Mike Adams - Future IRS Agents

Many were shocked to learn that IRS agents actually targeted conservative advocacy groups for heightened scrutiny when making decisions concerning their tax exempt status. I don't know why so many people were shocked. This is what university administrators have been doing for nearly twenty years. I've been writing about it for over ten years because I know that what you see on the campus today is what you will see in the broader culture tomorrow.

It all began in my home state back in 1995. That was when a gay activist and UNC administrator named Jonathan Curtis targeted the Muslim Student Association (MSA) for de-recognition. He didn't like the MSA position on homosexuality so he decided to yank their status as an official student group.

Jonathan Curtis

According to Curtis' demands, the only way the MSA could remain an official group at UNC would be to change their constitution to be more "inclusive." This de-recognition would have meant that the MSA would receive no university funding even though their members paid mandatory student activity fees. Thankfully, a UNC attorney stopped Curtis from acting on his threats.

When UNC got a new university attorney in 2002, Curtis decided to subject a number of Christian organizations to heightened scrutiny. I have in my possession every single email Curtis sent to the organizations he targeted. It is a stunning display of intolerance in the name of diversity and inclusion. In one email, Curtis told a campus Christian organization they would be derecognized if they did not remove statements from their constitution asserting a "belief in God."

Fortunately, I later found a Christian organization willing to sue. After years of fighting both in and out of court, the practice of interfering with the belief requirements of Christian organizations has ended at UNC Chapel Hill. But for years the cancer spread throughout the broader UNC system.

In 2003, UNC-Wilmington tried to derecognize the College Republicans for refusing to allow Democrats to lead their organization. We fought that battle and won. But as late as 2012, UNCW was still trying to deny official recognition to Christian organizations who wanted to be led by, of all people, Christians. It took a threat of litigation but I managed to get the university to change its policy. Now, UNCW Christian groups can control their membership and their message without government interference. But this basic freedom of association is still in jeopardy on some UNC campuses.

At their core, these assaults on freedom of association have always been assaults on freedom of speech. The campus administrators only target groups that are saying things with which the administration disagrees. The administration is trying to evangelize the student body and bring them into the church of multiculturalism. So they try to eliminate groups that promote any kind of absolute truth or core conservative values.

The IRS has now been caught doing a very similar thing. Their organization collects taxes. They have an interest in big government. So they are naturally hostile toward groups seeking a reduction in the size of government. The source of their motivation is obvious. But where do they get the hubris to act upon the desire to abuse their power?

The answer is simple: they learned it in college.

Is it any wonder that government agents are now showing the same disdain for free speech and freedom of association that has been on display on our nation's campuses since the 1990s?

Things are going to get worse, not better. Just ask the students who are now appearing before rape tribunals on American campuses. They are routinely denied attorneys when they appear before the campus judiciary. They are routinely denied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And now campuses are giving accusers the right to appeal rape acquittals until the judiciary reaches the "right" result.

Americans beware. The students running these rape tribunals are our future prosecutors and our future judges. And they won't just be coming for our taxes. They will be coming for our liberty as well.

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 - Time to Ban High Capacity Liberals From Campus

Author’s Note: Campus liberals who crave free stuff can find it on www.letterstoayoungprogressive.com.

Not all liberals are created equal. Some make an occasional stupid remark. Others have the capacity to make a lot of stupid remarks without reloading. An example of the latter is my boss, UNC Chancellor Thomas Ross. As a former Professor of Public Law and Government, he cannot be accused of mere bias when he makes demonstrably false statements about matters of public policy. Instead, the public must recognize that he is not just biased but also grossly incompetent. Because his incompetence threatens the safety of all people who come to UNC campuses, including small children, he should be replaced immediately.

Ross recently made a public statement in response to new NC House legislation that would ease restrictions on concealed carry (CCW) permits on our college campuses. One change in the CCW law would allow the permit holder to keep a weapon in the trunk of his car while on university property. Although the bill does not fully remove all campus restrictions on permit holders, Ross had the audacity to say the following:

“We have an obligation to provide a safe environment for our students and employees, and every UNC campus has a trained police force charged with promoting the safety of all people who come onto our campuses. All UNC Chancellors and Chiefs of Police believe allowing guns on campus would increase the risk to public safety and hamper our ability to protect not only our students, staff ,and faculty, but also campus visitors, including parents, siblings of students, and summer camp participants. Vehicle break-ins are one of the leading crimes on college campuses, and even guns brought lawfully onto campus, as contemplated by this bill, could fall into the wrong hands and result in serious injury or death."

We do indeed have an obligation to provide a safe environment for students and employees. That is why we need to relax totalitarian policies that selectively violate the Second Amendment by stripping the rights of law abiding adult students to protect themselves and others by carrying a concealed weapon. They should not be sitting ducks just because they chose to further their education on campuses made dangerous by progressive ideology.

Sixteen refereed publications show that CCW laws reduce violence. Zero refereed publications show that they increase violence. In other words, the laws are good for the public. Shouldn't Tom Ross, a former Professor of Public Law, know what laws are good for the public? Of course, Ross probably does know the research but refuses to share it with the public. In other words, he does not want others to conceal weapons while he conceals the truth. It elevates hypocrisy to a Zen art when a university system president decides to lead by feigning ignorance and suppressing his knowledge of academic research.

Students should not be made vulnerable to rape in order to preserve the ideological purity of overpaid public servants. Of course, the self-serving propagandist has no real interest in serving the public.

While we are on the subject of rape, all university Police Chiefs believe that most campus rape accusations are false. But they won't say that because college campuses are the most politically charged workplaces in America. Put simply, a university police chief will lose his job if he speaks his mind. And that is relevant to the present debate. Many UNC law enforcement officers support the right to carry on campus. I spoke to one last night and he was simply aghast at Ross' statement. But he knows that anyone who opposes Ross will lose his job. Clearly, Ross knows he does not have the unanimous support of the campus law enforcement community. He is simply misleading the public that pays his salary.

