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.

Mike Adams - Soaring Toward Totalitarianism

(Some time in the not-too-distant future at a public university near you).

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dean Crawler and I would like to welcome everyone to new staff training here in the Dean of Student's Office at the University of Neo-Communism in Wonderland, or UNCW. I wish to welcome all returning Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, and Adjunct Deans as well. They say it takes a village to raise a child. One could say that it takes a fiefdom to raise a generation. Of course, we prefer to avoid references to Western civilization here at UNCW. We are soaring to greatness. And that means leaving past traditions behind. Even an Adjunct Dean of Diversity knows that. No offense or disrespect intended.

Our training today will focus on four new programs that will help us gain control over student dissidents in an effort to assure the smooth operation of the university. Diversity and tolerance are very complex concepts. And sometimes rigid conformity is needed to ensure their full realization. I would appreciate it if everyone would give her, his, its, or undecided's full attention while I explain these new programs:

No administrator left behind. We have decided to add a few new positions to help with our ever increasing workload. We will add a new Dean of Noise Complaints this semester. As you know, students often have parties off campus that result in noise complaints. We have partnered with local police to set up a system whereby all noise complaints received by police are channeled into the university administrative structure. When police answer a noise complaint off campus, we soon find out. Then we will call the student into the Dean's Office and interrogate him, her, it, or undecided concerning the alleged violation. Each violation will be recorded by the Dean's Office and will be placed in the student's permanent record. If the student complains loudly in response to interrogation, the Dean of Noise Complaints will then file a separate noise complaint with the UNCW police. This will result in the student being brought back in for further interrogation by the Dean of Noise Complaints.

Two strikes and you're out. All infractions will require recidivism before students can be expelled from UNCW. However, our previous policy of allowing three strikes has been modified. Now, only two strikes will be needed for expulsion. For example, an off campus noise complaint resulting in interrogation to which a student noisily complains will be sufficient for expulsion. Students will forfeit all tuition and fees paid for the duration of the semester, regardless of whether expulsion occurs before or after the official drop date for regular courses.

The Universal Administrative Trial Program. To date, we have employed a two-tier system for dealing with student non-conformity issues. Criminal hearings have been used as a means of dealing with criminal conduct. Administrative hearings have been used for dealing with non-criminal violations. In the latter type of hearing, students have been stripped of all needlessly cumbersome due process rights. In our collective view, the system has proved to be unworkable. Therefore, we have decided that all hearings will be classified as administrative in nature. All rights will be suspended except for cases involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. In such cases, students bringing charges will be granted a right to counsel and a right to full appellate review. Student plaintiffs will be able to appeal adverse rulings. The accused will receive no corresponding benefit. All attempts on behalf of the accused to either a) retain counsel or b) appeal an adverse ruling will be subject to the noise complaint policy. The Dean of Noise Complaints will preside over all such hearings.

Our New Government Respect Compact. Our Student Respect Compact was originally designed to preserve the rights of students to work in an environment free from the following: incivility, discomfort, disrespect, unwarranted intellectual challenge, and unwanted solicitation of ideas and opinions.

The policy has been modified to include the protection of administrators from all of the same invasions. For example, student complaints concerning "administrative waste" and control over "private" or "non-academic matters" are often distressing to the administration. The complaints are rarely solicited and often result in administrative discomfort. We now consider them to be uniformly disrespectful and uncivil. Any conflict between Our New Government Respect Compact and state "whistleblower" laws or the "constitution" will be resolved in the favor of Our New Government Respect Compact. Any resistance will be referred to the Dean of Noise Complaints and subject to the aforementioned policies.

The Obama administration has done a lot to move us forward. The Obama Department of Education told us that we must reduce the burden of proof in sexual assault cases to a mere preponderance of evidence. They told us we would receive no federal funds if we did not conform. We based all of our other sexual assault and sexual harassment policies on the model in place at Stanford University. We call them our Cardinal rules of sexual conformity. That great institution believes that the new Obama policies were a mere starting point - a minimum list of expectations. We agree with that philosophy.

