In this episode of "Be Careful What You Wish for, You Might Get It"...

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was one of two main defendants — Harvard University, the other — that fought mightily to keep race-based admissions policies legal in a case that ended up before the Supreme Court. The high court in late June ruled in a 6-3 decision that admissions policies that include race as a factor (affirmative action) violate the Equal Protection Clause.

While I won't call it "stunning," it was perhaps a bit of a shock to learn that UNC-Chapel Hill has now more than reversed course; the board of trustees voted 10-1 to not only abolish consideration of race in admissions decisions but to also race as a factor in all hiring decisions, including contract workers. 

In a somewhat of a "Flying Pigs Alert" statement, a university trustee said:

This is a moment of humility. A lot of people thought that we were fighting a good fight that needed to be fought, but as it turns out, we were actually doing something we should not have been doing.

Trustee Marty Kotis told The College Fix, “Our job is not to window-dress but to actually root out problems,” adding: 

One of the takeaways for boards [of trustees] out there is, if they think something should be implemented or audited, they need to be on the ball and do that. They can’t just sit back and think someone should do something.

That admission strikes me as somewhat odd, given the years of insidious radical-leftism creep on America's university campuses, but better late than never, I suppose.

At the July 27 board meeting, trustee John Preyer spoke passionately in support of the Supreme Court ruling and its meaning for the university.

For nine years, we’ve spent in the neighborhood of $35 million dollars, to lose a high-profile case in which we were found to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a moment of humility. 

A lot of people thought that we were fighting a good fight that needed to be fought, but as it turns out, we were actually doing something we should not have been doing. 

Would we have been better [off] spending $35 million dollars on providing tuition at no cost, or reduced costs, instead of litigating a position that was ultimately found to be in violation of the law?

Let's see... yes, yes, yes, yes, and of course you would've been better off. 

Preyer pointed out that when Kotis first put forth a resolution in 2021 to ban race-based hiring and admissions policies, he voted against it.

I did so because [the university was] $25 million dollars into defending a position that was ultimately going to be found in violation of the law. I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to ask the question, ‘Why did we do that, how did we get there?’

Then he nailed it:

We think we were fighting the good fight. Well, it turns out the good fight was against the law, and I come back to the word humility. This is a moment for everyone to reflect.

"Humility." Used by a university trustee who admits race-based education is, yeah, racist. Who knew?

Finally, Kotis said:

Everyone that is applying to the school for admissions or hiring or contracting should have an equal opportunity, and I think that is very different than trying to mandate an equal outcome based on arbitrary characteristics.

Joe "Equity" Biden and Democrats, and CNN and MSNBC, were unavailable for comment.

The Bottom Line

The question is: Is the Chapel Hill admission an outlier that we're not likely to soon see from other major universities, or is the beginning of the no-longer-hallowed halls of academia being smacked upside the head with the law of unintended consequences? 

Let's not hold our breath.