I'm glad Ross brought children into the debate. Summer camp participants need protection, too. If the data show that CCW laws reduce crime then we must take the data seriously. Other than having homosexual camp leaders in the Boy Scouts, I can't imagine a better way to protect young campers than having capable guardians with CCW permits. When Ross plays the summer camp card, he is begging the question. He simply assumes CCW laws increase crime or, more accurately, assumes we are ignorant of the fact that they decrease crime.

Now is a good time to recall that a few years ago our campus hosted the rapper Ludicris who sang about shooting b*tches and hoes with his 9mm. In fact, he was paid $130,000 to sing about killing b*tches and hoes. Surely, we can let CCW permit holders on campus for free. Research shows that they seldom shoot their b*tches.

I am also glad Ross brought up burglary. Break-ins do occur on campus. But that is no reason to ban guns from campus. Burglary is one of the crimes reduced by having CCW laws. It cannot be used as an excuse to negate CCW laws on campus. That would be like killing both your parents and asking the court to show you mercy because you are an orphan. If we allowed CCW laws to be fully operative on campus, those burglars would be far more likely to be apprehended, convicted, and imprisoned. Then crime would go down and Ross would probably issue a statement lamenting the fact that "so many people are in prison despite the fact that crime is down."

But Ross continues his mendacity – and I'll respond, after you read the following:

“In addition, a number of UNC campuses house early college high schools, middle schools, or summer camps for younger children. The presence of these young people further heightens our concerns about the safety risks that come with guns getting into the wrong hands. Moreover, when responding to an armed robbery or active shooter incident, our officers would often be hard pressed to distinguish between a criminal suspect and well-intentioned bystanders with weapons drawn, particularly in the heat of the moment. The potential for tragedy far outweighs any potential benefit or convenience to concealed-carry permit holders. We encourage the General Assembly to remove the provision that would allow guns to be brought onto UNC and other college and university campuses.”

Children should not be used as human political shields unless the cause is liberal. I mean, liberals have always cared more about children. That's why they abort them by the millions. They don't want them to be born into a world where they could get shot at a UNC summer camp because some Tea Bagger forgot to lock his Glock in the glove box of his Ford F150. Seriously, Tom Ross, if you cared about children, you would shut down all the UNC Women's Centers that “center” on pro-abortion politics. And, while you’re at it, get your anti-gun laws off my body!

Shoot outs last a really long time. In fact, the average shootout takes about an hour, which is long enough for most UNC police officers to finish eating their donuts, flirting with coeds, and finally arrive at the scene of the crime. And then its mayhem! Barney Fife can't tell the good guy from the bad guy. He's shaking like a suspected Christian in a UNC student conduct hearing! (Sarcasm = off. Now back to reality).

As a professor who teaches criminal law, I use hypotheticals all the time. But they need to be at least somewhat realistic in order to be persuasive. When the police are not around and a permit holder encounters a shooter the incident is typically over in seconds and long before the UNC officer finishes writing a traffic ticket in order to raise money for the new Gay and Lesbian Resource Center.

But Ross is right when he says that the current controversy involves an important trade off. He is willing to trade the safety of students in exchange for preserving the dreams of children. Of course, I'm talking about the children who teach at universities and refuse to grow up and face the reality that we live in a fallen world where utopia is impossible and guns are necessary.

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 - Disorderly Conduct

Author's Note: check out www.letterstoayoungprogressive.com for a free chapter of my latest book.

Students and their parents need to be warned about the latest serious threat to liberty on America's college campuses. They have probably already heard of campus speech codes, anti-discrimination clauses, and sexual harassment tribunals. The latest threat takes the form of "disorderly conduct" hearings. Many readers are wondering what exactly constitutes disorderly conduct. The more appropriate question might be "what does not?"

Of course, it is natural for students to have conflict in college. Many are away from home for the first time and they are just beginning to experience living on a campus together with people to whom they are not related. The transition can be a tough one. It is often compounded when more than two people are living together. This raises the possibility of coalitions, which can cause conflict to escalate.

Sometimes students turn to the administration to resolve conflicts. Other times, the university simply intervenes on its own initiative. Regardless, university involvement generally intensifies the conflict and virtually guarantees that someone will be deprived of due process. Allow me to provide an example.

In a recent case at a UNC campus, a student was embroiled in a conflict with both of her roommates. The roommates did not like her boyfriend and so they filed a complaint about an alleged violation of the visitation policy. Shortly thereafter, the university police arrived at the campus apartment and were invited in by one of the complaining roommates. Police then ordered the student out of the shower to answer questions about the alleged visitation violation.

Naturally, the student was angry about being summoned in a state of total nudity and forced to hurriedly dress in order to submit to a police interrogation. So she raised her voice at the roommates who initiated the complaint. She was then charged with disorderly conduct. And, naturally, the university set up a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Alice's Rules of Evidence - otherwise known as the student handbook.

The student's "disorderly conduct" hearing was characterized by three flagrant abuses of due process that have become routine in student disciplinary proceedings in the UNC system and, in fact, all around the country. They are described below, roughly in order of their importance:

1. Denial of legal representation. Students are brought into hearings where they face possible expulsion in the middle of the semester. This means they may have paid thousands of dollars in tuition and may receive no credit for their efforts - even if they completed most of the semester's work. University counsel is routinely present at these hearings but students are routinely banned from having their own lawyer present.
2. Redaction of exculpatory statements. When police gather evidence and conduct interviews, they always turn them over to the Dean of Students Office. There, the evidence is routinely examined by administrators. They quickly make a determination of guilt or innocence. If the accused is guilty in the eyes of the administration, they extract portions of their testimony while leaving the testimony of accusers intact. This virtually assures that there can be no finding of innocence at the "hearing."
3. Determination of verdict prior to hearing. Normally, the announcement of a guilty or "responsible" verdict is typed up in official document form before the hearing begins. The document also includes an announcement of punishment, which can sometimes mean immediate expulsion. It is simply handed to the student at the end of a "hearing," which is held in order to give the appearance of due process. These kangaroo courts are staged in order to respond to angry inquiries from parents with the following explanation: "We're sorry, but your child did have a hearing before we expelled her."

