What happens when the U.S. Secretary of Labor visits a church in Charlotte? If an incident earlier this month is any indication, faulty political promises and destructive economic policies continue to spread.
It took place on April 3rd. Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Seth Harris made an appearance at a Baptist Church in North Carolina’s largest city, along with Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx. He was visiting to promote President Obama’s proposal of elevating the federal minimum wage requirement from the current $7.25 to $9.00 an hour.
Harris and Foxx gathered in a large room within a Baptist church building. They sat in a large circle with several “average” (which means “hand-picked, pre-screened, and pre-approved by the Labor Department”) Americans living in Charlotte who work at jobs that pay only minimum wage. As news microphones and cameras caught all the action, Harris facilitated a “discussion” with the minimum wage earning Charlottean’s, and explained how their lives would benefit from the President’s new proposed mandate.
Harris told the group participants that if the minimum wage requirement was raised to $9 an hour, a full-time worker at the current minimum wage would earn an extra $3,500 more per year. A total of 557,000 workers in North Carolina “would directly benefit from that proposal,” he said, noting that President Obama is seeking to “lift people out of poverty” by imposing this new proposed requirement.
It all sounded so good. But in reality, there were problems.
For one, mere laws don’t “lift people out of poverty” – genuine wealth creation does. Using the force of government to mandate that a business owner pays a worker a specific wage does not ensure that wealth is being created. On the contrary, such laws are coercive mechanisms of wealth redistribution, and they only ensure that an increasing amount of existing wealth is taken away from one individual or group and transferred to another.
History, even recent history over the course of our lifetimes, demonstrates this. While roughly half of the world’s population -about 3 billion people - live in measurable poverty today, the other roughly 3 billion are measurably “middle class,” and mostly facing upward mobility.
So what has happened to the more fortunate 3 billion? We have not been “minimum waged” to wealth. We’ve been fortunate to live in countries where we’ve been relatively free to privately own property and advance in the marketplace and amass wealth for ourselves.
The best examples of this have been post-World War II Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, along with the increasingly liberated economies of China and India. Many Americans seem oblivious to this capitalistic, free market transformation that has taken place over the last few decades – surely if we were aware of this we wouldn’t have elected our current crop of politicians who are taking us in the exact opposite direction – but the transformation is nonetheless real.
Another problem with Harris’ promises is that they are based on the false assumptions that government bureaucrats understand the inner-workings of a business than a business owner does, and that government mandates always produce their desired outcomes. Can every small business in Charlotte – or anywhere else in the U.S. – afford to “absorb” the increased labor costs that will ensure with a higher minimum wage mandate? Harris is frequently asked about the un-intended consequences of his policy proposals, and will frequently say “I reject the notion that this kills jobs.”
Did you hear that business owners? He “rejects” it, so it is obviously not a concern. In fact, Harris promised the minimum wage earning Charlotteans that raising the minimum wage requirement will actually improve wages overall, and stimulate job creation.
Harris, by the way, took no time at all in Charlotte to meet with the business owners that would be impacted by the proposed wage mandate. When you have degrees from elite schools, and your work experience is based exclusively in the worlds of academia and law, and you wield the power of government (these characteristics describe both Harris and Barack Obama), it’s easy, apparently, to believe in the infallibility of your ideas. There’s no sense wasting time on the “non-believers.”
For now, Americans have put their collective trust in politicians who have promised to re-distribute us all to a better, “more fair” existence. Let us hope and pray that we see the error of our ways – before the country is irreparably damaged.
After six years of litigation, I am pleased to report that I have finally won the right to present my case against UNC-Wilmington to a jury of my peers here in North Carolina. My case began in September of 2006 when I was denied promotion to full professor. At the time, I had multiple teaching awards and outstanding reviews from students for my teaching. I had published more peer-reviewed articles than the vast majority of my colleagues. In fact, my department had never denied promotion to full professor to anyone with as many peer reviewed publications as I had accumulated. My service activity could only be minimized by suggesting that it did not “count” due to the views it advanced. It was voluminous but unpopular with my peers.