When it comes to implementing policies that ensure administrative victory over student dissidents, we want to do more than just the minimum required by Washington. We want to stay one step ahead of the federal authorities. Not everything we do may be "constitutional" as they say. But our constitution is a living, breathing document. We are confident that the federal judiciary will share and affirm our grander vision by the time any disagreements reach that level. You all are a part of that grand vision. For those of you who are new, I welcome you into our community. For those returning, I welcome you back. And I welcome you all to move with us. Forward.

In closing, I would remind you that extremism in the defense of conformity is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of civility is no virtue.

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.

Bill Whittle - Afterburner - Old School

Hear about Bill Whittle's trip to Oberlin College in Ohio. Oberlin is among the most liberal colleges in America. While Bill Whittle is grateful for the hospitality of his hosts, he was shocked by the campus intolerance. especially the limitations on freedom of speech. Hear what Whittle saw, and why he thinks liberalism is a regressive rather than a progressive ideology.

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

Mike Adams - The Price is Wrong

The Price is Wrong

There is an enormous free speech controversy that is pitting an outspoken North Carolina faculty member against a public university administration. For once it isn’t me (so keep on reading liberals)! This controversy involves Jammie Price, a tenured sociology professor at Appalachian State University (ASU), who previously taught at UNC-Wilmington. The current controversy also involves porn so it should be a stimulating topic for my weekly political column (the liberals will surely keep reading now)!

Price has been placed on paid leave from the classroom after several students complained that she showed (allegedly without warning) a documentary about porn that actually featured people having sex. There are also student complaints that she accused the school of showing favoritism toward athletes (less controversial, I would think). Those statements are alleged to have been made in connection with sexual assault accusations against a couple of ASU athletes. Regrettably, the complaints about the athletic controversy have now coalesced into accusations of racism against Price. Jammie Price may be many things. But she certainly is no racist. I regret that race has become entangled in an otherwise interesting free speech controversy.

While I would defend Price against charges of racism, I would urge others to be cautious before they make Jammie Price a poster girl for academic freedom. Hundreds of professors have signed a petition on her behalf. But she has a history of showing poor judgment in the classroom. That history is certainly relevant to the current controversy. At times, she also has shown outward contempt for those who do not share her vision of utopia as involving limitless guilt-free sex for everyone.

Price arguably should have been suspended by UNCW back in March of 2003 when she cancelled all of her classes for an entire week in order to protest the Iraq War. Her unprofessionalism was compounded when she offered extra credit – but only to those who would join her in protesting the war. Predictably, a student complained and Price was reprimanded. She responded by correcting the problem. She organized an event for those who supported the war and gave students credit for participating. But the question remains: why did it take a student complaint for Price to understand the gross impropriety of her conduct?

Price is once again accused of using her class as a political platform. This is one of the many charges bundled together with showing pornography without warning and showing “racism” against student athletes. But this is a boring accusation. Sociology is an inherently political discipline, which is why it is generally regarded as a joke of a discipline. It is like political science without the science. If we were to fire Price for espousing politics in the classroom, we would have to fire 99% of the sociologists in America. Hey, wait, that could be a good thing! Could we look into that?

The far more important issue is whether Price was respectful of those who do not want to be exposed to graphic sexual content in the classroom. It is extremely difficult to apply the presumption of innocence to someone with such a poor track record for respecting others who have more conventional views of sexuality.

Around the time of my return to the church, I experienced Price’s arrogant judgmentalism firsthand. One of our few faculty members of faith was having relationship troubles when Price recommended to him – in public, mind you – that he “switch to bisexuality” in order to “double his chances” of finding a partner. I was sitting just to the left (physically, not ideologically) of the faculty member at the time. We both reacted visibly. When Price noticed I was taken aback by the remark, she responded predictably by calling me a “homophobe” in front of other professors.

One question in the current controversy is whether this is just another example of Price’s tired old “shock and condemn” tactic with regard to sexual morality. In other words, did she willingly shock the students with porn so she could later condemn them for drawing a moral judgment? This is an ingrained pattern of behavior that Price uses both inside and outside the classroom. Keep reading.

Over a decade ago, I got a complaint from one of Jammie Price’s students. It began with an off-campus incident that soon spilled over into Price’s classroom. It was all predictably orchestrated by Price in order to pass judgment on those who would dare to pass judgment (against her).

About a month before I received the student complaint, Price had foolishly shared a hotel room with another married professor while at a conference in San Francisco. When the travel receipts were turned in, the department secretaries figured out they had shared a room. False rumors of an affair began spreading.