All three of these routine abuses occurred in the recent UNC case that I mentioned above. The student was expelled in the middle of the semester and also suspended for the fall of 2013. Fortunately, she successfully appealed her case to the Vice Chancellor who reinstated her. But the month-long ordeal disrupted her studies and certainly affected her academic performance for the semester. Too bad the Dean of Students can't be charged with disorderly conduct.

With the help of the Republican legislature, I'm trying to fix these problems that have been ignored for so long by Democrats. Presently, there is a bill moving through the house that will force every public university in the state to allow students the right to counsel in all administrative hearings where they may be expelled or even suspended.

The new bill permitting students to fight back with the assistance of legal counsel will help erode all three of the abuses I have listed above - one directly and the other two indirectly. But we also need to eliminate "disorderly conduct" charges from university handbooks and simply allow the criminal code to function in its place. For example:

• If someone is drunk and disorderly, charge him with that.
• If someone becomes so disorderly he makes a threat, charge him with that.
• If someone becomes so disorderly he throws a punch, charge him with simple assault.

Put simply, there is no need for residual "disorderly conduct" clauses in student handbooks. Like speech codes, they are overly broad and arbitrarily enforced. And they are turning our campuses into modern day fiefdoms.

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.

Mary Grabar - More Radicals for Common Core: The Pro-Amnesty Contingent

My antennae go up whenever any education initiative is associated with radicals, like Bill Ayers. We still don’t know why Bill Ayers was at an education conference with Arne Duncan and a representative from Achieve, the well-connected, Washington-based non-profit organizing this effort to nationalize education.

But once I began investigating the curricula and test questions I learned that sure enough, the rigorous “standards” turned out to be nothing more than efforts to impose a curriculum that will make global citizens out of all American students. Or the kind of curriculum Bill Ayers would like.

Now I learn via Tina Trent that an organization called NALEO (National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials), a pro-amnesty group, co-hosted an event in Los Angeles last month on Common Core.

The NALEO Newsletter announced “NALEO Educational Fund last month co-hosted a national kickoff on the common core state standards, in partnership with the Campaign for High School Equity (CHSE) in Los Angeles.”

They quoted the official line from the Department of Education: “The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led, voluntary effort to establish a single set of educational standards for English-language, arts and mathematics that states can share and adopt. They are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared for college, employment and success in the global economy.”

Right.

The official propaganda continues: “State leaders, through their membership in the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) Center, have developed a common core of state standards with the assistance of content specialists and education experts.” Common Core, of course, was passed without legislative approval and usually without legislative knowledge, as happened here in Georgia. That’s why Senator William Ligon introduced a bill to withdraw the state from Common Core standards.

So who are these “content specialists and education experts”? It turns out that they are usually radicals, like Bill Ayers’s “pal” Linda Darling-Hammond who is in charge of developing one of the two sets of the nationally administered tests.

The meeting sponsored by NALEO had the usual suspects, and not any traditional Core Knowledge Curriculum representatives in the tradition of E.D. Hirsch, who advocates learning about the literary classics and history: “The program in Los Angeles included local NALEO members and representatives from the NAACP, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the South East Asian Resource Asian Center (SEARAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Urban League, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).”

Trent, who opposed Georgia’s Hate Crimes bill more than a decade ago, says that these are many of the same radical groups who were pushing for hate crimes legislation. And as with the hate crimes law, non-profits are being empowered by the government to promote Common Core. “In the hate crimes model, non-elected non-profits were given vast powers to advise police and develop procedures for identifying and prosecuting so-called ‘hate,’” says Trent. “What we ended up with was the politicization of justice itself, and a handover of government powers to activist groups with an identity politics agenda.” She warns that Common Core is empowering the same activist groups through the federal educational bureaucracy--hardly a process in accord with our republican, representative form of government.

Common Core, it turns out, is just one more way, as she puts it, that we are “handing over government operations to politically driven non-profits.”

Pro-amnesty non-profit groups have been trying to indoctrinate school children about immigration for a long time now. They fought an Arizona law that prohibited teaching hatred towards certain ethnic groups (primarily white Americans), which a Mexican-American (“Raza studies”) studies curriculum did. Education professors have also been using their classrooms to lobby for amnesty. Common Core, the initiative of Obama’s Department of Education, may be the latest way they are trying to deny the sovereignty of the United States in students’ minds.

This information about NALEO and other groups is one more piece of evidence for opposing Common Core. Do we need any more?

For more information about Common Core, see my website, www.dissidentprof.com, where I have a section on Common Core and links to organizations that are fighting this unconstitutional takeover of education.

Mary Grabar

Mary Grabar is a writer and college English teacher, whose parents escaped from Slovenia in 1959 and spent a year in a refugee camp in Austria. They immigrated to Rochester, New York, when she was two.

Her views have been formed by experiences as an immigrant during the racial violence in Rochester in the 1960s and then at her alma mater, Benjamin Franklin Junior-Senior High School.

She tried to be a liberal, but then quickly realized that it was an exclusive club. Her conversion to conservatism was cinched when she returned to school in the master's program in English in the 1990's.

In spite of the hostility of most of the faculty and the torture of having to wade through postmodern nonsense, she earned her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.

Mary Grabar is a frequent Columnist at Town Hall.com and writes articles for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Newspaper.

Visit Mary's Website and her other Website: The Literate Citizen

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

Mike Adams - The Campus Crusade for Crust

Author’s Note: I firmly believe that most Americans are not Swift enough to appreciate social satire. I also believe that the best satire is based on real-life events. If you agree, would you prayerfully consider joining my support team? Being a wise acre is a full-time job.