The promotion process was replete with procedural irregularities and with direct criticism of my columns and my beliefs. I immediately tried to appeal the decision internally but was denied a chance to do so. With no other recourse, I filed suit because it is unconstitutional for public officials to retaliate against an employee for expressing his views on critical social and political topics. It is especially hypocritical when such retaliation occurs at a public university that holds itself out as a free and open marketplace of ideas.
The journey has been long and there have been dark moments. In March of 2010, my case was thrown out when the district court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect my columns. Instead the federal court ruled that because I mentioned them on my promotion application they were a part of my official duties as a public employee. That ruling was based on an interpretation of a Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), which dealt with employee speech. That controversial case ruled that public employee speech – even if on matters of public concern – could be restricted if it was a part of the employee’s “official duties.”
We appealed and the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s ruling. In a unanimous opinion, they ruled that my columns qualified as protected, private speech. Regarding that central issue, the Fourth Circuit said the following:
“Put simply, Adams' speech was not tied to any more specific or direct employee duty than the general concept that professors will engage in writing, public appearances, and service within their respective fields. For all the reasons discussed above, that thin thread is insufficient to render Adams' speech ‘pursuant to [his] official duties’ … Applying Garcetti to the academic work of a public university faculty member under the facts of this case could place beyond the reach of First Amendment protection many forms of public speech or service a professor engaged in during his employment. That would not appear to be what Garcetti intended, nor is it consistent with our long-standing recognition that no individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment.”
The Fourth Circuit also ruled that the UNCW officials could be held personally liable if I ultimately won the case. In other words, all defendants were stripped of their qualified immunity. It was a resounding victory for academic freedom.
When the case was remanded, the Fourth Circuit asked the district court to determine whether there was evidence that I lost that promotion because of my columns and the views expressed in them. In a decision released last month, the district court answered that question with a resounding “yes.” In another victory for free speech, the court reasoned as follows:
"Here, plaintiff has brought forth evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to deny [promotion] to plaintiff. The court need not detail the evidence, but plaintiff has produced evidence which . . . shows the following: (1) his internal evaluations declined after he began the speech at issue; (2) faculty attempted to stop or alter his speech; (3) the denial of his application to full professor was in temporal proximity to Adams’ columns openly criticizing the University on certain political and social issues; (4) the written comments of the faculty on the [promotion] decision committee show hostility toward plaintiff’s speech; and, (5) a faculty member who had accused plaintiff of harassment was allowed to participate and vote on the plaintiff’s application for promotion."
I am eager for my day in court and I will keep my readers apprised of any new developments. In the meantime, I hope that many conservatives in academia will reconsider their decision to remain passive in the campus culture wars. Many believe they cannot win. That is certainly true if they refuse to fight.
Nearly ten years ago, I helped organize a lawsuit against UNC-Chapel Hill. The university was forcing Christians to allow non-Christians to run their organizations. It took me 18 months to find a plaintiff but I did. In case you were wondering, we took the case to federal court and we won. For a time, freedom of association was preserved at North Carolina's flagship university.
But tyranny is a hungry beast ever in need of replenishing itself at the expense of weaker prey. This semester, the predator was once again a UNC public university campus. But I am pleased to report that with the help of Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) we were able to win another freedom of association case. Working together, we won the case without a lawsuit. And we did it in just twelve days.
I am reproducing the email correspondence from that case in order to help others who are interested in challenging universities that knowingly violate the First Amendment. I have departed from my traditional practice of naming names as a reward to the university for backing down and saving the taxpayers from unnecessary litigation. I hope you find the following exchange as well (as my interspersed remarks) helpful:
Ms. (Administrator), it has come to my attention that you have asked Ratio Christi to remove its requirement that officers be Christians.
I need to know immediately and in writing by what authority you propose to force them to abandon their belief requirements.
This matter is urgent and and I expect a prompt written response.
Mike Adams
Thank you for the inquiry. We are in the process of working with these students as they pursue registration as a student organization. As the process is ongoing and in the beginning stages, our office has much work left to do with these students, including the review of Ratio Christi’s constitution, before any final decisions regarding their organizational status are made. We appreciate your concern in this matter and will continue to work with the students to welcome their organization to the campus community.
(Ms. Administrator)
Ms. (Administrator), you have not answered my question. It has come to my attention that you have asked Ratio Christi to remove its requirement that officers be Christians.
