Critics are right to ask, is Wanda James:

Who is Wanda James and why does this matter?

• Wanda James is a CU Regent:
  Elected to the CU Board of Regents, Wanda James holds a key role influencing university policies, budgets, and research initiatives across the CU system and a budget of over $6Bn annually.
• Owner of Simply Pure:
  She operates Simply Pure, a high-profile marijuana dispensary in Denver. With Colorado’s booming cannabis industry, this business interest poses possible conflicts when CU research or public health campaigns focus on marijuana risks.
• Conflict of Interest Concerns:
  CU Board of Regents Policy 2.A explicitly states that a regent “must not be impaired… as a result of conflicts between the interests of the university and the regent’s own financial interest.” The question is whether James’s cannabis-based income and activism clash with CU’s scientific and public health mandates.

What is the “Tea on THC” and Regent James’ Pushback

1. What is “Tea on THC”?
   • A Colorado-funded public health campaign, authorized by HB21-1317, designed to inform the public—particularly pregnant women and young people—about the potential harms of high-potency THC.
   • Funded through Colorado’s marijuana tax revenue, it follows research that elevated THC levels can lead to cognitive impairments, psychosis, or fetal development issues, according to CU School of Public Health researchers.
2. Wanda James’s Opposition
   • James denounced the campaign, calling it “blatantly racist” and harmful to Black communities, as reported by Jimmy Sengenberger’s column in The Gazette (Feb. 7, 2025).
   • Critics note that her attempts to defund “Tea on THC” align with her financial interests in maintaining a favorable public image for cannabis products.
3. Why It Matters
   • Public Trust: CU’s educational mission and research integrity may be compromised if a sitting regent suppresses evidence-based health information for business reasons.
   • Transparency: The taxpayers who fund CU deserve to know whether their regent is acting ethically or putting profit first.

Colorado’s own Trump / Elon?

• Donald Trump:
  Accused of using his presidency to boost personal properties, hotels, and branding opportunities—public office for private gain.
• Elon Musk:
  Known for controversial tweets affecting stock prices (Tesla, cryptocurrency) and at times seen as shaping policy discussions to favor his companies (SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter/X).
• Wanda James similarly appears to be leveraging her regent position to protect her dispensary’s interests, challenging a public health program that might hurt the cannabis industry’s image. Like Trump or Musk, she stands accused of turning a public platform into self-promotion.

… and all of this at a time when our research and education institutions can least afford to put up a fight.

1. Email the CU Board of Regents
   Write respectfully but firmly, urging them to investigate whether Wanda James is compromising her duties under Policy 2.A.
   • Addresses:
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
     • [email protected]
2. Request a Formal Inquiry & Potential Censure
   • Policy 2.M allows censure of a regent found in violation of board policy. If James used her office for personal gain, she should be held accountable.
3. Spread the Word
   • Share these concerns on social media, in community groups, and with fellow CU stakeholders.
   • Encourage alumni, students, and Colorado taxpayers to speak up for transparency.
4. Support Transparency and Ethics
   • If you believe in research-based public health and ethical governance, make your voice heard. Public officials cannot place private profit over public interest.
   • Share these concerns on social media, in community groups, and with fellow CU stakeholders.
   • Encourage alumni, students, and Colorado taxpayers to speak up for transparency.

1) What the Recent News Articles Say

A. Jimmy Sengenberger’s column in The Gazette (Feb. 7, 2025)

• Context:
  • Wanda James (CU Regent and owner of a cannabis dispensary) has sharply criticized a University of Colorado School of Public Health campaign called “Tea on THC.”
  • This campaign, funded by state marijuana tax dollars (pursuant to Colorado HB21-1317), is meant to educate about the potential risks of high-potency marijuana for youth and pregnant people.
  • James labels the campaign “blatantly racist,” “deeply harmful,” and an “intentional and calculated attack on Blackness,” citing (among other things) its depiction of a Black fetus and Black youth.
  • She questions the science used by the CU researchers who developed the campaign and has publicly demanded that the campaign be taken down and defunded.
  • Sengenberger’s column accuses James of attempting to “strip funding” from her own institution’s research, motivated by her role in the cannabis industry and her personal/business interests.