Welcome back students! My name is Biff Latane and I am the campus director of Jesus Crew (or J. Cru for short) here at Denton State University (or DSU for short). Before I tell you more about J. Cru at DSU, I want to take a few minutes to apologize for an episode that occurred during our last meeting at the end of the last quarter.

Abortion is a sensitive issue and I want to assure everyone that it is an issue none of us will have to hear about again during our time together in J. Cru. Regrettably, there was a miscommunication that resulted in a pro-life speaker coming to address us last quarter. One of our officers made the decision to bring the speaker into our meeting. I was not aware abortion was to be discussed until I arrived late for the meeting approximately halfway through the speaker's presentation.

At first, I had no problem with what I heard. The speaker talked for a few minutes about the sanctity of life and the idea that life begins at conception. But then he crossed a line. He stated that RU-486 - even if used early in a pregnancy - results in the killing of an innocent human being. He also suggested that it is the moral equivalent of poisoning an infant. That crossed the line, in my opinion. It was graphic and offensive language that simply will not be tolerated in our meetings. We need to promote tolerance instead. Whether something is true is not as important as preserving an atmosphere of respect as far as I am concerned. I really believe that. And I'm sorry if anyone was offended by the speaker.

Some may have thought it was rude for me to interrupt the meeting and ask our speaker to leave in the middle of his speech. But I used my best judgment in aborting the speech and I have no regrets whatsoever. I can assure you nothing of the sort will ever happen again.

So enough of what we will not be doing this quarter. Let's talk about what we will be doing. First off, we will be distributing copies of Dan Muller's book Pink like Blues on campus. I love Dan's biographies. I've read all five of them. My favorite quote is the one where he says "If I ever leave Christianity, it will not be for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? I mean, like, whatever man." Dan is deep and I can't wait to share his work with students all over our campus. We need to make Christianity accessible by responding to the culture in which we live.

Ok, so that's our first big event on campus. In fact, our book distribution project is our only big event this quarter – aside from my periodic pleas for people to join my support team. So let’s make sure to do a lot of sidewalk chalking to promote it. In fact, that will give us another opportunity to get together again later and clean the sidewalks. There is a time to chalk and a time to de-chalk, I suppose.

As far as the rest of the quarter is concerned, we will be having our weekly meetings all quarter long. But instead of having them on Wednesday they will be moved to Monday. Apparently, the Abstinence Club had to have their meetings moved to Wednesday because they wanted to call it "no hump day." For the reasons I specified earlier, I have no additional comment. The best way to prevent unwanted discussions of abortion is to abstain from having discussions about sex. So let’s move on.

Monday meetings will take the form of pizza parties. We want to avoid Chick-fil-A (for obvious reasons). Clearly, everyone seems to like pizza and no one is offended by it. This brings me to the primary issue I need to discuss with you this evening.

It seems our national headquarters has received a letter from the corporate attorneys at J. Crew. We have been threatened with copyright infringement for printing "Jesus Crew" tee shirts and selling them at some of our campus events. So, for the second time in a few short years, we are forced to change our name in order to avoid conflict.

After much prayer and contemplation, Jesus Crew is changing its name to "The Campus Crusade for Crust." We decided to leave out the name of Jesus, which some consider to be offensive. Besides that, it's really about the pizza anyway. So thanks for coming everyone. Don’t forget to leave your pizza orders on the table before you go. Oh, and before I forget, let me leave you with one more question:

Does anyone feel led to join my support team? Organizing pizza parties is a full-time job

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.

Wild Bill for America - Beavis and Butthead Education

To take back America, we must take back our schools. Wild Bill has a plan.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

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

Star Parker - A New Birth of Education Freedom

As the nation has focused on the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, news from the state of Indiana could prove far more important regarding the nation’s future.

The Indiana Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously, 5-0, that Indiana’s school voucher program, signed into law in 2011, the most expansive school voucher program in the nation, does not violate the state’s constitution.

Those who challenged the law argued that the voucher program is unconstitutional because it allows public funds to be used for religious education.

Not so, said the court. The voucher goes to the families, not the schools. It is the parents who decide how to spend it.

Why do I draw connection between the US Supreme Court’s review of same-sex marriage and this voucher decision in Indiana? And why do I suggest that the Indiana decision may be more important to the nation’s future than whatever the Supreme Court decides on same sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage sits before the Supreme Court today because of the dramatic change in public opinion over recent years regarding the legitimacy and morality of same-sex marriage and homosexual relations. General public opinion is far more accepting today of both than it has been in the past.

What has driven this change?

One obvious place to look is the direct generational correlation regarding acceptance of same-sex marriage. Younger Americans are far more accepting of these values than older Americans.

According to the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, approval of same sex marriage among those born between 1928-1945 is 31 percent; 1946-1964, 38 percent; 1965-1980, 49 percent; and after 1980, 70 percent.

So it seems quite reasonable to conclude that the systematic purge over the last half-century of religion and traditional values from our public schools has produced a new generation of Americans with values different from those of their parents and grandparents.

In 1962 the Supreme Court found state-sponsored school prayer unconstitutional. Subsequently, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools (1980), public schools setting aside time for private or voluntary prayer (1985), and “performance of religious activity” at school promotional and graduation ceremonies (1992).

The rationale behind all these decisions was supposedly to preserve and protect religious liberty in our public schools.

But this has not at all what has been happening. The result has not been value free public schools that just teach reading, writing and arithmetic. The result has been to purge traditional religious values from our public schools and replace them with different values – secular humanism.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “all states are somehow involved in sex education for public school children.”

The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, thought it relevant to their mission to issue a press statement about the same-sex marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court. According to their statement:

“Proposition 8 and DOMA (both of which support traditional marriage) aren’t just unconstitutional, they contradict American values of fairness, inclusion, and freedom for all.”

So somehow it is fair and constitutional, in the view of the NEA, that our schools not be permitted to teach right and wrong, as Christians have understood them from the Bible for a few thousand years, while it is fair and free to teach secular humanism in their place.

