Mike Adams - How to Save Money and Promote Athletic Diversity

My University, UNC-Wilmington, needs to change its name to The University of No Competition Whatsoever. We could still use the UNCW logo but our full name would more accurately reflect our educational priorities. We already undermine economic competition by promoting Marxism. But now we are considering cutting athletic competition in order to preserve diversity spending in the midst of state budget cuts.

The local Wilmington (North Carolina) McTimes recently reported on a proposal floating through the ranks of the university administration. The following sentence summarizes the gist of the spending cuts, which are expected to save $800,000 annually:

"UNCW would no longer field teams in men's indoor track; men's cross country; men's and women's swimming and diving and softball if the university's Board of Trustees approves the Intercollegiate Athletics Review Committee's recommendations."

Many people are upset at the proposal due to the fact that the men's swimming and diving team has won 12 consecutive CAA titles. They wonder why we would cut the most successful program on campus (athletic or otherwise) while leaving failed programs intact. Their concerns are merited but they miss two other repercussions of the cuts, which will overshadow the loss of our swimming and diving team. I discuss each below:

1. Blacks and track. We can't cut the men's track programs because most of the black male students at UNCW are on the track team. Maybe there are more black male students than I am aware of - perhaps several more are hiding in the African American Center in order to escape the racial oppression they learn about in African American Studies classes. But most black guys I see at UNCW are running around the track. We need to retain these high visibility black guys. The only other place you usually see black males is on the UNCW website - and I think some of those black guys were imported for PR purposes.
2. Lesbians and softball. Cutting the women's softball team will kill our efforts to promote homosexual diversity. Our women's softball games attract more lesbians than an Indigo Girls concert. If we get rid of the softball program we will lose over half of our real lesbians. We'll still have a few thousand temporary lesbians but those don't count. They are only lesbians for a few years in college because of the two-to-one campus girl-to-guy ratio.

Since a campus full of white temporary lesbians does little to promote diversity, we need to keep the track and softball teams. But where will the $800,000 in spending cuts come from? Naturally, I have all the answers.

My proposed cuts are listed below in no particular order of importance:

1. Close the Upperman African American Center. Most of the dozen or so black people we have on campus are too well-hidden. Instead of hiding from white people in a "blacks only" lounge, they should be circulating on campus with everyone else. Closing the Upperman Center will save a couple of hundred thousand a year. Plus, when our black students start to integrate with others we can take pictures of them and post them on the website. No more importing black people for PR purposes.
2. Close the LGBTQIA Center. These guys spent way too much money last year trying to defeat Amendment One. Now that they have lost, we should shut down this office, which is really nothing more than a lobbying center for gay politics – one that occasionally sponsors a few masturbation seminars to relieve the pressure of high-stress political lobbying. The closure will save us another hundred thousand or so and help us keep the swimming and diving program afloat. After all, we should be rewarding athletic winners instead of rewarding political losers.
3. Fire Coach Peterson immediately. Finally, we should fire our basketball coach, Buzz Peterson. He can't seem to coach basketball and stay on top of the academic performance of his players. Cutting him would get us halfway to the goal of saving $800,000 per year on our educational budget. Plus, we really don't need a coach named "Buzz" at a school that is notorious for partying.

Many would say that my savings plan has a flaw because we would need to hire another basketball coach to replace Buzz Peterson. But I disagree with that assessment. Under my plan, we would just let the basketball players coach themselves. They couldn't do much worse than they are doing right now. Plus, we'd be able to experiment with utopian society by declaring everyone on the team to be equals.

I'm sure everyone would share the ball equally under my new athletic budget reduction plan. But when your only goal is diversity and inclusion who cares about winning games anyway?

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Crystal Wright - Stupid and the RNC’s Outreach Plan

Is the Republican National Committee just “stupid” as Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) implied last week, or just hell bent on business as usual, ignoring the minority vote til’ the next century? Either way, the same people who insisted Mitt Romney be anointed the GOP 2012 presidential nominee are the same people now in charge of the party’s image makeover and recruiting voters of “color” to the party: Yes, middle aged and old white men. And all signs point to the fact that we’re heading for the same underperforming results unless we change directions fast.

Nearly three months after the election, what we see coming from the RNC is lip service to minority outreach. A Republican source who is familiar with the committee’s inner workings told me there are still no blacks working at the RNC other than in administrative positions and only one Hispanic person working the RNC political department.

Maybe that’s why the outreach plan includes the Martin Luther King Jr. video, the RNC released Jan. 21, King’s holiday and Inauguration day, in which Priebus looked uncomfortable talking about King’s legacy. In the three minute video, Priebus is surrounded by four people, two of which are minorities, who never speak but look like hostages held against their will. Does the RNC like its minorities silent with no voice or influence?

Adding insult to pandering insult, during the RNC’s winter meeting held in Charlotte in January, it approved a resolution to commemorate the achievements of black Republican Frederick Douglass. This is the RNC’s idea of outreach to black voters: a resolution and a video!

