In a shocking 7-1 vote, the University of Colorado (CU) Board of Regents voted on July 2 to censure Regent Wanda James, the board’s first and only Black member, following a months-long investigation into her criticism of a university-affiliated anti-cannabis campaign that she called racist. The move, widely viewed as unprecedented and politically charged, has sparked outrage among civil rights advocates and public officials, while renewing questions about the treatment of Black leadership in higher education.
What’s Tea?
At the center of the ongoing controversy is the “Tea on THC” public health campaign launched by the Colorado School of Public Health. Funded by the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund, the campaign warned of the effects of cannabis use during pregnancy.
The imagery and messaging drew criticism from James, who claimed that it perpetuated anti-Black stereotypes with its portrayal of Black children as cognitively impaired and behaviorally challenged resulting from marijuana use in utero.
James, who owns a cannabis business and has advocated for equity within the industry for years, spoke out against the imagery publicly and privately.
In January, she contacted CU President Todd Saliman and Anschutz Chancellor Don Elliman to raise concerns, urging them to remove the offensive content and seek accountability from the campaign’s creators. According to James and her legal team, the images were removed from social media and she received an apology, but she says that she received little support from university leadership.
Instead of addressing her concerns, the CU Board of Regents commissioned an outside investigation, spending over $300,000 in taxpayer dollars by May, with costs expected to exceed $500,000.
Standing Strong
The censure vote, while symbolic and without legal consequence, marks a public rebuke of James’ actions after an investigation into whether her actions breached Regent Policies 2.A (Conflicts of Interest), 2.J (Fiduciary Obligations), 2.I (Political and Social Expression by Regents), 5.B.1(B) (Academic Freedom) and C.R.S. 24-18-108.5 (Rules of Conduct for Members of Boards).
In a written response submitted by her attorneys at Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC, James laid out a point-by-point rebuttal.
“This entire process is a reaction to my refusal to remain silent in the face of racism,” she wrote in a public invitation ahead of the vote.
“They could have said ‘we hear you,’ apologized and used those funds to support more students. Instead, they spent public dollars to send a message: ‘Know your place.’ I assure you: Message not received.”
The investigation’s most contentious moment came during James’ interview, when the lead investigator reportedly asked whether she “smokes a joint every day” – a question she and her supporters say was racially charged and irrelevant.
“Does the Coors family drink beer?” she wrote in her public statement, pointing to what she described as a discriminatory process.
James’s legal team further emphasized that the decision to cut funding for the Tea on THC campaign had already been made by Colorado Governor Jared Polis due to budget constraints and concerns about duplicative research.
“By the time Regent James even became aware of the campaign’s imagery, the decision to pull funding had already been made,” the letter stated. “She did not, and could not have, influenced that outcome.”
Still, her public statements in support of the funding cut and suggestions that the money would be better spent on equity programs became the basis for the Regents’ action. Though they recognized her “individual right…to express opinions on matters of social and political concern,” James was found to have violated Regent Policies 2.J.1 (Duty of Care) and 2.J.2 (Duty of Loyalty).
The Bigger Issue
On July 14, James alerted the public to yet another turn of events, writing that Callie Rennison, Chair of the CU Board of Regents, informed her that the resolution to censure her includes sanctions banning her from university functions in her official role – essentially stripping her of basic duties.
“With respect to university events, the Board’s adoption of the resolution rescinded any invitations previously extended to [you] to any internal or external university events that regents attend in their official representational capacity and precludes any such future invitations,” Rennison wrote in a statement shared by the incensed regent.
James’s supporters say the vote reflects a pattern of institutional resistance to racial justice advocacy.
“Censuring the only Black member of the Board for condemning racist imagery is not only ironic, it’s appalling,” says former CU student Aaliyah Green, who watched the censure hearing via Zoom.
“We expect our leaders to call out harm, not be punished for it.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wieser issued a public warning about the entire ordeal on social media, writing, “The First Amendment protects the right to free expression. Neither a White House Executive order nor a public university policy can override this fundamental right. I am concerned that the CU Board of Regents action sanctioning Regent Wanda James did just that.”
“The CU Board of Regents’ policy as applied to the speech of elected regents must be consistent with the protection of the right to free expression. If CU Regent Policy 2.J can be applied in a way that silences a Regent’s voice, then the policy is on shaky legal ground.”
He continued his statement with a recommendation that the board reconsider its action against her, while making efforts to de-escalate rhetoric and elevate listening instead.
Not Backing Down
James, who has served on numerous national and state boards, including the Colorado Tourism Board and the Obama for America National Finance Committee, was honored in 2023 as one of the Colorado Women’s Chamber of Commerce’s Top 25 Most Powerful Women in Business. She says she has no intention of resigning.
“This is about what institutions do to Black leadership when we refuse to be silent,” she says.
“This isn’t just about me. It’s about every student, faculty member, and community leader who’s been told to sit down when they stood up.”
With national debates over academic freedom, institutional racism and the politics of public health, the case exposes the need for ongoing conversation about race, representation and resistance in higher education.
