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?
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.
The best argument against liberalism is that it doesn’t work. That should be obvious to any teacher who has to deal with student cheating. Even some sociology teachers are beginning to learn this although they are not aware that they are learning it. Like rats in a Skinner box, their behavior is being modified by reality even when they lack the intellectual capacity to recognize it. It warms my heart to see old liberals changing their ways, even if mindlessly. So I have written a column about it, which I am hoping will someday be reprinted by the New York Times.
Liberals are reticent to address the issue of student cheating because it reminds them of the fallen nature of man. Utopia requires cooperation and evidence that people tend to cheat undermines the view that they are inclined to cooperate. So liberals would prefer to ignore evidence of cheating in order to preserve a vision of what “society” ought to be and could be if only they were given the means (read: more of our money) to re-engineer it.
But evidence of student cheating has become too widespread to ignore. So the liberals in my department have started circulating articles on the subject coming from reputable sources like the New York Times (sarcasm = off). Some of these articles and some of the faculty reactions to them have focused on what they describe as “a culture of cheating.” Accordingly, some liberal faculty members have started talking about what needs to be done about it. Others have started acting on it. This should be causing cognitive dissonance for several reasons:
Merit is irrelevant. Sociology students are frequently fed the liberal line that people do not succeed in America on the basis of their own merits. The old “it isn’t what you know, it’s who you know” maxim is more than just a cultural adage. It seeps into the college curriculum in sociology classes that focus on Marxian conflict theories. Students are routinely taught that wealth, power, and privilege are the keys to success. This tends to denigrate the importance of knowledge. It should go without saying that people are less inclined to rely on their own achievements if their efforts are thus devalued. The connection of such notions to acceptance of cheating is fairly obvious. If we teach people that they cannot succeed through legitimate efforts we will soon see them pursue success through illegitimate means. As always, liberals fail to understand that ideas have consequences. And bad ideas can have very bad consequences.
Ethnocentrism is unacceptable. Sociologists like to teach others that it is wrong to judge other cultures by the standards of one’s own culture. Such judgments are called “ethnocentric.” This concept has slowly crept into mainstream liberal thinking. That is unfortunate because promoting anti-ethnocentrism is problematic for at least two reasons:
it tends to undermine the idea that one’s actions (including cheating) can be considered objectively wrong.
It renders efforts to condemn a “culture of cheating” hypocritical. Remember that we aren’t supposed to judge other cultures!
Punishment is ineffective. Sociologists routinely teach the liberal idea that punishment is ineffective and the corresponding idea that “society” has an obligation to rehabilitate criminals. Then, in their own syllabi, they warn students that cheating will be punished. Claiming to be shocked when their threats are ignored, they send students through the campus penal system, not through rehabilitation. And the liberal campus penal system can be quite punitive and dismissive of due process. No attorneys, no tape recorders, no note taking, no soup … oops! I mean, no due process for you!
In a nutshell, sociology, like modern liberalism, teaches that we can’t get by on our own merits, we should not judge other cultures, and that punishment does not work. When students cheat, however, the sociologist urges advancement through one’s own merits, condemnation of the culture of cheating, and punishment of the transgressor.
It is little wonder that many students are intellectually lost and morally confused. They make the mistake of taking their sociology professors seriously, which means buying into contradictory liberal ideas. So my advice is two-fold: First, don’t cheat in college because it is objectively wrong to do so. Second, don’t cheat yourself by choosing a major populated by hypocrites who cannot abide by the consequences of their own ideas.
In one week, it starts all over again. Thousands of young people will enroll in classes in the sixteen-campus University of North Carolina system. Before the first day of class is over, the professors and administrators will begin the assault on students and their Judeo-Christian values. Parents will have spent their entire lives saving money that will ultimately be used to turn their children against them. Students will unlearn everything they were taught about the foundations of liberty, the basis of morality, and will even begin questioning the very existence of truth. Before long, many parents will realize they have risked bankruptcy funding a legacy of intellectual and moral impoverishment.
I realized the situation was bad when a military officer wrote me a few years ago. While he was off serving his country, his twin teenaged girls were enrolling at Rice University. During “O” week, Rice orientation week, their orientation leader told them it was time to “experiment with their sexual liberty” now that they were off at college and away from their parents. The military officer was outraged over the incident – as he should have been. More parents would be outraged if only they were paying attention.
Later that same semester, I sat through an excruciating graduation speech by a feminist sociologist. She smugly told the parents of graduating seniors that she hoped their children were leaving college with a “different perspective” than the one they brought with them. She said nothing about knowledge during her speech. She spoke only of “perspective” – smugly asserting that hers was better than the one held by the parents who were paying her salary.
If I sound a little edgy when I broach this topic there is good reason for that. I abandoned my faith as an 18 year old college freshman – a mere two months into my first semester of college. It is true that I carried some anger into my freshman year, which fueled that abandonment. But it is also true that I took my first psychology class from an atheist professor who used the classroom to evangelize students.
There may have been a legitimate reason for my psychology professor’s decision to discuss Sigmund Freud’s theory of how man created God, not vice versa. But when he talked about how B.F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning “explained away” religion it bordered on obsession. The psychology professor who feels compelled to rid students of their faith is no less perverted than the orientation leader who feels compelled to rid students of their chastity.
eventually made my way back. And reading apologetics played a huge role in my spiritual transformation. For years after that transformation, I wondered why there was no national organization dedicated to bringing resident apologists to campuses in order to establish Christian apologetics groups that would challenge campus atheists.
Then it finally happened. After hearing a speech I gave at Summit Ministries (www.Summit.org) in Colorado, Professor Lonnie Welch of Ohio University invited me to speak at the national conference of Ratio Christi (www.RatioChristi.org) in October of 2011. I did not even know that my friends John Stonestreet of Summit Ministries and ADF attorney Casey Mattox were on the Ratio Christi board.