Price decided to turn the incident into a teachable moment by sharing it with students. And that is the reason our mutual student came to me with the complaint. He considered the discussion unworthy of academic attention. I agreed. Then, I explained her “shock and condemn” teaching philosophy to him in simple terms:

1. Shock - Price shocks people with inappropriate comments and behavior. In this case, her sleeping arrangements with another married faculty member were a) disrespectful to both absent spouses and b) inappropriate for classroom discussion.
2. Condemn - Price condemns people for their predictable negative reactions to her disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.

I fear that the current controversy is just more of the same. Price probably derived a strange pleasure from seeing students recoil at the imagery in the porn documentary. But the real climax of the film was when she got to judge them for being so judgmental.

Price is setting herself up as a poster girl for academic freedom. But in reality she isn’t standing up for anything. She’s just trying to build a utopian society that is nothing more than one protracted porn film. But in the final scene, the taxpayers are the only ones getting screwed.

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.

Michael Brown - Gay Activists Expose Secret Rightwing Cabal (Or Not)

It read like a chapter out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, instead this time, the evil protagonists were not Jews (for the most part) but rather rightwing anti-gay zealots whose secret Facebook group was infiltrated by undercover moles who then spread the word to gay activists who then trumpeted the news across the airways and throughout cyberspace. In reality, the sensationalistic reports were totally false and what was true is hardly sensational.

The Facebook group in question is called Truth4Time, and contrary to gay blog posts and articles, it was not disbanded this week – not for a split second – nor are there any plans to disband it. (As one of the group’s administrators, I have firsthand knowledge of this.) The group is private (at present, and by design, with less than 100 members) and it was formed last year by a young man who wanted “to counter the comments made by the homosexualists that are made on articles published and posted by . . . pro-family warriors” including “Peter LaBarbera, Dr. Michael Brown, Linda Harvey, Matt Barber, etc.”

Some of us in the pro-family camp had noticed that when we posted articles on Christian websites, our articles were immediately bombarded by hostile gay commenters, and so it seemed like a great idea to have a Facebook group that could respond fairly and honestly to these comments while pooling relevant documents that summarized important research and news. We also became aware of gay activists who were trolling various pro-family Facebook pages, reporting them as hate-sites and trying to shut them down, and we wanted to expose this.

So, why all the fuss? And how did this relatively benign group merit a headline like this in the Huffington Post: “Truth4Time, Secret Religious Right Facebook Group, Included NOM Co-Founder, Fox News Pundit And More”? (To the credit of the editor in the Huffpost Gay Voices section, he responded to me immediately when I raised concerns about the factual content of the article, he was courteous and helpful from first to last, and he posted my corrections within the text of the article itself.)

What about the “big names” involved in this nefarious, clandestine group, including Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow? The simple truth is that one of the administrators added their names so they could have access to the group, but they were never present on the Facebook site and, to the best of my knowledge, never knew the group existed or had any idea their names had been added. So much for the smoking gun!

One online comment mocking Truth4Time asked if this was the best we could do with all the money we had. (After all, NOM and Fox have deep pockets!) What money? Not a dime has been invested in the Facebook page nor is there any money available to invest. This is simply a small group of people (some public figures but most not) wanting to combat gay cyber-bullying in an organized, truthful, and respectful way. A more relevant question would be, Why is a small, unfunded, grassroots, Facebook group perceived to be such a threat? And what is the big secret that gay activists have uncovered?

Signorile reported that his gay informant had learned of “a plan, whether it will come to fruition or not, to bombard physicians and school boards with negative and distorted information about the gay community.”

Actually, there was never a plan to “bombard” anyone with anything. Rather, one member posted a comment asking for help in getting information to doctors about the health-risks associated with homosexual activity, as documented by the CDC. (In response to this point, which was posted as a correction at the end of the HuffPost article, the aforementioned gay informant noted that “the CDC has said that racism, poverty, and homophobia play a big role.” But of course! There are no special health risks associated with men having sex with men. How could we miss that?)