Priebus says he wants to spend time doing “extensive research” on why the GOP lost in 2012 and learn ways they can grow the GOP tent beyond white voters. In the press release announcing the initiative, the RNC proclaimed “The Growth and Opportunity Project is co-chaired by five prominent Republican leaders.” But there lies the problem.

Oddly enough, the five people Priebus appointed are part of the GOP establishment; do not bring a fresh perspective. The committee includes: Henry Barbour National Committeeman from Mississippi (nephew of longtime Republican Haley Barbour); Zori Fonalledas, National Committeewoman from Puerto Rico; Glenn McCall, National Committeeman from South Carolina; Sally Bradshaw, Veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics; Ari Fleischer, Former White House Press Secretary (under George W. Bush, this part was omitted from the press release)

What’s striking about this makeover gang of five is there are only two people of color. How can we seriously have increase our standing with minorities if the committee designed for outreach isn’t majority minority?

It’s doesn’t require a brain surgeon to figure out what the Republican Party needs to do to win. Nor does the RNC need to spend months navel gazing, hosting conference calls and meetings to hear from the same people they’ve been hearing from.

What the RNC needs to do is to start building meaningful relationships with Asians, blacks and Hispanics, take the conservative message outside of its comfort zone of the suburbs into the cities, particularly inner cities. It’s really not hard to do, if you are serious about “growing” and winning.

The RNC needs to take the conservative message to all Americans. We need to ask Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX) how she got 26 percent of the black vote in 2006. We need to ask Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) how he won 26 percent of the black vote in 2008 or what Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ strategy was to win 20 percent of the black vote in 2008. How about the RNC hosting forums in cities across the country or at colleges, particularly historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), featuring young, diverse Republicans talking about why they are conservative?

Priebus needs to give a mandate to all state chairmen and committee members to tell their local parties to make it a priority to recruit more minority members to the over 3,000 local Republican chapters. Now is time for the GOP to literally take its message to the street. The party will only get more diverse through grassroots outreach.

Meanwhile, while the RNC is contemplating the next phase of its life, perhaps it should reexamine its rules for membership to the RNC. Currently, each state or territory has a state chairman and a committeeman and committeewoman. As David A. Bositis wrote in “Blacks & the 2012 Republican National Convention, “at least one third of the members of the RNC are women by quota.” But there are no quotas for minorities. I think the RNC should either have quotas for all or quotas for none.

The RNC also needs to do a much better job identifying and supporting minority and women candidates. Not just monetary support but strategic support to help them win.

Ultimately, the GOP won’t begin to shed its “white only image” if it continues to use mostly white spokespeople talking about conservative values. Chanel recently hired Brad Pitt to be appear in its Chanel No. 5 perfume ads because Brad makes anything sexy and Chanel wants more women to buy its perfume.

If the RNC wants more minorities to buy its message, it should use spokespeople who look more like Sarasota Springs, Utah Mayor Mia Love, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senators Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz and less like Ari Fleisher and Henry Barbour. It’s time for RNC make conservatism sexy because “stupid” has got to go.

Crystal Wright

Crystal Wright is a black conservative woman living in Washington, D.C. Some would say she is a triple minority: woman, black and a Republican living in a Democrat dominated city. She’s contemplating moving back to her home state of Virginia, where her vote would count for something. By day, Crystal is a communications consultant and editor and publisher of the new website, conservativeblackchick.com. Crystal earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from Georgetown University and holds a Masters of Fine Arts in Theatre from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Wright is the principal owner of the Baker Wright Group, LLC , a full service public relations firm, specializing in communications counseling, media relations, message development, media training and crisis communications. The firm’s approach is straight forward counseling: an unvarnished approach to public relations.

Visit Crystal's Website by clicking HERE

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The “Diversity” Police Strike Again

In the upside down, gay activist lexicon, tolerance means intolerance, inclusivity means exclusivity, and diversity means my way or the highway. Dr. Angela McCaskill, associate provost of diversity and inclusion at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, is the latest victim of the diversity police.

McCaskill is now on administrative leave after working at Gallaudet for 23 years. She assumed her current position as the university’s first Chief Diversity Officer in January, 2011, and she seemed ideally suited for her job, being female, African American, and deaf. In fact, she was “the first deaf African American woman to earn a PhD” from Gallaudet, hailed as “the nation’s premiere school for the deaf.” At present, however, she is so shaken by the university’s actions that her husband reports that she is under doctor’s care.

What was this accomplished woman’s great transgression? As a private citizen and resident of Maryland, she signed a petition in July supporting marriage as the union of a man and woman. And she signed this petition on the way out of a church service where her pastor had preached against redefining marriage. Almost three months later, a faculty member became aware of this and issued a complaint to the university, and McCaskill was immediately relieved of her responsibilities.

PlanetDeafQueer reported that, “On November 6th, Maryland voters will decide whether the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which was enacted by the Maryland legislature and grants lesbian and gay couples the equal right to marry, is upheld or rejected. While there are many that support overturning this important civil rights legislation, one person you would never expect to be in favor of doing so is Gallaudet University’s own Chief Diversity Officer and Maryland resident, Dr. Angela McCaskill,” noting that her “job at Gallaudet is to promote diversity and inclusion at Gallaudet.”