Speaking at that conference was one of the greatest thrills of my year. During my speech, my friend Frank Turek came in with none other than Josh McDowell. William Dembski and Greg Koukl showed up later for our conference dinner. It was an evening to remember.
While I was there to speak, I was also there to learn. And what I learned was that Ratio Christi is the ideal campus Christian organization. There may be scores of Christian organizations already. But none prior to Ratio Christi were focusing on apologetics training. Such training is desperately needed to keep kids from falling away during college. How can students remain firm in their faith if they are not hearing both sides of the story? And how can they remain grounded if they were never grounded in the first place?
Ratio Christi is dedicated to doing the work that other Christian groups are ignoring. It is also laying the intellectual framework that the church has failed to provide for the last half-century. So it was easy to say “yes” when attorney Aaron Marshall asked me to be the faculty sponsor of the new UNCW Ratio Christi chapter. Aaron will be leaving his law practice in Charlotte and moving to Wilmington to become our new chapter advisor.
In addition to being a chapter sponsor, I am also a financial supporter for Ratio Christi. Throughout the year, I will be sending them 10% of the gross profits from every column I write and every speech I give. If you want to join me, send your donations to:
Ratio Christi
5531 Gardner Drive
Erie, PA 16509
(Aaron Marshall’s account number is 43001 if you want to direct a donation to him).
There is other good news on the anti-indoctrination front. At the end of the school year, Regnery will publish my next book, which is tentatively titled Letters to a Lost Progressive. The book is a collection of 33 letters written by me to a student who lost his way in college. Like our new Ratio Christi chapter, the book is meant to keep young people from following false ideas presented by false teachers. It assumes that ideas have consequences that should not be taken lightly.
I’ll have more to say about the book as the publication date arrives. In the meantime, take a good look at the Ratio Christi website (www.RatioChristi.org). They might make a believer of you. Or make it difficult to make a non-believer out of someone you love.
Is being white a privilege? That what the Un-Fair Campaign thinks. This liberal group has launched an ad campaign arguing that white people benefit from unearned advantages. The ad reminds white people of this unfair advantage in an effort to combat racism. Hear what Trifecta thinks of this campaign to eradicate so-called white privilege in America.
I love being hated. And if you don’t think I’m hated then you haven’t read my most recent rating on www.RateMyProfessor.com. For those too lazy to click the link (that means liberals), I’ve reprinted the latest rating below:
“I hate this guy on a personal level. He is a hyper-conservative homophobic a**hole. I disagree with his beliefs in every way and have never in my life had a professor or teacher I disliked more. I have to admit he's a good professor as far as covering course material in a clear manner, but his class policy is also very strict.”
In just four sentences, this student has succinctly summarized at least six major problems with liberalism in America. They follow in no particular order of importance:
1. Hate speech is a one-way street. When conservatives speak, their speech can still be labeled “hate speech” even if it does not contain the word “hate.” But liberals can avoid a charge of hate speech even when using the phrase “I hate” as an opener. Liberal hate is well-intentioned and tends to focus on broader social goals. It isn’t the words that determine whether something is free speech. It’s the sentiment that lies behind them.
2. Everyone else is extreme. The term hyper-conservative is usually applied to people who believe crazy things like “marriage involves one man and one woman” or “it’s wrong to dismember innocent babies.” According to liberals, about 80% of the population is “hyper-conservative” for one reason or another.
3. Every disagreement involves a “phobia.” A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Liberals usually apply this term to people like me who are not afraid to say anything. Absence of fear? Irrational fear? It’s all the same in the mind of the liberal.
4. Disagreement with ideas justifies personal vilification. Note that the above-quoted student links total disagreement with ideas to maximum “dislike” for individuals. Also, note that he does so in the same sentence. The cause/effect connection is inescapable. Because he disagreed with my “beliefs” the liberal student “disliked” me more than any other teacher. The student makes no effort to give any other reason than the ideas themselves. In other words, hatred of ideas = hatred of persons. And the former justifies the latter.
5. Qualifications are of minimal relevance. Eventually, the liberal student admits I cover the material in a “clear manner” - but not until after all the other personal attacks are aired. Personal characteristics are more important than competence. That is why a liberal clings to affirmative action like a conservative clings to guns and religion.
6. Standards are a form of oppression. Maybe he was mad that my ban on laptops in class kept him from getting status updates from the Perez Hilton Facebook fan page while listening to my lectures. Regardless, the insistence that we all follow rules did not mesh with his otherwise stellar commitment to equality. Liberals think standards are fine as long as they are applied to other people. When applied to everyone, the interest in equality is often replaced by an interest in tolerance.
Oddly enough, I feel sorry for this disgruntled student - although I’m glad he helped everyone better understand the liberal mindset. But he should not have had to wait until the end of the semester to express his hatred. So I’m coming to the rescue with a new plan than will help angry liberals (please pardon the redundancy) while earning me money for guns, cigars, guitars, and ammunition.
My plan is pure genius. It’s the new “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt, which will be available in small, medium, large, and extra-large sizes. This new t-shirt will be sold at all of my speeches under the following variable pricing scheme:
$12 for conservatives
$15 for liberals
$20 for feminists
$50 for homosexual rights activists
My reasoning for variable pricing is simply that some groups are angrier than others and will get more benefit from expressing their hatred. So, naturally, they should have to pay more. If you are a liberal, feminist, or homosexual activist who is taking one of my courses then feel free to wear it to class.
The “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt will replace the need for anonymous hate speech on RateMyProfessors.com. Everyone can come out of the closet at once and start contributing to my early retirement. And that’s a cause that both Mike Adams and his haters can get behind!
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:
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.
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.