Thanks to former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who signed into law the Indiana voucher program, and a sane and sober court in Indiana, Indiana helps pave the way for a new birth of education freedom in America in which parents can choose where to send their child to school.

No longer will kids be captive to left-wing brainwashing in Indiana public schools. Hopefully soon this will be the case nationwide.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

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

Scottie Hughes Smacks Down Teachers Tenure in Public School Sector

According to the pro-education reform documentary Waiting for ‘Superman,’ one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.

One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.

In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure.

Tenure is the practice of guaranteeing a teacher their job. Originally, this was a due process guarantee, something intended to work as a check against administrators capriciously firing teachers and replacing them with friends or family members. It was also designed to protect teachers who took political stands the community might disagree with. Tenure as we understand it today was first seen at the university level, where professors would work for years and publish many pieces of inspired academic work before being awarded what amounted to a job for life.

At the elementary and high school level, tenure has evolved from the original understanding of “due process” to the university-style “job for life.” In most states, teachers are awarded tenure after only a few years, at which time they become almost impossible to fire. The main function of these laws is to help bad teachers keep their jobs.

We talk endlessly about improving public schools. So what's standing in the way? Stanford Political Science Professor, Terry Moe, identifies the biggest obstacle -- teachers unions.

---

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

CPAC 2013 - Eric Cantor

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday (3/15/2013).

Cantor struck a somber tone and used anecdotal stories of inner-city children in a narrow speech arguing for school choice. "School choice is the answer," Cantor said.

His speech was not particularly partisan, although at one point he urged President Barack Obama and Democrats "to see the light."

Cantor went on to invoke an adage from former President Ronald Reagan: "If we can't make them see the light, we'll make them feel the heat," Cantor said. The House Republican leader closed his remarks with a plea for Republican solidarity.

"Conservative ideas win," he said.

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

Michelle Malkin - The Coddling of College Hate Crime Hoaxes

"'Whites Only' was written above a water fountain, 'N*gger Oven' was written inside the elevator, and 'No N*ggers' was written on a bathroom door" at one dormitory, according to the publication Oberlin Review (a student newspaper I once wrote for).

Swastikas and epithets were drawn on posters around the school. Activists implied the incidents were tied to Black History Month. The final straw? A menacing presence on campus who allegedly donned a "KKK hood" and robe near the segregated black dormitory known as "Afrikan Heritage House."

Oberlin President Marvin Krislov and three college deans ostentatiously published an "open letter" announcing the administration's decision to "suspend formal classes and non-essential activities." The campus body immediately jumped to conclusions and indulged in collective grievance-mongering. The New York Times, Black Entertainment Television and The Associated Press all piled on with angst-ridden coverage of the puzzling crimes at one of the first U.S. colleges to admit blacks and women.

Oberlin alumna Lena Dunham, a cable TV celebrity who starred in a pro-Obama ad likening her vote for him to losing her virginity, took to Twitter to rally her fellow "Obies." The Associated Press dutifully reported Dunham's plea as news: "Hey, Obies, remember the beautiful, inclusive and downright revolutionary history of the place you call home. Protect each other."
Michelle Malkin

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

Mike Adams - Brown Shirts at ECU

East Carolina University (ECU) has launched a new campaign that attempts to pressure employees to affirm homosexuality despite their religious and moral objections to the lifestyle. Couched in the language of safety and inclusion, the program promises to brand as intolerant those who refuse to accept the university's official position on matters of private sexual morality. This is especially problematic, given that ECU is a public university.

The campaign was launched with a profoundly unwise email, sent by university employee Summer Wisdom under the subject line "Gay? Fine by me." She begins:

"This spring the LGBT Resource Office (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) is hosting a program called 'Gay? Fine By Me' and we would love for you and your department to share in this opportunity. The LGBTRO will be ordering shirts that say 'gay? fine by me' and distributing them to faculty, staff and students to promote an atmosphere of support on campus. This simple message helps to combat homophobia by publically (sic) affirming our LGBT community and creating an inclusive environment where all students can feel safe to express who they are. The shirts will be distributed free of charge, though the LGBTRO welcomes donations to the project."

Note that Wisdom, while not demonstrating wisdom, does demonstrate honesty in two ways. First, she admits that affirmation, rather than tolerance, is the goal of her movement. Second, she characterizes refusal to affirm homosexuality as evidence of a "phobia," which needs to be combatted. Her position is simple: Pro gay is fine by me. Anything else is not fine by me. She continues her assault on reason:

"Everyone will be encouraged to wear the shirts on campus and to participate in a campus wide ally project where we will create a Human Rainbow during the annual Barefoot on the Mall celebration. Photos of this massive showing of LGBT support will be publicized on the LGBTRO’s website and social media accounts."

Wow. Everyone will be encouraged to wear a t shirt saying "Gay? Fine by me." Why? Because they know there is opposition on the campus and they need to combat it. In other words, they are going to promote inclusion on campus by "encouraging" people to promote a message with which they disagree. Then they will take a picture to preserve a record of those who conformed. These are the same people who oppose prayer in schools because they think kids will be stigmatized for refusing to bow their heads. She continues:

"The LGBTRO would also like to create an internal marketing campaign by taking pictures of ECU faculty, staff, administrators, student leaders and student groups wearing the shirts. This is where you come in. If you, your department or office, or the student group you advise would like to participate, you can reserve the correct number of shirts on the org sync order form below. Shirts will be distributed March 18th - 20th on Wright Plaza, at the LGBTRO ... times and location for the photo shoot will be e–mailed to everyone who reserves shirts or picks one up at Wright Plaza."