The real irony here is that gay activist organizations with tens of millions of dollars in their combined budgets (think HRC and the NGLTF and Lamda Legal and GLAAD and GLSEN, among many others, not to mention their mega-rich straight allies) are doing their best to lobby Congress, influence political races, win court cases, indoctrinate our kids, and flood the media with their message, while in times past, gay activists have used the web to thwart prominent personalities like Dr. Laura (remember the Stop Dr. Laura campaign?). Now, a little Facebook group bands together (quite informally at that) to combat gay cyber-bullying, and suddenly, there’s outrage and shock and disgust. How dare we!

But I’ve divulged enough secrets. I need to get back to the Protocols to learn what our next evil plot will be. And be forewarned. We are everywhere.
Dr. Michael Brown

Click This Link to Listen to the 'Line of Fire' Radio Program 2-4 PM EST

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 - Censorship in London and Moral Insanity in Rhode Island

I would love to take a break from writing about gay-related issues, but it’s hard to keep silent in light of some of the things taking place here in America and in the UK.

Consider this brazen case of censorship in London, coming straight from Boris Johnson, the mayor. In 2007, gay activists in England launched a campaign “to tackle homophobic bullying in schools” with a simple message: “Some people are gay. Get over it!”

According to the Stonewall.org website, “After the launch, 600 billboard panels, kindly donated by Titan Outdoor Advertising Ltd, depicted this legend in giant, tabloid-style capital letters, on a bright red background at sights in England, Scotland and Wales. In September 2009 the simple, striking poster campaign appeared on 20 major railway stations advertising screens and on 3,500 interior bus panels in November 2009 for Anti-Bullying week.”

In response, an ad campaign was recently launched by Core Issues, which describes itself as “a non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as ‘gay’ who do not seek change.” The Core Issues group purchased ads to be carried on a number of buses reading, “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!”

This was too much for Mayor Johnson, who explained, “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.” What a remarkable statement.

Aside from the fact that the ads did not say that “being gay is an illness that someone recovers from,” it is absolutely outrageous that the mayor of London – “one of the most tolerant cities in the world” – would deny the right of free expression to those who identify as “not gay, ex-gay, or post-gay,” especially in light of the ubiquitous “Some people are gay. Get over it!” campaign.

Some observers suggested that Johnson had ulterior motives in his actions, specifically, his own campaign for reelection, and his main rival in the upcoming election, Ken Livingstone, criticized Johnson for even allowing the ads to be booked: “London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible. They promote a falsehood, the homophobic idea of ‘therapy’ to change the sexual orientation of lesbians and gay men.” Yes, censorship is alive, well, and being fully justified in “most tolerant” London.

To add insult to injury, after Alexander Boot, a regular opinion columnist for the Daily Mail, published an article entitled, “So attack on free speech is a sign of tolerance,” there was an outcry from the gay community, branding it a “startlingly homophobic column.” The Daily Mail responded by pulling the article.

It appears then that even criticism of censorship is to be censored, with one Facebook comment asking, “Actually isn’t the article a crime or against the law? Because of laws against homophobia or incitement to hatred?"

Turning now to Rhode Island, we move from the outrageous to the absurd, from censorship to moral insanity.

Two weeks ago, a 17 year-old student-artist at Pilgrim High School painted a mural depicting the stages of a boy’s life, from childhood, to teen years, to graduation in cap and gown, to marriage and family. The last image showed the boy, now a man, standing with his wife and son, with wedding rings over the couple’s heads.

This was too much for the school, and the administration decided to paint over the last image, since “some of the members of the Pilgrim High School community suggested that the depiction of a young man’s development from boyhood through adulthood as displayed may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.” I kid you not!

How dare this young artist depict an image of a traditional family, since this “may not represent the life experiences of many of the students.”

Do you see why I call this moral insanity?

The artist, Liz Bierendy, herself raised in a single-parent home, explained, “I felt bad because I didn’t want to offend anyone. I was scared that maybe it would go out to our homosexual community and I didn’t want them to get in an uprise because I was not trying to preach that’s the right thing to do at all.”

Can you imagine this? She “didn’t want to offend anyone” and she was “scared” that it would provoke a negative reaction from “our homosexual community.” And all this over an image of a married couple with their child. What has become of America?

The school ultimately let Liz decide how to complete her mural, and she stood by her initial decision. But as long as incidents like these continue to happen – here and in other parts of the world – I’m going to continue to write about them.

