Excerpt From: Townhall. Written By: Mike Adams.
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.
Trending: Secular Democrats of America: Congressional Members of Radical Anti-Religion Caucus Write Letter to Biden Urging New Administration to Purge Government of ‘Religious Right,’ Eliminate Religious Exemptions in Law, Close Churches
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.