But there is not a single mention of gay or lesbian issues on the university’s web page entitled, “About the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.” Instead, the Mission Statement declares, “The mission of the Office for Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet University is to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed. The Office for Diversity and Inclusion will achieve its mission by collaborating with units on campus to intentionally design a comprehensive, university-wide approach to diversity; facilitate equity, access, social justice and inclusion; and, empower students, faculty, and staff to build a diverse and inclusive campus community. Through the cultivation of diversity, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion will lead efforts to institutionalize diversity as a fundamental transformative force that fosters professional growth and academic excellence.”

Can someone fulfill this role without believing that marriage should be radically redefined? Is it possible for the Chief Diversity Officer “to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed” without believing that a man should be able to marry a man and a woman marry a woman?

The answer is obviously yes, since even PlanetDeafQueer noted that, “Dr. McCaskill is well liked by students. ‘She’s been a great ally to the LGBT community and supported many of the LGBTQA Resource Center’s programs,’ said one student, who asked to remain anonymous. ‘I’m heart broken about this.’” So, you can be a friend of the LGBT community without believing that marriage should be redefined.

But there’s a more fundamental question to ask: Whatever happened to “diversity and inclusion”? Whatever happened to Dr. McCaskill’s Constitutional rights and freedoms?

Before “diversity and inclusion” became gay activist code words, they actually used to mean what they meant. (What a novel idea!) “Diversity and inclusion” referred to the welcoming of diverse viewpoints and ideologies and peoples. Now, however, in classic Doublespeak, they mean the opposite of their original definition (and in the name of “tolerance” at that).

But this is nothing new. To give a personal example, in June, 2009, Grand State Valley University (GSVU) in Michigan, a publicly funded institution, hosted an event to counter Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conference, which was being hosted by a local church. (The Love Won Out conference was devoted to helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions.)

GSVU invited a militant opponent of Love Won Out to give a presentation mocking the idea that sexual orientation could be changed, to be followed by a panel discussion with five participants. When this was announced, the university received more than 10,000 emails requesting that I be included in the panel discussion, since all the participants were proponents of gay activism.

Despite this email deluge calling for just one of the five participants to have a differing viewpoint, and bearing in mind that the panel discussion was already quite secondary to the main presentation which would ridicule conservative Christian viewpoints, the university refused to include me. To be specific, it was the department of inclusion and diversity that refused to include me!

But all hope is not lost. Back in DC, the Washington Times has now reported that, “Leaders on both sides of the Maryland fight over same-sex marriage are urging Gallaudet University to reinstate an employee who was suspended because she signed a petition in favor of traditional marriage.”

Now that would be a refreshing step in the right direction, not to mention in the direction of diversity and inclusion.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The Rise of the Intolerance Brigade

In recent days, the extreme intolerance, bigotry, and exclusivity of some gay activists and their straight allies has been on prominent display in their attacks against Chick-fil-A. What makes this all the more ironic, not to mention Orwellian, is that their campaign is being carried out in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity. As expressed by jurist Marvin Frankel (in his book Faith and Freedom: Religious Liberty in America), “The powerless call out for tolerance. Achieving power, they may soon forget.”

Today, words like “diversity” and “inclusion,” which have been on the lips of gay activists for years, have taken on an ominous tone that would make Orwell proud.

Since March, students at New York University have been circulating a petition calling for Chick-fil-A to be removed from their campus for “human rights violations” (I kid you not). In classic doublespeak, the petition states that the fast food company doesn’t belong there because “NYU prides itself on being a diverse, open and inclusive campus community. . . . Unfortunately, maintaining a contract with an anti-gay vendor like Chick-fil-A undermines what makes this university so great.” So, Chick-fil-A should be banned because NYU “prides itself on being a diverse, open and inclusive campus community.”

In the same vein, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, stated, “As the country moves toward inclusion, Chick-fil-A has staked out a decidedly stuck-in-the-past mentality.” He further stated, apparently with a straight face, that “fair-minded consumers” can now “make up their own minds whether they want to support an openly discriminatory company.” It appears, then, that Griffin’s version of an “inclusive” America means that it’s either the gay way or the highway.

But it gets worse. In the now infamous words of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.”

It appears, however, that you can have a mayor in the city of Boston who discriminates against a population (namely, the scores of millions of Americans who do not want to redefine marriage) and against a business (namely Chick-fil-A, an exemplary company that has broken no laws, including laws of discrimination).

Mayor Menino continued (and with Orwellian eloquence at that), “We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” a stunning example of unintended irony if ever there was one.

In a similar example of unconscious doublespeak, New York City council speaker Christine Quinn, herself in a same-sex “marriage,” explained why she too wanted Chick-fil-A kicked off the NYU campus: “We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that.”

That’s right, Chick-fil-A. We are so diverse that we will run you out of our city. And we are so open and inclusive that we have no room for a business like yours.

Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno also attributed his attack on Chick-fil-A to “diversity,” explaining to ABCNews.com that his district is “a very diverse ward--economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation” – but not so diverse that it can welcome a Christian-based company. (The comments of the magnanimous mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, require little commentary: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” Perhaps he should have added, “No disrespect intended to my fellow neighbors and residents who oppose same-sex ‘marriage,’ and certainly, no disrespect intended to Minister Farrakhan, whose business is always welcome in our city.”)

Not to be left out in this remarkable display of tolerance, equality, and diversity, the Philadelphia City Council was considering “a resolution condemning Chick-fil-A for what one city leader called ‘anti-American’ attitudes that promote ‘hatred, bigotry and discrimination.’ City Councilman Jim Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy telling him to ‘take a hike and take your intolerance with you.’” (I am not making this up.)

Does Councilman Kenney not realize that he should be directing his statement to the face looking at him in the mirror? (To repeat: “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”) Does the Philadelphia City Council not recognize that 31 states have so far voted to uphold marriage as the union of one man and woman? Are all these states, most recently North Carolina, with an overwhelming vote of 61-39%, “anti-American”? And isn’t it the Philadelphia City Council resolution that is actually an example of “hatred, bigotry and discrimination”? Yes, Chick-fil-A, we will discriminate against you because we oppose discrimination.

Already in 1994, Camille Paglia wrote in her book Vamps and Tramps, “One reason I so dislike recent gay activism is that my self-identification as a lesbian preceded Stonewall: I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School (1968-72), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyone with my aggressive and scandalous history could be called ‘homophobic,’ as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become.” And Orwellian too.

So be on guard: The intolerance brigade is coming for you.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - My New Second Amendment Diversity Plan

I’m getting sick and tired of all the violence. Every few months, the campus community gets another email blast from the police saying that a gunman is loose on the UNCW campus. For those who don’t know, UNCW stands for The University of North Carolina at We-are-sitting-ducks-because-only-criminals-carry-guns-on-campus. Our ban on guns has turned the campus into safe haven for armed robbers. It has also increased the incidence of violent crime around the perimeter of our campus. The explanation for the trend is purely common sense. And my solution is pure genius, largely because it is born of my boundless humility.

For years, North Carolina has had a law that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons as long as two major conditions are met. First, the citizen must pass a rigorous criminal background check. Second, the citizen must pass a rigorous mental health background check. But, there is one problem with the law, which takes the form of an exception: those licensed, sane non-criminals are prevented from carrying concealed weapons on any of our state university campuses.

The results are predictable here in the drug-infested town of Wilmington, North Carolina: First, criminals commit crimes like armed robbery, rape, and homicide near the campus (because that is where all the young people live). Second, they flee to campus right after committing the crime (because our campus is the largest gun-free zone in the entire county).

The crime problem on our campus is, of course, exacerbated by our university’s affirmative action policy. Under our policy, we grant preferential treatment to minority applicants. But we only grant that preferential treatment to members of minority groups that are, on average, less educated and poorer than whites (e.g., blacks and Hispanics). The problem is that those groups that are less educated and poorer also exhibit higher criminal involvement than whites.

Because universities have become so immersed in identity politics, they refuse to pay attention to other minority groups that do not lobby specifically for special treatment (e.g., Asians). Because Asians generally prefer to get by on their own merits, rather than trying to climb a racial victim latter weighed down by blacks and Hispanics, they are excluded from our preferential treatment programs. This is unfortunate because Asians are the only minority group with consistently lower criminal involvement than whites.

Given that our gun policies and our affirmative action policies are both contributing to the campus crime problem, I am proposing a new crime control program that is based on a modification of both of those failed policies. My plan is simple and bold, so much so that I present it in big, bold letters: Stop offering scholarships to minorities per se and instead offer scholarships to minorities with concealed weapons permits.

The advantages to my program are pretty obvious to conservatives. But liberals require slow and careful explanations of even the simplest of ideas. The next few paragraphs are for them:

Reduced Crime – In order for a crime to take place, a motivated offender must encounter a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian. People who carry concealed weapons are not suitable targets for violent crime. But they are capable guardians of others. So you do not even have to carry a concealed weapon in order to benefit from my new gun diversity policy.

Reduced need for centers like the African American Center and El Centro Hispano – Put simply, their status as armed citizens would make them feel at ease and comfortable. Therefore, we would not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on centers designed to make them feel comfortable. It would also teach them self-reliance, rather than the need to rely on government offices run by white liberals. Need a white man’s help? No way, Jose! Wiggers please!

Increased average age of the student population – Some have suggested that my plan will not work because concealed weapons permits can only be obtained by those at least 21 years of age – while people often enroll in college at 18 or younger. I don’t see that as a problem. Let’s increase the age of eligibility for all scholarships. That way we can worry less about teenagers squandering their opportunities because they lack the maturity to appreciate them. If they don’t want to wait until 21 for their handout that’s tough. It’s a handout. We’ll give it to you when we’re darned good and ready. If you don’t like it, hop on a leaky boat and paddle your way to Cuba where there is boundless freedom and decent health care. (Sarcasm = off).