B. Denver7 (KMGH) News Report (Feb. 12–13, 2025)

• Context:
  • This segment focuses on the Trump administration’s move to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding (and the temporary block by a federal judge).
  • Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser joined other states in a lawsuit challenging those cuts.
  • Regent Wanda James is quoted speaking about the potentially devastating effects on CU Anschutz Medical Campus, which relies on NIH funds for medical research. She noted that “hundreds of PhD researchers and doctors” suddenly lost funding and that the cuts “could cost lives.”
  • James also points out job threats and a broad “trickle-down effect” when entire departments lose government support.
  • She calls on federal officials to produce a plan and restore the funding.

In sum, these articles highlight two different issues involving Wanda James:

1. Her opposition to (and calls to defund) a CU School of Public Health cannabis-education campaign that she deems racist and harmful.
2. Her public stance against federal NIH-funding cuts that threaten CU Anschutz research.

2) Policy 2.M: Reprimand or Censure of a Board Member

A. The Policy’s Requirements

Under Policy 2.M, the Board of Regents may censure a regent only if:

1. The Board finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the regent violated a specific statute, Board Law, or Board policy defining that regent’s obligations.
2. Such a finding occurs only after:
   • An investigation by the Board or a designee,
   • Notice to the regent of the specific allegation,
   • An opportunity for the regent to respond in writing and review the evidence,
   • And a decision made at a public meeting (the Board cannot consider censure solely in executive session).

In other words, disagreeing with a campus policy, opposing a university program, or even criticizing (and seeking to defund) a CU initiative does not automatically amount to a censure-worthy violation. There must be a demonstrable breach of law or Board policy—for example, an unambiguous conflict-of-interest rule violation, misuse of position, or illegal discrimination.

B. Potential Questions Raised (But No Clear Violation Yet)

From these articles, the biggest question for Policy 2.M would be:

• Is Wanda James violating any Board rule by using her regent position to undermine, defund, or discredit a university-approved public health project in which she might have a personal or financial stake to do so?

Currently, there is no public evidence of a specific Board policy or statute that she has definitively violated. Regents have the right to:

• Voice concerns over university campaigns,
• Question research or funding,
• Advocate (or lobby against) certain programs, and
• Raise issues about perceived racial bias in official university communications.

Moreover, Policy 2.M requires that any censure action must be preceded by an explicit investigation establishing a rules-based breach (for instance, demonstrating that she used her office improperly for personal business gain, or that she engaged in unlawful discrimination or retaliation, etc.). So far:

• The articles show that she may have a conflict in that she is both a CU Regent and a cannabis-industry pioneer.
• She is actively trying to “pull funding” from a CU school initiative while also being a stakeholder in the cannabis industry.

Still, to trigger a censure under Policy 2.M, one would need factual findings that James’s conduct directly broke a law or board policy—such as an explicit conflict-of-interest statute, or a code-of-conduct provision stating a regent must not intervene financially in the university to further personal business interests. Mere criticisms, calls to defund, or an effort to shape policy—by themselves—are generally within a regent’s scope of free speech and policy-making input.

C. The NIH Funding Dispute

Regarding the NIH funding cuts, there is nothing in that scenario suggesting a breach of law or Board policy. Wanda James is simply defending CU’s ongoing federal research dollars. No portion of the second article suggests wrongdoing; in fact, she is supporting the institution’s interests, not undermining them.

