Darling Marc and CR Daily,
In response to your article (ow.ly/axr7m), we would like to share the following with you….
a) the Y is a student organization and has a budget (which helps fund our website) independent of university funding;
b) We never knew the Y’s Facebook page was owned by the state of North Carolina
c) we are the CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE; OF COURSE WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT!
Jagir Patel and Mackenzie Thomas
Co-Presidents of the Campus Y who are STRONGLY AGAINST AMENDMENT ONE.
So, let’s address these points one by one, shall we?
A) ” the Y is a student organization and has a budget (which helps fund our website) independent of university funding”
Interesting claim, considering that the Y also has several paid employees of the University running the place. I’ve compiled a list of the relevant persons and their respective university-paid salaries below (all data taken from the University of North Carolina Salary Database):
1. Richard Harrill, Director: $61,000
2. Lucy Lewis, Assistant Director and Director of the Bonnor Leader Program: $46,886 (plus a $2344 non-state salary)
There are other university employees who work at the Y, but these two are the two that the University General Administration classifies as receiving their salaries from the Campus Y Department (though, I’m reliably told that the better word to use is “Division”). If the UNC GA classifies the Y as a division, that’s good enough for me.
B) “We never knew the Y’s Facebook page was owned by the state of North Carolina”
Well, you might consider reading the UNC Policy Manual, particularly Policy 105. The relevant part is, “Political Activity: Political activity by University employees is regulated by Federal and State law and University policy. No employee may use University funds, vehicles, equipment, supplies, or other resources in connection with partisan political activities. This includes the use of University electronic resources” Note that this also calls into question their use of the university website.
C) “we are the CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE; OF COURSE WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT!”