The best way to combat censorship is to speak out more loudly and clearly, while the best way to combat moral insanity is to expose it.

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 - Dean Faces Bad News for Banning Good News

Dear Dean (Name Withheld):

I am writing today with some very bad news for you. It would appear that, by the end of the year, you may be removed from your position as Dean of Students at (University Name Withheld). But, first, let me share the Good News – that is, if you will promise not to prosecute me for it.

I used to be an atheist. When people tried to share the Gospel with me, I would hurl profanity at them. I would even use a word that begins with “f” and ends with “u-c-k.” (I’m not talking about “fire-truck,” by the way). The Gospel offended me, so I told people to take a hike whenever they tried to share it with me. Now that I have converted, I no longer suffer from that kind of extreme emotional insecurity. And that is Good News. Now it’s time for the bad news.

Recently, a student at your university tried to share the Gospel with another student at your university. That makes sense. You do work at a Christian University. But then three things happened that made little sense. I will present them in chronological order – and in order from the least to most ridiculous event:

1. The student who was hearing the Gospel told the one sharing the Gospel that it was “offensive.” Of course, the Gospel has always been offensive. They would not have nailed Jesus to a cross if it were not. Then, the student demanded that the sharer of the Good News end the conversation. Fair enough. Maybe he was just having a bad day.
2. The next day, the still-offended student filed a speech code complaint over the Gospel sharing incident. The conduct he was engaged in, by the way, is considered sin by the Bible and “diversity” by the student handbook. At many “Christian” universities, the pages of the student handbook that deal with diversity carry more weight than the pages of the Bible that deal with sin. So the real sin is often using the word sin. And that is tantamount to banning the Gospel, which is the only means of dealing with sin – in part, because it confronts sin directly. So you have a choice between the speech code and the Gospel – unless, of course, you were born with the speech code gene.
3. Finally, and most ridiculously, you actually took the complaint seriously and forced the student to stop sharing the Gospel unless someone specifically asked to hear it. The incident was isolated. There was no accusation of harassment. The offending student had no intention of speaking to the offended student again. But you had to permanently ban him from initiating conversations about salvation at a so-call Christian university. The more universities speak of tolerance, the more they reek of intolerance. The paradox is that you’ve demonstrated that principle with your indifference to principle.

But this is the last time you are ever going to silence a student who wishes to share the Gospel. By my count – I have been talking with and mentoring the “offending” student daily - you had approximately five meetings in which you threatened disciplinary action. At each one of these meetings you spoke. Each time you spoke, you offended the Gospel-sharing student. And, worse, now that other Christians are hearing of the incident, they are also offended and intimidated into silence. Put simply, they are now afraid to share the Gospel at your “Christian” university. One could say you are bullying them with the speech code. And you can’t defend yourself by saying this was an “isolated” incident. You prosecuted the Gospel-sharer based on an isolated incident. Remember?

So I have done what I must do. I have begun by organizing a series of five counter-claims against you – one for each time you spoke to the Gospel-sharing student. These five claims will come from five different students whose speech has been chilled by your conduct. They will all be delivered at once in the form of hate speech charges. In other words, you have used the speech code as a sword against others and now the sword is about to be taken from you. And it will be pointed directly toward your heart. Unless you relinquish it voluntarily you will die by it.

Let me be very specific – even at risk of repeating myself: If you don’t get rid of the campus speech code within the next ten weeks we are coming after your job. That is only bad news if you do not repent of your sinfully censorious ways and allow students to share the Good News. As always, your fate depends upon your courage and willingness to do the right thing. It is my fervent prayer that you will learn from the example of your student-accusers. They are showing what it means to be bold in the face of emotional weakness masquerading as intellectual diversity.

You’ll be hearing from us soon,

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 - 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 - Anarchy at UK

I wish George Orwell were alive today. He could have seen just how right he was on such a wide range of issues. If he were still with us, I would show him an email written by University of Kentucky (UK) President Eli Capilouto. I’ve reprinted the email below. But in between each paragraph I’ve interjected some sarcastic observations.