I need to know immediately and in writing by what authority you propose to force them to abandon those requirements.
This matter is urgent and I expect a prompt written response. If no response is forthcoming, I will assume the following:
You have attempted to interfere with Ratio Christi's First Amendment right to determine the believe requirements of its officers.
You have done so on your own and not in accordance with any specific (university) policy, office, or individual administrative directive.
I have copied Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I have asked his organization to join my investigation into the matter. The chancellor is copied as well.
Mike Adams
Dr. Adams-
Our staff is still working with the students on the constitution for the establishment of the Ratio Christi student organization. Therefore, your inquiries are premature and your assumptions incorrect. I would encourage you to be patient as we work with these students to develop their organizational constitution and assist them in becoming a recognized student organization. Since the administrative review and process is not yet complete, your inquiries are premature and inappropriate. When the process is complete, I will be happy to respond to any issues you may have with the outcome.
Many thanks,
(Mr. Administrator)
Executive Director of Campus Life
(Mr. Administrator was then hit with a pubIic records request seeking the information his office refused to divulge. He wrote back in less than 48 hours).
Dr. Adams-
Yesterday, (Ms. Administrator) and I met with representatives from the Ratio Christi student organization to discuss their organizational constitution and to assist them in becoming a recognized student organization. Unbeknownst to (Ms. Administrator) the (university) Office of Student Life has been reviewing its non-exclusionary membership clause in its student organization constitution template prior to your recent e-mails. During the meeting, I provided Ratio Christi with the following updated language for their inclusion in the constitution:
***
“ Student groups that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the group to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the group and agree with its beliefs …”
***
As I mentioned to you in my previous correspondence, the administrative review and process is not yet complete, but I believe that any issues have been resolved. When the process is complete, I will be happy to respond to any issues you may have with the outcome.
Many thanks,
(Mr. Administrator)
Anyone reading the previous exchange can see what happened here. The university tried to deprive students of their First Amendment freedom of association rights by leveraging the power of their office to control funds through the group recognition process. When they were caught and called out on it, they responded with predictably self-righteous indignation. But one official legal document -a public records request suggesting the prospect of litigation - jolted them back into reality (and civility).
After some reflection on the matter, the university decided to move forward with a quick change in policy in order to avoid litigation. There is little reason to believe they were actually contemplating any sort of policy change "in (their) student organization constitution template prior to (my) recent e-mails." Administrators simply cannot be trusted. But that is not the point of the present column. The point of the column is rather obvious: to teach readers all it takes to change an unconstitutional policy is one maverick professor working in conjunction with one FIRE attorney.
The question is: where are all the maverick professors? And why are they so afraid of their employers despite the protection of tenure?
In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.
A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on to say, “Those who live in the intelligent parts of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One, but unfortunately, there just aren’t enough intelligent parts of North Carolina.”
So, those living “in the intelligent parts” of the state, meaning primarily the counties and cities with major university populations, recognized how idiotic it is want to safeguard natural, organic marriage. Unfortunately, most North Carolinians were too dense to understand that a man has the civil right to marry another man. Presumably, the intelligent ones – the university students and their friends, not to mention the professors – have learned what really matters from authoritative sources like “Will and Grace,” a show justly touted for changing American opinion by no less a cultural pundit than our vice president, Joe Biden.
A commenter on another website, self-identified as a white gay woman exclaimed, “As I sit in the back of the bus and can only WISH the president would stop letting these backwoods S.O.B’S push me to the back of the bus as if me and my family do not contribute to this country!”
Backwoods S.O.B.’s indeed. Unintelligent bigots and boars. How do they (we?) even have the right to vote? It’s not fair to the enlightened ones (apparently akin to the “brights,” as some atheists self-defeatingly describe themselves). Presumably none of the intelligent ones live in Mississippi either.
Last week, on my Line of Fire broadcast, I received a call from a young lady named Sophie, a student at the University of North Carolina, living in Durham. She too was terribly embarrassed by the voting actions of her fellow North Carolinians, but she was quite proud of her county and city, since they had voted against Amendment One.
This was part of our conversation:
Sophie: And I don't think that is any coincidence that the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities all voted against the amendment.