In other words, just in case the photo at the Human Rainbow event fails to identify all dissenters, Ms. Wisdom will arrange for departmental photo shoots. So, for example, if there are ten professors in a department and only nine in a picture, we all know who needs an extra nudge in keeping up with "diversity" and "progress." One could say of the photos that if you're not included, then you're not inclusive. She continues:

"The picture will be yours for your own marketing materials but will also be part of a campus wide poster campaign of Pirate Allies. We are also willing to bring a photographer to you if you are part of a large group or department and would like the photo to take place in your own building or during a pre-arranged meeting instead of walking everyone over to our photo shoot. Please communicate with my (sic) directly if you would like to set up something like this. This is a wonderful opportunity to be a part of something great while showcasing support for positive change on ECU’s campus."

Why not offer to put rainbow stickers on the doors - and rainbow buttons on the lapels - of all staff and faculty members who support the cause? That way, when their "Gay? Fine by me" t shirts are dirty, they can have something to transfer from garment to garment. For those who disagree, just give them yellow stars (or come over and sew them on their outer garments). She continues:

"If you or your department would like to participate, the link below will take you to an order form on OrgSync where you are provided multiple options: 1. Reserve the correct number of shirts and sizes for your group, 2. Reserve your shirts AND make a donation to the project, 3. Make a donation to the project without ordering shirts. (Donations to the project of $500.00 or more will add your office or department’s logo to the event publicity flyers as a sponsor)."

Well, that was a real shocker, wasn't it? After all that preaching, she had to ask the congregation for money. Finally, Wisdom signs off:

"Summer Wisdom, LGBT Resource Office, Sociology Instructor."

So Ms. Wisdom teaches sociology. Another shocker! No wonder she is so fixated on ideological conformity. The question is whether ECU department heads will use these photo ops as an opportunity to pressure people of faith into promoting beliefs that conflict with their deeply held religious convictions.
The answer is in my next column.

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 - Wolfe Cries Fox

Last week, after returning from an interview on a network that makes liberals cringe, I came home to an inbox full of emails. Usually, when I come home to a full inbox, it’s because a professor has done something stupid and people want me to write about it. This was no exception. A professor at West Liberty University had banned Fox News as a source and told her students that the "biased" station makes her "cringe." That kind of thinking is common among professors. But few professors are stupid enough to reveal it in a syllabus.

Stephanie Wolfe, a visiting assistant professor at West Liberty, made her own bias clear when she told her students orally that they could not cite the news station in any of their work for the semester. The problem was that she also put the following in her syllabus: "The tagline 'Fox News' makes me cringe. Please do not subject me to this biased news station. I would almost rather you print off an article from the Onion (sic)."

For those who did not miss the irony, "bias" occurs when someone allows an emotional inclination to interfere with the ability to process information. So the good professor banned Fox for being "biased" one sentence after she admitted that her emotional inclination impedes her ability to process information presented by Fox. Why not ban herself as a biased source of information?

Of course, putting this in her syllabus was stupid. But it brought about a good result. Students were able to share the information with others, including Fox News. That resulted in a rare national television appearance by a university president willing to express his concerns about academic freedom. In fact, President Capehart handled the situation perfectly by registering a concern that Wolfe's exercise of academic freedom was infringing on the academic freedom of her students to "gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion."

Shortly after these remarks were made, Professor Wolfe reversed the ban and recognized her students' legitimate interest in examining different points of view - even those that do not comport with those of the professor. For this reason, I plan to contact the university using this link. It will be a rare opportunity to thank a university administration for doing the right thing. Even if you don't have time to write West Liberty, you've learned two things by taking the time to read this column:

1. Administrative support is needed to enable rogue faculty members. For years, leftist faculty members have relied on administrative support from Deans, Provosts, and Presidents. Whenever these administrators intervene with vague statements about "academic freedom" a signal is sent to the rogue faculty member. That signal is that they may do whatever they want without suffering repercussions in the workplace. But as soon as an administrator speaks about his concerns over balancing the freedom of different parties, the professor knows she is in trouble. Anything less than full administrative support will cause the professor to capitulate.
2. Justice often follows when we obtain written admissions. One reason the president responded in such a positive way was evidentiary. This was no mere accusation. Wolfe carelessly put her remarks in writing. So there could be no denying that a problem existed. The evidence forced Capehart to make a decision. And he made the right one.

Most professors spew their bias in the classroom without recording it on the syllabus. Therefore, students have to be vigilant. When, for example, your professor tells the class (in class) to refrain from using Fox as a source, you should seek clarification via email. Something like the following will suffice:

"Dear Professor Doe: I light of your ban on using Fox News as a source, I was wondering whether using MSNBC or Al Jazeera would also be unacceptable?"

Professors are often so arrogant that they will use the classroom to pressure students into accepting their beliefs. And they are often so careless that they will repeat their errors in writing when pressed. As you will see in my next column, it can be quite embarrassing when such coercion is exposed.
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.

Prager University - Professor Terry Moe - How Teachers Unions Hurt Schools

We talk endlessly about improving public schools. So what's standing in the way? Stanford Professor Terry Moe identifies the biggest obstacle -- teachers unions.

Professor of Political, Science, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Ph.D., University of Minnesota

February 2013

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

Algebra No Longer 8th Grade Math Requirement in CA

The problem is that top colleges expect applicants to complete a calculus course in high school, so that if geometry remains as a full year course, the sequence leading college preparation requires five years, not four. Students who do not begin this sequence in 8th grade can catch up by taking two math courses at the same time. It’s more likely that they will not arrive at graduation fully prepared for top-ranked universities.

The key question is whether requiring students to enroll in a course that they may not be conceptually ready for helps or hurts them.

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

PJTV Trifecta - US Students Still Not Learning: Does School Really Make a Difference?

A recent study shows that US schools are lagging behind international counterparts. Does education matter more than life experience? Find out on this Trifecta.

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

Doug Giles - Cure for the Skinny Punks Who Viciously Bullied the Granny on the Bus

The video of Karen Klein, a 68-year-old granny who was bullied beyond belief by a gaggle of 13-year-old pukes went viral last Wednesday. If you haven’t seen the video, here it is (viewer warning).