3) Conclusion

• No Explicit Violation on the Face of These Articles
  While Wanda James’s calls to defund the “Tea on THC” campaign and her rhetoric about racism have generated controversy (and certainly could raise political or ethical questions), there is no clear, documented breach of a specific CU statute or policy that automatically triggers Policy 2.M discipline.
• What Would Be Needed for Censure
  If an official complaint alleged that her conduct violated some specific policy—such as improperly using her regent position for personal pecuniary gain, unlawfully discriminating, or refusing to carry out a Board-approved directive—then the Board (or a designee) would investigate. They would have to determine that she did breach a statutory or Board rule by a preponderance of the evidence. Only after that investigation and due process (in public, with notice and an opportunity to respond) could the Board vote publicly to censure.
• Bottom Line
  So far, these stories alone do not present a straightforward basis for a censure proceeding. Regents have broad latitude to disagree with university programs, even vociferously. Unless or until there is proof of an actual policy violation—for example, pressuring officials improperly with personal threats, breaching a conflict-of-interest rule, or violating anti-discrimination laws—Policy 2.M would likely not be triggered.

Summary of Recent Controversies Involving Wanda James

1) Dispute over CU’s “Tea on THC” Marijuana-Education Campaign

• The Campaign
  In 2021, Colorado’s legislature passed HB21-1317, directing CU’s School of Public Health to use marijuana tax revenues to research the health impacts of high-potency THC and to educate the public—particularly youth and pregnant women—about potential risks.
  The resulting outreach program, called “Tea on THC,” includes informational graphics and social media posts highlighting scientific findings about cannabis-related risks such as cognitive impairment, increased psychosis risk, and potential harm to fetal development when used during pregnancy.
• Wanda James’s Criticism
  In an op-ed published in The Gazette on Feb. 7, 2025, columnist Jimmy Sengenberger reported that James labeled the campaign “blatantly racist” and “deeply harmful,” pointing to images of a Black fetus and young Black men in the materials. She accused CU of using “Black babies, Black boys, and Black men” to promote an “intentional and calculated attack on Blackness.”
  – Source: Sengenberger Column, The Gazette, Feb. 7, 2025
• Alleged Call to Strip Funding
  Because James co-founded and runs a marijuana dispensary (Simply Pure), Sengenberger argues she has a vested interest in downplaying the risks of cannabis. He contends that James’s attempt to “pull funding” from CU’s public health research campaign could pose a conflict of interest, noting that she is an elected regent for the same institution that runs the program.
  – Source: Sengenberger Column, The Gazette, Feb. 7, 2025

2) Position on NIH Funding Cuts Affecting CU Anschutz

• The NIH Funding Block
  In a separate news story aired by Denver7 (KMGH) on Feb. 12–13, 2025, James condemned cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants under the Trump administration. These funds are integral to the CU Anschutz Medical Campus, which relies on hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research support.
• Potential Impact on CU
  James stated that abruptly halting NIH grants would leave “hundreds of PhD researchers and doctors” in limbo, warning that “this could cost lives” and jeopardize medical discoveries. She further expressed concern about the “trickle-down effect” on job security for university employees if entire research departments lose federal support.
  – Source: “‘This could cost lives’: CU Regent Wanda James shares how NIH funding cuts impact Colorado,” Denver7, Feb. 12–13, 2025

3) The Conflict: Personal Business Interests vs. Regent Duties

• Cannabis Industry Ties
  James is well-known in Colorado as a cannabis entrepreneur and was one of the first Black dispensary owners in the state. Her company, Simply Pure, has been in operation since 2009 (medical) and since 2015 (recreational). She has also served on gubernatorial task forces shaping marijuana policy.
• Criticism of CU’s Cannabis Research
  While James is condemning the university’s marijuana-risk campaign (potentially harming her industry’s image), she simultaneously holds an official role that includes oversight of CU’s policies, budget, and academic initiatives.
• Accusations of Racism vs. Scientific Findings
  James contends that “Tea on THC” materials are racially insensitive and propagate “debunked” claims that high-potency THC stunts brain development. However, CU researchers, including Dr. Annie Collier and Dr. Gregory Tung, emphasize that data from the scientific literature supports caution for adolescents and pregnant women.

Policy Background: CU Regent Policy 2.M (“Reprimand or Censure of a Board Member”)

Text of Policy 2.M
Regent Policy 2.M provides that the Board of Regents may censure a member if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the regent violated a specific statute, Board Law, or Board policy.” This process requires a formal investigation, notice of allegations, and a public vote.