Brown: So the smart ones, in other words.
Sophie: I'm not saying the smart ones
Brown: The educated ones?
Sophie: I'm just saying the people who were educated about the amendment and understood the consequences of voting for the amendment, because this is way more than marriage because if it was just about marriage then we wouldn't have an amendment at all because it’s already illegal in North Carolina.
Brown: No, Sophie the reason for the Amendment, is so no activist judge can … redefine marriage and when people go for civil unions that's just a step towards it. It was 100% to do with marriage...
A little later in the conversation, we got down to brass tacks:
Sophie: Well, this just shows the downfall of direct democracy. I mean sometimes I think that some things really should be left to the people who understand the consequences of the law and I think a lot of political . . . Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government has voiced their, their thoughts against this amendment, including the former democrat and republican mayor of Charlotte.
Brown: So Sophie, I think we . . . we just need the smart people, the educated people who think like you, to take control and to weed out these bigoted backwoods, Bible preachers like me, and America will be a better place. Why don't you just say it? Why don't you just say it?
Sophie: You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Brown: Well those are the words you just. . . . OK then say it.
Sophie: I think if people understood the consequences of the amendment, that they would not have voted for it.
There you have it. The people who live in the “intelligent parts” of North Carolina, “the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities, all voted against the amendment.” Yes, “Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government” opposed the marriage amendment, leaving only the backwards, uneducated, bigoted blue-collar workers to vote for it, and sadly, they constituted a substantial majority. And “this just shows the downfall of direct democracy.”
So I have a proposal. Let’s be fair to America and honor the elites, and let’s get out of the way of the inevitable social progress that is coming our way, like marriage ceremonies pronouncing lesbian couples “bride and broom” (this really happened). And let’s leave it to the cultural “brights” to rule the day.
Surely, no group of highly educated, intelligent and enlightened progressive, social elites has ever hurt their country. Surely we have learned by now that “some animals are more equal than others.”
This past Tuesday, May 8th, was a rough day for the liberal elites of North Carolina, as the people of their home state overwhelmingly passed the marriage amendment. In fact, it was so embarrassing for them that over the weekend, Gov. Beverly Perdue told a reporter, “We look like Mississippi.” For a liberal elite, what could possibly be worse than that?
There was, of course, the expected backlash from those outside of North Carolina, with thousands of people signing the Change.org petition calling for the Democratic National Convention to be pulled from Charlotte, also eliciting comments like these: “As an LGBT Democrat married in Iowa, I wouldn’t set foot in North Carolina,” and, “Move the Convention out of North Carolina, don’t spend any monies in this retrograde state.”
Roseanne Barr, always good for an insightful quote, urged movie studios to “withdraw your productions from NC!” (Note to Ms. Barr: If memory serves me correctly, Hollywood is located in California, a state which has twice passed marriage amendments. Perhaps you should call for all movie studios to withdraw their productions from there?)
And there were the expected headlines from ultra-liberal and/or gay activist websites. The Daily Kos reported, “The bigots win: North Carolina passes Amendment One,” and Queerty.com opined, “It’s a sad day in North Carolina. Actually make that in the entire U.S.”
Some celebrities who hail from North Carolina were especially distraught, with American Idol Clay Aiken stating, “In general, we have always been a state that takes responsible steps and this is an example, the only example in my lifetime, of the state taking a very irresponsible step.”
Actress Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “Just bent over on set and cried over this outcome. I hope my children see a more peaceful and tolerant world.”
For the liberal elites still living within North Carolina, however, the passage of Amendment One by a 61-39% vote was almost too much bear. The headline to the Charlotte Observer editorial, which was released minutes after the amendment’s passage was announced, declared, “Same-sex marriage amendment vote is just wrong.” And the editorial began by stating, “North Carolina foolishly and shamefully joined 30 states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriages.”
The Observer called the amendment “misguided,” claimed that it “unwisely writes discrimination into the state constitution,” argued that, “The state is on the wrong side of history on this matter,” and closed by stating, “The [voting] result doesn’t show love. It’s wrong and disgraceful.”
What happens when the U.S. Secretary of Labor visits a church in Charlotte? If an incident earlier this month is any indication, faulty political promises and destructive economic policies continue to spread.