What these little 666s did to this passive, sweet lady—ultimately bringing her to tears—was truly disgusting. If these hellions would have sadistically berated a black or gay kid (or a black gay kid) Al Sharpton and Dan Savage would have pulled a groin muscle leaping to the occasion, and these little devils would have justly been hauled to juvey court facing a five-year lockdown and jail sex. But, alas, Karen is a white hetero, so … they’ll probably get a pass.

Let’s recap the film: The pusillanimous mini-monsters hit the weeping Mrs. Klein with multiple F-bombs, called her a “fat b-tch” several times, and said that they would like to urinate and defecate on her and stab her (among numerous other unsavory things). That’s what 13-year-old boys said to a 68-year-old-woman. Hope & Change.

Now, aside from the hellish behavior of these future inmates (or reality show stars), here’s my problem with the video:

1. Why didn’t Klein jump up and beat their narrow backsides? I guarantee if she would have called their bluff and started pounding one of the mouthy little metrosexuals he would have started squealing like a Bieber fan. The kid would have gone to the back of the bus to sulk and then called his lawyer. But he wouldn’t have continued his F-bomb laden diatribe. Look, I don’t care how old or infirm I get … if I have enough strength to swing a cane I’m going to clock the first gum-smacking punk who tells me to blank off. I believe Karen needs to take a more proactive role should the Children of the Corn confront her ever again. I suggest Klein go to Irma Brown’s Ass Whuppin’ Academy. I believe the Academy’s phone number is 1-555-BUSTASS. Karen, think Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies. Become the weapon, G’maw!

2. Why didn’t the bus driver pull the stupid hell-bus over and throttle the diminutive devils? What kind of adult can stand by and watch this type of venom leveled at an elderly person? I don’t care how litigious our PC-addled culture gets, I pray to all that’s holy that I never shrivel up to the point where I will not defend the defenseless.

3. Are there no more kids with half a conscience who will jump in and stop this type of crap? Decent boys and girls out there, you’ve got to help the adults. Most adults have been sufficiently cowed by courts that we’re afraid to defend our person, especially if a minor is involved. However, since you’re the same age as your out-of-whack future progressive voter peers, why don’t you … um … “control the situation,” and we’ll give you a high five when you get home. It’ll earn you street cred with those who matter.

For parents who’re still worth their salt and do not want to spawn such feral hogs, use this opportunity for a teachable moment. Pull your children aside on a lazy summer afternoon and teach them the following …

1. Everyone deserves respect until they demonstrate they don’t deserve it. I believe that all people are created in the image of God and should be treated with respect … at least until they show that they don’t deserve respect. That means you don’t slap, spit on or drop the F-bomb on elders, people in authority, or parents.

2. Titles are important. I raised my kids to call their elders “sir” or “ma’am.” A future productive person will always address a man with “Mr. (last name)” and a woman as “Mrs.” or “Miss (last name)” until they’ve been green lighted to use their first name or nickname.

3. Everyone else matters before you do. If these kids do not change, can you imagine what the USA will look like in 50 years with that kind of unbridled narcissism? Good luck.

4. Be helpful. Teach your kids to assist in making things greater by their presence—not suckier.

5. Be friendly. When I take my buddies hunting with me to Texas they’re blown away at how friendly people are. We’ll be driving down Farm to Market Road in the middle of nowhere, meet a truck coming the opposite direction, and our host will wave. Invariably, one of my friends then asks, “Who was that?” and our host replies, “I don’t know.” Then my jaded friends give me a confused look and ask me quietly why he waved. I whisper back, “People down here are friendly … watch out—it might rub off on you.”

Parents, forbid your child to act like a spoiled, rabid, egocentric animal. Make good manners and propriety a given for your kid. Instill the above southern qualities into your offspring, and when they grow up, they’ll thank you in spades—and they’ll be respected, revered leaders wherever they go.

And finally, here’s my advice to the school the weasels who bullied Mrs. Klein attend: I say we put them in special classes. Yes, classes where all the other students are kind yet are experts in Jiu jitsu—classes where the teachers are former Marine drill sergeants and bus monitors are charming blue-haired nanas who’ve graduated summa cum laude from Irma Brown’s Ass Whuppin’ Academy.

Check out my latest video, “Hunt with Your Kids, Not for Them!”

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

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

Star Parker - Free Our Kids From Arne Duncan

President Obama now commands center stage following his formal announcement that, yes, he supports same sex marriage.

But for perspective on how we got to this point, we should shift our sights to three days before the president’s announcement. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appeared on MSNBC where he responded “yes, I do” when asked if he supports same sex marriage.

Duncan at best raised a few eyebrows by stating his support for same sex marriage.

If he had said that homosexuality is immoral there would have been demands for his ouster.

How have we gone from a nation where our first president, George Washington, admonished that religion and morality are “indispensable” to ‘political prosperity” to one, today, in which our president says “same-sex couples should be able to get married?”

On the marriage issue, the national transformation has been breathtaking. A new Gallup poll shows the nation evenly divided – 50 percent saying same-sex marriage should be valid and 48 percent saying it should not be. When Gallup asked the same question in 1996, 68 percent opposed legalization of same sex marriage against 27 percent in favor.

In just 16 years the gap between those opposed and in support of same sex marriage has gone from a 41 point difference to practically zero.

Our public schools are controlled locally. But the influence of the federal government is substantial. The Department of Education, per its website, “administers a budget of $68.1 billion dollars in discretionary appropriations…” serving “…nearly 16,000 school districts and approximately 49 million students…”

It’s not trivial that Duncan, the man who oversees this massive enterprise molding the minds of our nation’s youth, publicly rejects the traditional definition of marriage in favor of one saying it just takes two (so far) warm bodies of any gender combination.

The president brandishes one of his favorite words in explaining his support for same sex marriage. “Fairness.”

Actually, this is about unfairness.

We have bought into a grand illusion that we can make our public spaces value neutral. But this is impossible.

