UNC administrators had better stock up on Maalox because it?s going to be a long week in Chapel Hill. Just last week the university was exposed for de-recognizing a Christian group without due process for an unthinkable transgression; they wanted to limit membership in the Christian group to people who are actually Christians.
Now, information has surfaced, which implicates the administrator who de-recognized the Christian group in the theft of a student newspaper in 1996. And wouldn?t you know it; the stolen newspaper was the Carolina Review, the only conservative newspaper on campus.
The theft of the student newspapers took place in February of 1996 when a liberal student named Aaron Nelson was running for student body president at UNC-CH. The conservative Carolina Review printed a scathing critique of Nelson?s politics that was slated to appear in an issue to be released on Election Day. That was when the real trouble started.
Supporters of Nelson?s campaign stole 1500 copies of the Carolina Review in an effort to preserve victory for their liberal candidate. The copies were deposited in the office of Student Attorney General George Oliver some time between the closing of the office the day before and 9:00 a.m. on February 13 (Election Day).
Enter Jonathan Curtis (firstname.lastname@example.org), the administrator in charge of the recognition of student groups at UNC-CH.
In an interview with the Daily Tar Heel (DTH), another student newspaper, Curtis admitted that only three administrators had master keys to the building where the 1500 stolen newspapers were found. Jonathan Curtis told the DTH that he was one of those three administrators.
One year after the theft of the paper, Tadd Wilson, a member of the Nelson campaign dropped a bombshell by disclosing the following in a guest column for the Carolina Review:
What (Jonathan) Curtis knew but could not say was that students were not the only ones involved (in the theft). He could not say so because he was the one whose key unlocked the door.
The serious accusations against Jonathan Curtis continued with the following:
(W)hen asked to open (Oliver?s office), Curtis said ?I can?t do that,? turned over his keys and turned his back. Another individual independently confirmed knowledge of Curtis? action. Curtis? involvement (in the theft) fills a major blank in the events leading up to Oliver?s discovery of the (stolen) issues, in addition to explaining why Curtis had to testify for the defense at the Honor Court trial.