Last Tuesday, February 28th, a university employee contacted the university police department on what was an unseasonably warm and sunny afternoon. The caller was perplexed upon seeing a man who was strangely dressed and seated on a bench behind the business school. Specifically, he was wearing a zipped-up jacket that did not seem necessary given the warm weather conditions. He had his hands in his pockets as he was watching passersby. There was no mention of race by the caller until he was asked by the dispatcher to provide basic demographic information.
A campus police officer was dispatched to the location and upon arrival explained the nature of the call they had received. The officer explained that the easiest way to proceed was for the man to take off his jacket so the officer could see that there was no weapon present. He removed the jacket and handed it to the officer who then confirmed that there was no weapon and placed the jacket on the bench.
Then things got interesting when the man identified himself as a faculty member and asked the officer if he was questioning him based on his ethnicity. The interaction did not include a physical "frisking" as is sometimes permissible under Terry v. Ohio (1968). In fact, the officer never touched him. In this interaction, the university police officer did not even ask the man to identify himself. The man simply volunteered the fact that he teaches at UNC-Wilmington. The officer repeatedly assured him that he did not believe he had done anything wrong and apologized for the fact that he was obligated to follow up on the call.
Given that the instructor, who is from Kosovo, raised the issue of possible “racial profiling,” the university immediately flew into investigative mode. They initiated a review of the “incident” before the day was out. This included reaching out to the faculty member via telephone and email for his account of the allegedly racially motivated “incident.”
The university was correct to anticipate that the incident would blow up. Academics are constantly looking for new social problems to justify their worldview. And they typically marry those who share their proclivity towards imagined victimization. So, predictably, before the evening was over, Rajan Juniku’s wife had taken to social media with false accusations of racism. Here is what she said on Facebook:
"Someone thought he looked less like a university lecturer and more like a terrorist (olive skinned man with too many clothes on.... must be hiding an arsenal) … My husband's gorgeous olive skin, dark hair and chestnut eyes do not make him a terrorist, and neither does him sitting in the sun. His students were around, his colleagues .... A great injustice has been done to my husband today, and we are fuming."
Within hours, the “incident” was the top story on the local news.
Also, quite predictably, by the next morning UNCW's provost called the faculty member to express her concern and to encourage him to respond to the university’s outreach to him – to which he had not yet bothered to respond. Additionally, police video of the “incident” was also reviewed. The university then sent an email to the entire student body saying, “We have taken this accusation of ‘profiling’ very seriously and will review how we can ensure that those approached by (university police) will not feel that they are being singled out for their ethnicity, but we also must recognize an obligation to respond to an employee's concern about campus safety.”
That email was a huge mistake by the university. They should have simply ignored the obviously false accusation of “profiling.” After all, the police recorded the call to the dispatcher and the recording reveals that the caller guessed (incorrectly) that the man was “Indian.” More importantly, the caller only speculated about ethnicity when asked. For the record, there is no epidemic of irrational fears that Indians will come storming the campus and shooting up the place.
Now that the school has shown it is sufficiently intimidated by race-baiting to email the whole university community with a message containing the word “profiling” we can expect the following to take place after students return from spring break on March 13th:
- Social Justice Warriors will storm the student union demanding social justice chanting, “Racial profiling must go, we support our professors from Kosovo!”
- The university will send one of its attorneys to explain the law of search and seizure – specifically highlighting the fact that you cannot consent to a search (as the lecturer did in this case) and then claim the search was “unreasonable.”
- Social Justice Warriors will get angry over the fact that someone told them they were wrong and will then storm the chancellor’s office.
- The Faculty Senate will issue a resolution condemning racial profiling.
- The chancellor will commission a “task force” to deal with campus profiling designed to appease campus leftists.
- Still angered by the Trump victory, professors on the task force will recommend a new Middle Eastern Resource Center to cater to the victimization claims of people who look like they might be from the Middle East or perhaps just “Indian looking.”
- The least white-looking person on the task force will be appointed to head the new Middle Eastern Resource Center. The administrator will be paid at least $150,000 per year.
- Tuition will be increased to pay for the new Middle Eastern Resource Center.
- The UNC system will eventually go bankrupt because its victim-centered worldview is economically unsustainable.
- The world will be right again once the government gets out of higher education altogether.
Wake me up when we get to #10. The government-subsidized drama sure is getting old.