. A spokesperson for the UNC System did not immediately respond to The News & Observer’s request for comment about whether system administrators or the Board of Governors are considering action on the issue.


North Carolina has not fully banned DEI at public colleges and universities, but the state has implemented some policies that show similarities to actions in Florida. For example, the UNC System last year implemented bans on “compelled speech” in hiring and admissions, which led to a ban at UNC-Chapel Hill on asking for DEI statements — generally, in which applicants are asked to describe how they have contributed to diversity efforts in their work.

The Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, which is co-chaired by Berger and Moore and oversees state government agencies in North Carolina, last year asked the UNC System to provide inventories and information, including associated costs, about diversity-related training programs across all 17 schools in the system. The state legislature enacted its own ban on compelled speech in state government workplaces last summer. That law also lists 13 concepts, mostly related to race and gender, that are banned from being taught or promoted in state workplaces, including public universities. Moore said Wednesday that he believes “every viewpoint deserves to be heard,” though he noted “threat speech” should not be tolerated. “There shouldn’t be indoctrination,” he said. “There shouldn’t be people made — regardless of political stripe or anything else — no one should be made to feel inferior because of their position on something.” Moore said potential measures to ban state funding on DEI efforts, as was done in Florida, has generated “the greatest conversation” on the issue among lawmakers. The timing might not be right during the short session to pursue anti-DEI legislation, regardless of the form it might take, Moore said. “I think that that’s a bigger lift. It’s going to require more conversation,” Moore said. “And frankly, I think we ought to allow the university to see what are we doing in North Carolina on that.”

The timing is not right?  He and Berger HAD been musing about revisiting casinos and legal weed during the short session.  They don’t think THOSE two issues would generate some lengthy debate?

DEI is Marxism-flavored discrimination against white people – particularly white men — with the alleged aim of evening the score against capitalists and white people.  It’s the ugly kind of crap we thought our country had eliminated in the 1960s.  Unfortunately, it’s the same garbage but aimed at new targets.