Each fall, we welcome to campus a new class of UK students, whose wonderful backgrounds and aspirations add to the already accomplished campus community we are striving to build each day and each year. Sometimes, however, we also experience the unwelcome presence of broader societal shortcomings that insert themselves in our midst. Each of us has to work every day--individually and collectively--to overcome the harm or prejudice that can unfortunately find expression at times in our campus community. This can happen at many levels and among many groups.

This seems to imply that not everyone is welcomed on the UK campus – particularly if they represent “broader societal shortcomings.” The statement seems a little judgmental but also a little vague. Could it mean poor people are unwelcomed? Could it mean black people are unwelcomed? Maybe it just means short people are unwelcomed.

We encourage each person in the UK community to pledge to do his/her part on a daily basis to help protect and nurture our community. Just as success has many mothers and fathers, so does our progress toward a more diverse and inclusive campus.

Whenever someone says “success has many mothers and fathers” I know I’m listening to a bunch of socialist garbage. It takes a village to raise a child, my fanny!

Toward this goal, several months ago we began the process of establishing a Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT). In the next few weeks, BIRT will publish a protocol for students, to guide you in the process of what to do and what will follow whenever you are confronted with a negative bias situation. This team includes representation from Student Affairs, Institutional Diversity, Student Government, Campus Police, Facilities Management, Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity, Human Resources, Public Relations and Undergraduate Education.

Just what exactly is a “negative bias situation”? Is it when you try to walk into the African American Center but they won’t let you because you are white? It is when you try to enter the Women’s Center but they won’t let you because you don’t have breasts? Or is it when you try to walk into the LGBT Center and see a sign that says “No breeders allowed”?

Coincident to the formation of this committee, UK Police are investigating a flyer left last week outside the door of the CARES office building on South Limestone. CARES, the Center for Academic Resources and Enrichment Services, offers a comprehensive academic support system as well as enrichment services to aid in increased retention and graduation rates of underrepresented students. Last year, the center with its Student Support Services helped more than 1,200 students.

In other words, UK is about to ask the police to get involved in the regulation of “negative bias situations” (read: free speech) because of a piece of litter found outside a door. This had better be good. So let’s find out if it contained free speech or that other kind of speech (hate speech) that isn’t free.

Simply put, the flyer contained hate speech, the kind of speech that is antithetical to the values of diversity and inclusiveness that we embrace and which should define us at the University of Kentucky.

I knew it! Now, let’s find out what kind of hate speech it was.

It is a reminder about the urgency and importance of our efforts with this committee.

Please know that we will exhaust every avenue available in trying to identify the responsible parties of such incidents. And we will pursue to the fullest possible extent these acts of hate and negative bias in the campus community. An affront to one group or one person in our community should be understood as an affront to us all.

Good to know they are conducting an investigation. I want to find out what the note says.

Meanwhile, "if you see something, say something!" Silence is acquiescence to the forces of hate and negative bias. We keep each other safer when we take action, especially by immediately reporting what we know or observe to one of the following offices:
Campus Police: (859) 257-5770

I called the police but they did not call back.

Institutional Diversity: (859) 257-9293

Institutional diversity answered the phone but they didn’t know what the note said. It was just some kind of hate speech. They sent me over to Marketing and Communications. They didn’t know what the note said, either.

Student Affairs: (859) 257-6545

Institutional Equity: (859) 257-8972

Human Resources: (859) 257-9555

No luck at these three.

Please accept responsibility for helping to keep our community safe and welcoming.

Sincerely, Eli Capilouto

Since the UK president’s name was on the email I thought I would call his office to find out who left the “hate speech” note and what it said. But no one knew. Eight days into my investigation, I got a call back from Marketing and Communications. They told me the note said something derogatory about President Obama. Through persistence, I was able to ascertain the content of the note without making the university administrator engage in actual hate speech. Here’s what the note said: “PRESIDENT OBAMA IS A NIGGER.”

It’s certainly crude and it’s certainly hateful. But, like it or not, it’s free speech. But, not according to the administration at UK. They call it hate speech that is not protected. And they are ready to mobilize nine offices at UK, including the university police, to stop it. Otherwise, it would be anarchy at UK!

At UK, the thought police can sniff out a racial slur on a piece of litter on the ground outside an administrative office. And they can mobilize an entire campus to make sure that all the litter at UK is free from “negative bias.” They only allow clean litter at UK. Now, maybe they can focus on cleaning up their athletic program.