Reduced racial stereotyping – Perhaps the best part of my plan is that it reduces racial stereotypes. Because we a) specifically recruit blacks and Hispanics with concealed carry permits, and b) those with concealed carry permits have clean criminal backgrounds, we will c) see a reduction in the negative stereotyping of blacks and Hispanics as criminals (Si how this works, amigos?).

My plan makes so much sense that the UNCW administration will probably implement it immediately. I’m just kidding. Instead, they will hold a meeting of all the top diversity officials and then condemn my suggestions as racist – and, while they are at it, probably sexist and homophobic. They will all hold hands and re-affirm their commitment to diversity, inclusion, and tolerance while singing a few stanzas of We Shall Overcome. But their voices shall not overcome the sound of gunfire that echoes in the distance.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Our New SMLXL Center

Well, it looks like the libertarians are mad at me again. Several of my libertarian readers have written to complain that my recent columns have been switching back and forth between making fun of homosexual rights activists and abortion rights activists. That must really make them angry because so many libertarians are homosexuals who need to have abortions. At any rate, I think I have identified the source of the problem and a possible solution.

What my libertarian readers fail to understand is that I simply write about the insanity that surrounds me here at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. At UNCW, the two most prominent non-academic offices are:

the Women’s Resource Center, or WRC - which focuses on destroying the family by aborting children, and

The LGBTQIA Office – which focuses on destroying the family by undermining marriage. Both centers want to destroy the family so it can be replaced by the government. People who are smart enough to understand that are called conservatives. People who miss the point are called libertarians.

Along those lines, some of my readers may remember a column I wrote suggesting that the WRC and LGBTQIA Office be merged in order to save money. After the column was published, the unthinkable happened. The university took my proposal seriously! They merged the two offices and put UNCW lesbian czar Amy Schlag in the WRC located in Randall Library.

Of course, that made everyone happy except for the lesbians running the LGBTQIA Office. Apparently, they considered the idea of a UNCW LGBTQIAWR-Center to be simply unworkable. They were coming dangerously close to using up the whole alphabet! So they did what lesbian activists do when denied government funding: they made so much noise that they drowned out the activities of all the NORMAL people who do legitimate academic work.

First, the former director of the UNCW LGBTQIA Office started organizing pro-abortion events in her new capacity as an administrator within the WRC. At one event, organized and promoted by Schlag, they actually sold “I Had an Abortion” t-shirts to women who had murdered their children in the name of “choice.” This caused a huge protest, which was organized by an un-named right-wing professor who collects guns and smokes illegal Cuban cigars.

The protest included pro-life students wearing shirts that said “I Dismembered My Cat” and “I Did Not Kill My Baby.” Of course, that offended the PETA people who care more about cats than human beings. In fact, there was such uproar that the WRC had to cancel its next pro-abortion event. The incident made international news when it was picked up by the pro-life press in Great Britain.

In the wake of all the uproar, the UNCW Gaystapo went to the media to complain about the shutting down of the LGBTQIA Office. And, of course, the university capitulated by reopening the office in a more prominent location in the student union building. The capitulation predictably angered conservatives who are opposed to all of these non-academic offices that promote liberal politics at taxpayer expense. Did you hear that libertarians? Do you understand the connection between social and economic issues?

So what are we conservatives to do in the midst of a difficult and, quite literally, taxing situation? If we shut down the LGBTQIA Office, the LGBTQIA people will continue to scream like petulant children. In the process, they will disrupt the legitimate activities of all the NORMAL people on campus. But if we keep the LGBTQIA Office, then the NORMAL people will all have a claim to offices representing their opposition to the LGBTQIA political agenda.

Naturally, I have a solution to all of this drama. It’s called the SMLXL Center. It may sound strange, but I think it gets to the heart of why people discriminate against LGBTQIA people – and it does so without entering the messy realm of sexual politics.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that gay dudes are, on average, skinnier than straight dudes. That is why it is easier to bully them in the school yard. If gay dudes were as large as straight dudes, it would be much more difficult to push them around.

Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that lesbians are, on average, bigger than straight chicks. That is why they are so often excluded from the dating pool. Guys simply prefer smaller women over the larger women you see congregating at Indigo Girls concerts. I guess you could say that lesbianism really isn’t a choice. It’s all determined by their jeans!

Since what has previously been characterized as “homophobia” is really body-weight discrimination, all we really need is a campus SMLXL Center. No person should be judged on the basis of whether he or she (or it) wears a small, medium, large, or extra-large t-shirt. Those who would discriminate based on body-type should be prosecuted under the full weight of the justice system. Even gay men who look like lesbians deserve equal protection under the law. Elton John deserves the same treatment as Rosie O’Donnell – even if he isn’t a tiny dancer!