The struggle in our public spaces is about competing world views. Not neutrality.

As one court ruling after another has purged religious expression from our public spaces, we have unfairly suppressed traditional values in favor of promoting alternative secular views.

As we have sanitized our public schools from prayer, from displays of the Ten Commandments, from any teaching that can be associated with biblical sources, we’ve put government monopoly power behind moral relativism.

California, for instance, has a new law mandating teaching gay history in public schools. A similar mandate to teach Christian history would be challenged constitutionally.

2011-2012 Resolutions of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, include support of same sex marriage and sex education programs that appreciate “diversity of …sexual orientation and gender identification.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the nation’s second largest teacher’s union, American Federation of Teachers, lives in an open lesbian relationship.

It should come as no surprise when President Obama says he sees much of the growth in support for same sex marriage as “generational,” with strong support coming from our youth.

Attitudes reflect education. We have created a world in which it is illegal to teach youth in our public schools traditional religious values but it is not illegal to teach them competing values of nihilism, materialism, and relativism. And these competing values are actively promoted.

As elsewhere, the main victims are poor, minority kids, often from broken families, held hostage in these public schools and prohibited from being taught the very values that could save their lives.

Is there a way out? I only see one. Universal school choice. Liberate parents and kids from government and union controlled schools. In a free America, parents who don’t share Arne Duncan’s values shouldn’t have them forced on them.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

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

PJTV Trifecta - An Excellent Education Is Possible, Just Not In American Schools

Japanese students can learn to do complex calculations quickly without the need for paper or calculators. American students in contrast are flying kites and trying to feel good about themselves. Can we fix American schools?

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

Mike Adams - The Old Rubber Cross

The Old Rubber Cross

Dear President Ransdell:

As a supporter of Hilltoppers for Life, I am deeply concerned at the way its pro-life display was vandalized on April 20, 2012. I am perhaps more concerned with the way Western Kentucky University (WKU) officials have responded to this criminal action. As this story continues to unfold, the facts suggest that several WKU officials knew in advance this vandalism would occur. But they did nothing to stop it. This is simply inexcusable in a climate of higher learning.

As you already know, Hilltoppers for Life erected approximately 3,700 crosses in order to commemorate the number of babies aborted every day in the United States. On the morning of April 20th, Elaina Smith, an art student at your university, began placing condoms on each of the crosses. Members of Hilltoppers for Life confronted her peacefully and asked her to stop. She simply refused to do so. This young feminist did not seem to understand that no really means no.

When campus security officers arrived, they did nothing. That bears repeating: The police simply sat there and watched her break the law. That kind of laziness is appalling. It makes me wonder whether your police have tenure. Unbelievably, Ms. Smith told them she was completing an approved art assignment by desecrating the crosses. And the cops actually bought her “my professor made me do it” defense!

Your April 24th statement claims that Ms. Smith’s professor, Kristina Arnold, did not really intend to target the pro-life display. Unfortunately, Dr. Arnold contradicted that when she told WBKO that she did not disapprove of Ms. Smith’s proposed vandalism. She admitted that she knew of it in advance and did nothing whatsoever to stop it. So who is lying? Is it you or Dr. Arnold?

Other comments indicate that Arnold actually condoned Ms. Smith’s acts. For example, she smugly stated, “Learning and debating are not always pretty or polite processes. Critical engagement with ideas can get messy.” But nowhere in her statements did she indicate that “critical engagement” also involves respecting the free speech rights of fellow students. Professors should also know that no means no.

While it is encouraging to hear you say that you and your fellow administrators value free speech, so far WKU’s actions have not demonstrated that it really understands the First Amendment. When student freedoms have been criminally violated, issuing private assurances and holding secret meetings falls short of the mark. You preside over a public university, not a secret society.

I have already seen some of the internal emails in connection with this unfortunate event. The most notable comes from Ms. Smith and contains the following admission: “During the week of April 16th, the Hilltoppers for Life’s pro-life display remained un-interrupted. The student body tolerated this intrusion without major incident. The voice of the pro-life community was heard. On the last day of this event, I attempted to add to the visual dialogue with my own voice and was met with strong resistance.”

The very idea that one of your university students deems others’ speech as an “intrusion” and the desecration of other people’s property as an attempt “to add to the visual dialogue” is simply dumbfounding. This makes perfectly clear the need for immediate action in order to correct her fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between vandalism and free speech.

Accordingly, I suggest that Dr. Arnold’s art students be sent on a series of assignments – for full academic credit – that will help them better appreciate the difference between protected speech and unprotected violations of the Kentucky criminal code. The following assignments should teach them that their actions are not always protected – even when they are in possession of 3700 condoms:

Go find Elaina Smith’s Prius in the WKU parking lot. Adorn it with 3700 “Abortion is Murder” bumper stickers. Then ask whether she thinks the stickers “add to the visual dialogue” on the abortion debate.

Go find Dr. Arnold’s office on the campus of WKU. Adorn her door with 3700 pictures of aborted babies. Then ask whether she thinks the pictures “add to the visual dialogue” on the abortion debate.

Photo-shop a picture of Jessie Jackson holding a condom saying “Don’t be like me. Suit up and avoid an unexpected love child.” Tape the picture on the door of the African American Center. See whether this visual creates a better dialogue.

Next, photo shop a picture of the prophet Mohammad with a condom over his head. Tape the picture on the door of the Muslim Student Association office. See whether you can get the NEA to defer your costs.

Next, go to the campus Gay and Lesbian Center. Burn a rainbow flag just like the hippies who burn the American flag. And make sure it’s their rainbow flag. Remember to tell them you are just trying to expand the visual dialogue – even after the room is filled with smoke!

I can imagine no better way to promote equality and learn about the First Amendment all at once. Just have your students insult everyone while trespassing on their personal property. If people get angry, that’s their problem. Learning is not always pretty and polite. And critical engagement can sometimes get messy.

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.