Speaking of athletic programs, the UK thought police should relocate to Penn State. If they can find a racial slur on a piece of litter, maybe they can find a child rapist in an athletic facility. Every campus community should be “safe” and “welcoming” for vulnerable populations. I’m talking about children. Let the adults fend for themselves.

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 - Death to Tenure

Julio Pino is a genocidal anti-Semite who uses his university email account to boast of sodomizing the mothers of his political opponents. But he has the protection of tenure. And he also has the protection of a cowardly administration, which fails to sufficiently condemn the behavior of a man who is probably too effeminate to act on his threats of violence and intimidation.

Pino, the unhinged Kent State University history professor, recently shouted "Death to Israel" during a speech by a former Israeli diplomat. The university’s president, Lester Lefton, now says that statementwas “deplorable.” Lefton issued a statement saying Julio Pino had a right to shout "Death to Israel” and disrupt someone else’s speech. That’s good to know because I plan to barge into Julio Pino’s history class next week and shout “Death to Julio Pino!” If the president doesn’t write a letter supporting my right to do so, I plan to barge into his office and shout “Death to President Lefton!”

I can do all this because we all know that shouting other people down and drowning out their protected free speech with threats of violence is also protected free speech. It’s what the Founding Fathers intended. Death to Jefferson! Death to Madison! Kill them all!

President Lefton surprised me when he wrote "We value critical thinking at this university and encourage students to engage with ideas that they find difficult or make them uncomfortable.” Well that’s just great! That must mean that Kent State has no university speech code. And that means we can engage in a little experimentation.

First, I say we go the Kent State diversity center and shout “Death to Africa!” and “Death to San Francisco!” If we have time after lunch, then we can go to the Kent State Women’s Center and shout “Death to Feminism!” If the point is lost on them, then we can ask a more serious question: Why have you not condemned Julio Pino for claiming – with his university email address - that he forcibly sodomized a woman who is a senior citizen?

For the record, President Lefton (see http://www.kent.edu/president/index.cfm), said this about Julio Pino’s most recent outburst: "We hope that our faculty will always model how best to combine passion for one's position with respect for those with whom we disagree. Calling for the destruction of the state from which our guest comes (as do some of our students, faculty and community members) is a grotesque failure to model these values."

Note that Lefton was talking about the “Death to Israel” remarks. Pino’s claims that he forcibly sodomized a senior citizen have yet to be condemned. Kent State officials are still trying to determine whether Pino’s email account was hacked as he claims. By the way, the investigation seems to have been lingering for about 18 months with no conclusion. Maybe that means Pino’s computer wasn’t hacked. Maybe he’s just a sociopath. Maybe Kent State University is just a den of spineless cowards.

The irony of the entire “Death to Israel” episode is that it came after Pino asked the Israeli speaker how he and his government could justify providing aid to countries with “blood money” he says came from the deaths of Palestinian children and babies. The speaker tried to move on after the absurd question. Pino started shouting and then left. He left many wondering “Was this the same Julio Pino who wrote an editorial to the Kent State student newspaper urging Palestinian children to strap bombs to their bodies to kill innocent Jews?” Okay, it really wasn’t irony. It was just blatant hypocrisy from a self-righteous racist.

Pino did not respond last Wednesday when I wrote to him about the “Death to Israel” incident. Maybe someone hacked his email account. Or maybe he was just out forcibly sodomizing a senior citizen. Sounds about right, since there’s no evidence his email has even been hacked.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently noted that Julio Pino was also caught up in a controversy in 2007 when he was cited on websites as being linked to an extremist Islamic website that espoused jihad and published bomb-making instructions. The Plain Dealer notes that “Kent State officials at the time said the extremist site had no connection to Pino or to the university.”

What the Plain Dealer does not note is that Pino and his former department chair have since admitted his connection to the terrorist website. Add the Plain Dealer to the list of cowards protecting a tenured terrorist who sucks the blood of the over-burdened taxpayer

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.

---

'Firefly' and Common Sense Under Fire: Wisconsin Criminalizes Free Speech

A professor at University of Wisconsin put a picture and a quote on his door from the TV show 'Firefly' but campus police made him take the poster down. Don't think free speech is under fire from the left? Then you might want to watch this episode of Trifecta.

---

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

---