Our LGBTQIA Office needs to be replaced with a new SMLXL Center today. It might not trim any fat off of our bloated state budget. But at least we can spare a general public that is tired of hearing about gay marriage and sodomy. And, who knows, maybe a greater appreciation of weight gain will end the feminist war against pregnancy. It makes little sense to kill small people just to keep others from getting large.

I really think our new body-size diversity center will be a lesson to one and to all. A person is a person, whether extra-large, large, medium, or small.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Chancellor Miller Tear Down This Wall

Dear Dr. Miller:

Let me first express my great satisfaction over your selection as our new chancellor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. I am delighted to have a former Mississippi State Bulldog in charge of our university. I am also impressed by your qualifications. Unlike your predecessor, you were not selected on the basis of your gender or any other irrelevant demographic characteristics. You were selected on the basis of your qualifications. You deserved the position you were awarded. And you’ve been doing an outstanding job so far.

Unfortunately, some of the actions of your predecessor have damaged the climate for free expression at UNC-Wilmington. Among those actions was a decision to post our Seahawk Respect Compact on the wall of every classroom at the university. My purpose in raising this issue is fourfold. I want to 1) highlight (by underlining) a portion of the respect compact that I believe to be problematic, 2) explain how I think it could be misinterpreted, 3) relate a recent classroom incident that shows how it is, in fact, being abused, and 4) propose a solution to the problem.

The Seahawk Respect Compact is indented below. Note that the bold portions are not my emphasis. I have underlined only one small portion for emphasis:

In the pursuit of excellence, UNC Wilmington actively fosters, encourages, and promotes inclusiveness, mutual respect, acceptance, and open-mindedness among students, faculty, staff and the broader community.

• We affirm the dignity of all persons.
• We promote the right of every person to participate in the free exchange of thoughts and opinions within a climate of civility and mutual respect.
• We strive for openness and mutual understanding to learn from differences in people, ideas and opinions.
• We foster an environment of respect for each individual, even where differences exist, by eliminating prejudice and discrimination through education and interaction with others.
• Therefore, we expect members of the campus community to honor these principles as fundamental to our ongoing efforts to increase access to and inclusion in a community that nurtures learning and growth for all.

As you can see, Chancellor Miller, I have a problem with the suggestion that there is some sort of “right” that extends to “every person” and which entitles him to be the recipient of “respect.” Let me explain why this is wrongheaded by sharing a few examples:

• Several years ago, an N.C. State visiting professor expressed the view that all white people needed to be “exterminated” from the face of the earth. He was invited to debate me on Fox News and he declined. When I went on Fox to denounce him, I was not concerned about “civility.” He was not entitled to it. He’s a violent racist. Nor was he entitled to “respect” for his violent racist views. In fact, given his advocacy of violence and fear of debate he was not even entitled to respect as a human being. He just needed a good public shaming.
• Around that time, a professor here in North Carolina wrote to me saying that the Holocaust was the greatest “hoax” perpetrated in modern history. I went on national television to rebuke her. She was also invited to debate me on Fox News. Like the other racist at N.C. State, she declined. I did not - nor do I now - respect her views. I do not even respect her as a person. Put simply, nothing can make me respect an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier.
• Finally, there is a professor here at UNCW who has reportedly articulated the view – in class, mind you – that 911 was the result of a planned conspiracy between Bush and “the Jews.” Because she has tenure, UNCW is stuck with the 911 conspiracy theorist as well as her anti-Semitic views. But what about the occasional Jewish student in her classroom? Should she be required to “respect” her professor’s anti-Semitic views?

I hope you see the danger in granting a “right” to be respected. Once students begin to believe that respect is an entitlement they are granted - and not a privilege they must earn - the academic work product suffers. Bad ideas are placed on equal footing with good ideas and eventually the pursuit of truth suffers as a whole. But the pursuit of truth is already suffering here at UNCW. Earlier this semester, there was a vigorous discussion in one of our social science classes. Ideas were exchanged and disagreement was articulated. But, following the conversation, something unfortunate happened. The professor sent an email to all of his students reminding them that they were required by the Seahawk Respect Compact to maintain a climate of mutual respect and civility. An important question follows: Is there any chance that the professor’s email will not adversely affect future discussions by creating a chilling effect on free speech?

You know as well as I do that student discussions are not bound by the Seahawk Respect Compact. At this public university, they are bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, I ask that you order the Seahawk Respect Compact to be removed from every classroom at UNCW. I furthermore ask you to replace it with a copy of the First Amendment so students will be reminded daily that the right to be unoffended is to be found nowhere in our constitution.

This action will also remind our students that the UNCW handbook is not the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the law. It has not been preserved by the blood and sacrifice of the easily offended.

With all due respect and civility,

Mike S. Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - My New Diversity Merger Proposal

Diversity never held anyone together because people usually bond over their commonalities, not their differences. At one little state-run university, diversity is starting to cause a great campus divide. It all started when the university decided to merge the Physics and Physical Oceanography Department with the Geography and Geology Department. The move will undoubtedly hurt the prestige of the university. But that isn’t the only thing that has people angry. They are also mad because the merger occurred on the heels of an expansion of diversity initiatives and right during the middle of an expansion of the campus recreation center.

