Mike Adams

I’m getting sick and tired of all the violence. Every few months, the campus community gets another email blast from the police saying that a gunman is loose on the UNCW campus. For those who don’t know, UNCW stands for The University of North Carolina at We-are-sitting-ducks-because-only-criminals-carry-guns-on-campus. Our ban on guns has turned the campus into safe haven for armed robbers. It has also increased the incidence of violent crime around the perimeter of our campus. The explanation for the trend is purely common sense. And my solution is pure genius, largely because it is born of my boundless humility.

For years, North Carolina has had a law that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons as long as two major conditions are met. First, the citizen must pass a rigorous criminal background check. Second, the citizen must pass a rigorous mental health background check. But, there is one problem with the law, which takes the form of an exception: those licensed, sane non-criminals are prevented from carrying concealed weapons on any of our state university campuses.

The results are predictable here in the drug-infested town of Wilmington, North Carolina: First, criminals commit crimes like armed robbery, rape, and homicide near the campus (because that is where all the young people live). Second, they flee to campus right after committing the crime (because our campus is the largest gun-free zone in the entire county).

The crime problem on our campus is, of course, exacerbated by our university’s affirmative action policy. Under our policy, we grant preferential treatment to minority applicants. But we only grant that preferential treatment to members of minority groups that are, on average, less educated and poorer than whites (e.g., blacks and Hispanics). The problem is that those groups that are less educated and poorer also exhibit higher criminal involvement than whites.

Because universities have become so immersed in identity politics, they refuse to pay attention to other minority groups that do not lobby specifically for special treatment (e.g., Asians). Because Asians generally prefer to get by on their own merits, rather than trying to climb a racial victim ladder weighed down by blacks and Hispanics, they are excluded from our preferential treatment programs. This is unfortunate because Asians are the only minority group with consistently lower criminal involvement than whites.

Given that our gun policies and our affirmative action policies are both contributing to the campus crime problem, I am proposing a new crime control program that is based on a modification of both of those failed policies. My plan is simple and bold, so much so that I present it in big, bold letters: Stop offering scholarships to minorities per se and instead offer scholarships to minorities with concealed weapons permits.

The advantages to my program are pretty obvious to conservatives. But liberals require slow and careful explanations of even the simplest of ideas. The next few paragraphs are for them:

1. Reduced crime – In order for a crime to take place, a motivated offender must encounter a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian. People who carry concealed weapons are not suitable targets for violent crime. But they are capable guardians of others. So you do not even have to carry a concealed weapon in order to benefit from my new gun diversity policy.

2. Reduced need for centers like the African American Center and El Centro Hispano – Put simply, their status as armed citizens would make them feel at ease and comfortable. Therefore, we would not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on centers designed to make them feel comfortable. It would also teach them self-reliance, rather than the need to rely on government offices run by white liberals. Need a white man’s help? No way, Jose! Wiggers please!

3. Increased average age of the student population – Some have suggested that my plan will not work because concealed weapons permits can only be obtained by those at least 21 years of age – while people often enroll in college at 18 or younger. I don’t see that as a problem. Let’s increase the age of eligibility for all scholarships. That way we can worry less about teenagers squandering their opportunities because they lack the maturity to appreciate them. If they don’t want to wait until 21 for their handout that’s tough. It’s a handout. We’ll give it to you when we’re darned good and ready. If you don’t like it, hop on a leaky boat and paddle your way to Cuba where there is boundless freedom and decent health care. (Sarcasm = off).

4. Reduced racial stereotyping – Perhaps the best part of my plan is that it reduces racial stereotypes. Because we a) specifically recruit blacks and Hispanics with concealed carry permits, and b) those with concealed carry permits have clean criminal backgrounds, we will c) see a reduction in the negative stereotyping of blacks and Hispanics as criminals (Si how this works, amigos?).

My plan makes so much sense that the UNCW administration will probably implement it immediately. I’m just kidding. Instead, they will hold a meeting of all the top diversity officials and then condemn my suggestions as racist – and, while they are at it, probably sexist and homophobic. They will all hold hands and re-affirm their commitment to diversity, inclusion, and tolerance while singing a few stanzas of We Shall Overcome. But their voices shall not overcome the sound of gunfire that echoes in the distance.


Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand.