Was this multi-million dollar UNC building really necessary? | Opinion

In response to “Chapel Hill to Capitol Hill. UNC’s new office raises its profile in Trump-era DC” (April 30):

It seems every article about UNC these days has the phrase “it’s funded entirely by the university’s foundation, and no state dollars were used.” I don’t care where the funds came from: $9.6 million over 12 years — not to mention the upfit costs and annual operating costs — is a lot of money. So are excessive payments to coaches in the football and basketball programs.

This may seem simplistic, but is all this really necessary and proper given how tight funds are for the UNC system? Yes, this spending doesn’t come from public funds. But there are so many needs at the university level that more directly benefit the core function of the UNC System to educate students. To me, it just seems UNC has lost its way.

Brad Bradshaw, Raleigh

Redistricting arms race

This is not an ordinary congressional redistricting cycle. It is a mid-decade arms race. District lines, once adjusted after the census, have become weapons to be picked up whenever law and timing permit.

Louisiana is just the latest battleground. Hours after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s congressional map, Republican lawmakers suspended their congressional primaries and began preparing a new map. Other Republican-controlled states are studying the same opening: redraw mid-decade, defend the new lines as partisan rather than racial, and force opponents into state courts that may or may not be willing to act.

In much of the South, including North Carolina, race and party are closely correlated. A legislature defending an aggressive map can say: this was politics, not race. Rucho v. Common Cause had already made that defense powerful by holding that federal courts cannot adjudicate partisan-gerrymandering claims. Callais makes it stronger by making “this was politics” harder to overcome when race and party overlap.

The fight against partisan gerrymandering therefore has two meanings, and we should stop confusing them.

Andrew Chin, Cary

My son is a teacher

My son is a teacher. This Friday he, along with thousands of other teachers in North Carolina, marched in protest. They have been called thugs. I can assure they are not. They have been told they should teach “for the love and satisfaction of the job.” I can assure they do. They have been told that if they really cared about the children they would not be protesting so that the children can be in school where they belong. I can promise you it is precisely because they do care about the children that they are protesting.

Shouldn’t we want resources and surroundings that make a good education possible for all our children? I have never in my life required the skill set that comes from being a pop star, a pro athlete or very few of the politicians that now hold office. I have, however, required the skills of educated teachers, policemen, farmers and nurses. Comparing the earnings of those two groups should make us ashamed. Where do our priorities as a society lie?

To say that our future as a society depends on how we educate our children is not a dramatization. We must support our teachers, and we must do it now. My son is a teacher and I couldn’t be more proud, especially today.

Cheryl Irwin, Willow Spring

Employer responsibility

NC’s Department of Labor recently issued a press release “urging workers to take proactive steps to protect themselves from heat-related illnesses.” While I appreciate the N&O and NCDOL bringing attention to this growing public health threat, the guidance is missing a vital component: employer responsibility.

According to the NC Department of Health and Human Services, 5,748 people went to the emergency department for heat-related illness between May and September 2025. This year is on trend to be hotter.

NCDOL is right that rest, water, and shade are “simple precautions that save lives.” Noticeably missing from the guidance is any suggestion that employers are best positioned to notify workers of dangerous temperatures and to modify working conditions accordingly.

In fact, it’s the law.

Clermont Ripley, Raleigh

A teacher pay proposal

To address North Carolina’s low pay for teachers, legislators should pass a simple law:

“No legislator may vote on a bill regarding state educational funding, including teachers’ pay, unless he or she has personally served alone as a teacher in a North Carolina public grade school classroom for a full school day within the last five calendar years.”

Our legislators aren’t typically mean-spirited. But they appear to be woefully uninformed regarding the effort and expertise required to manage a classroom full of spirited young students, never mind actually educate them.

Gregory Arthur Clark, Durham