This is a touchy topic for me to write about in the midst of a budget crisis. But everyone knows I’m a uniter, not a divider. So, I’ll try to offer some positive solutions free of sarcasm and ridicule. I hate sarcasm and ridicule. I really mean that.

Currently, UNC-Wally World (pseudonym, hereafter: UNCW), has the following offices, which are overseen by the Associate Provost of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion:

1. The Upperman African American Cultural Center;
2. El Centro Hispano;
3. The Women’s Studies and Resource Center;
4. The Multicultural Affairs Office; and
5. The LGBTQIA Office.

My simple plan to save the tax payers money, without ruining the academic reputation of the university, begins with four simple steps:

1. I would merge the Upperman Center with El Centro Hispano and call it El Centro for Racial Unity. There is no need for blacks and Hispanics to be segregated.
2. I would rename the LGBTQIA Office the LGBTQIAX Office. The “X” would stand for ex-gays – a group currently excluded from the list of gender and sexuality minorities.
3. I would merge the LGBTQIAX Office with the Women’s Studies and Resource Center. It would then be called the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Resource Center.
4. I would then merge the three existing centers a) El Centro for Racial Unity b) the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Resource Center and c) the Multicultural Affairs Office. The new office would simply be called The Diversity Office, or El Diversity Office, whichever sounds more welcoming.

Since one office is more manageable than five, we could fire Jose Hernandez, our current Diversity czar, and save his salary. We could replace him with the most competent leader among the departments just eliminated. There would be no need for a high-level administrator to oversee my leaner, but not meaner, El Diversity Office. We could get rid of the six-digit salary Hernandez pulls in – not to mention those of the other four directors we would let go. That would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in savings to the taxpayer. That is more than the paltry $80,000 UNCW plans to save with the controversial Physics, Oceanography, Geography, Geology merger.

Having eliminated four departments, we may now cancel the planned academic merger and expand by making the two existing departments (Physics and Physical Oceanography Department, Geography and Geology Department) into these four departments:

1. Physics Department;
2. Physical Oceanography Department;
3. Geography Department; and
4. Geology Department.

Creating two departments and eliminating four is a net savings for taxpayers. Best of all, it would actually enhance our academic prestige by creating new academic departments where people study real problems instead of “celebrating” imaginary differences.

During the current budget crisis, we have shut the library down for four hours per night in order to save money on lighting and to cut employee payroll. I would end that practice and make the savings up by shutting down El Diversity Office for four hours a day. Some may not like it but that is El Tough Lucko. Our state is in a budget crisis and we need money so we can feed and educate our illegal aliens.

Of course, the remaining issue is where to put the two academic departments formed under my new proposal. I say we make the student recreation center the new home for both. After all, this is a university, not an amusement park.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Austin Hill - A Sadly Secularized 9/11

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York may think himself high-minded and practical. But he has acquiesced to some of the most unfortunate and destructive forces in our country.

As I write this, nobody has any idea, really, how the ten year anniversary of “9-11” will transpire. Hopefully the day will come, and go, without any civil unrest or – God forbid – terrorism.

Hopefully Americans will remember, and reflect. No doubt millions of us will pray, both within houses of worship and privately within our own minds.

But this we do know: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made it clear that clergy have been forbidden from participating in the city’s official 9-11 commemorative ceremony. The city that was ten years ago and is still today regarded as the epicenter of a huge American tragedy, will commemorate the event with a purely secular, irreligious ceremony, devoid of any official representations of any particular religious traditions.

From a historical standpoint, a secularized commemoration would seem to miss some of the essence of what happened on September 11, 2001 and in the days and weeks that followed. It is, after all, a matter of record that many houses of worship provided safe harbor to displaced victims of the tragedy, and that clergy men and women rushed to provide counsel and sustenance.

Bloomberg’s ban also seems to ignore the reality that the first certified fatality in the 9-11 disaster was, in fact, a clergyman. After learning of the attacks, Father Mychal Judge, a Catholic Priest and beloved Chaplain to the Fire Department of New York rushed to the scene to meet then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

At Mayor Giuliani’s request, Father Mychal began praying aloud for the city and the victims. At the moment that he was struck in the head with debris and killed, eyewitnesses noted that Father Mychal had cried out repeatedly "Jesus, please end this right now! God, please end this!"

But that was ten years ago. Today there’s a new Mayor in town, and he has taken a decidedly different approach. And Mayor Bloomberg’s clergy ban is unfortunate, for at least a few different reasons.

For one, Bloomberg’s ban exemplifies a flawed conceptualization of “tolerance,” and “diversity.” While his motivations have not been made clear, presumably Mayor Bloomberg’s ban is intended to protect certain religious groups that might not participate in the ceremony, from being “infringed upon” by those other religious groups that might otherwise be represented by clergy at the event. It is a logic that says “for the sake of diversity of religious traditions, we won’t acknowledge any religious traditions at all.”

Faulty as this view is, it is nonetheless nearly impossible to get most Liberal Americans to think any differently. Not long ago Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was the Attorney General of Arizona and banned all “holiday decorations” – Christmas ornaments, menorah candles, and so forth – from her offices, for the very same “tolerant” reasons.

Bloomberg’s ban also strikes a blow at human freedom. Whereas in the American tradition one has a God-given right to speak their mind and to express themselves, and government’s role is to safeguard that right, in the contemporary Liberal mindset such freedoms are problems to be managed and mitigated by government. “America is a far more diverse and pluralistic country today than it was at the time the U.S. Constitution was written,” Liberals will remind us. “What was intended by the Founders of our country does not, and cannot apply today.”

In the end, Bloomberg’s ban is painfully intolerant and assumes the worst about his country and the city he serves. It says that Americans can’t handle their freedom appropriately, and must have less of it.

It may also say something painful about the Islamic world, and a level of intolerance there. Might Mayor Bloomberg have mandated his ban so as to appease those involved in some of his personal business ventures in the Middle East? If so, why would people in the Middle East object to American clergy praying publicly?

The ten year anniversary of 9-11 will hopefully be meaningful and peaceable. But the intolerance entailed in such flawed ideas of “diversity” will remain – and should be reversed.

Austin Hill

---

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - The Cisco Delusion of Diversity

June 23, 2011 Mr. John Chambers Office of the President Cisco Systems, Inc. Mail Stop SJC10/5/4 300 East Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134

Dear Mr. Chambers:

I am deeply disappointed that I have not yet heard back from you in reference to your company’s firing of Dr. Frank Turek. I know that many of my readers are interested in hearing a direct response from you. I also regret that I must write to you with additional concerns about possible systematic religious and political discrimination at Cisco.

Those additional concerns stem from statements made by Ms. Marilyn Nagel, your Senior Director of Inclusion and Diversity. Dr. Turek spoke with her recently by phone regarding his firing—a firing that was not based on his work but on his religious and political beliefs.

To her credit, Ms. Nagel apologized for the firing of Dr. Turek. Dr. Turek was told that he could apply for another job with Cisco, but that there are “no guarantees.” (Translation: he can always buy a lottery ticket). Of course, there are no guarantees winning the lottery. And I think Frank’s chances of winning the lottery are better than getting hired back by a company that is trying to cover its backside while appeasing the Gaystapo.

But to her greater discredit, Ms. Nagel not only refused to do anything to address the cultural factors that contributed to the firing, she refused to even consider the possibility that the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted toward intolerant political correctness—the soil from which the firing sprouted.

Ms. Nagel was made aware of the fact that I was present on that call to make a record of what I heard over the speakerphone. Below I have reprinted portions of that conversation. The portions in italics are the unaltered words of Ms. Nagel. My un-italicized comments are interspersed between hers.

Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.

I was encouraged to hear this from Ms. Nagel. But if that’s true, as Dr. Turek asked, “How could a Cisco leader and a seasoned HR professional possibly think its right to fire someone for his conservative political or religious beliefs on same sex marriage unless the Cisco culture has become drastically tilted toward political correctness?”

Ms. Nagel refused to answer the question directly and denied the culture was tilted. Instead, she offered an endless stream of platitudes about how inclusive and diverse the Cisco culture is.

Because we believe that it has to be an employee environment where everyone is welcome, we do discourage discussions around strongly held political beliefs or religious beliefs in group settings within Cisco other than certain forums, and so we’re very sensitive about protecting our culture of acceptance of everyone, we don’t want anyone to ever feel excluded and that means all opinions, and I really believe that’s what inclusion is all about.

She also said:

There is a reason that we don’t have political discussions on our campus, and that is because we find that they can be divisive and so we choose to allow people to have those conversations informally or off campus.

So, according to Ms. Nagel, discussions of important political or religious beliefs are so divisive that they must be confined to certain forums at Cisco. I am sure that you would agree that the word “forum” suggests equal representation of different perspectives, especially since Ms. Nagel asserts that “all opinions” are welcome and that “We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.“

Then how does Ms. Nagel explain this one-sided Cisco-sponsored “forum” in favor of same-sex marriage, led by a Cisco Vice President just last week on the Cisco campus?

This forum raises the question of how you can “make progress on issues that are divisive and controversial.” What does Cisco mean by “progress?” Does it mean firing people like Dr. Turek in order to advance the cause of same sex-marriage? Is the firing of those opposed to same-sex marriage deemed an acceptable way to reduce divisiveness within Cisco? I’m not trying to be divisive. I’m just asking.

Forgive me for raising another potentially divisive issue, but I could not help but notice that the Honorable Boris Dittrich was one the panelists at this one-sided “forum.” He helped lead the Netherlands to be the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage. He did this as a Member of Parliament. In other words, he is a gay activist and politician.

I’ll let this sink in before I write back to discuss Cisco’s further commitment to advancing the cause of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the evidence included in my next letter will also show Cisco’s lack of commitment to the cause of religious and political diversity.

...To be continued.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---