My Resignation from UNC-Wilmington

On August 12, 2017, I will get in my car and make my annual cross-country trip from my summer home in Colorado to my other home in North Carolina. After I arrive in the Tar Heel State and get settled I will sit down at my computer and do something the leftists at my university have been wanting me to do for years: I will pen my letter of resignation to the Board of Trustees at UNC-Wilmington.

However, before I submit that letter, I thought it would be a good idea to write a brief letter of explanation to all of the supporters who have stood by me in the UNC free speech and cultural wars in which I have been engaged over the last fifteen years. That is the purpose of today’s column.

In a nutshell, as of last week, I have now accomplished the five main objectives I have set out to accomplish since the administration started to aggressively fight against the free speech and due process rights of professors and students in the UNC system. Having accomplished all of those goals, I have decided that it is time to start enjoying life instead of fighting against my employers in federal courtrooms and state legislative halls. For those unaware of the struggles that have consumed my time in recent years, here are some of the highlights:

April 2011. Under the leadership of Tom Ross, the UNC administration tried to argue that professors who write columns and give speeches are protected by the First Amendment unless they later mention their protected speech in their annual productivity reports or promotion applications, which would then strip them of protection and allow the university to punish the authors for their viewpoints. With the help of the ADF and ACLJ, we defeated this effort in front of the 4th Circuit in Richmond and won a unanimous ruling. The leftist UNC faculty remained neutral in the case knowing full well that they would never have to fear retaliation from administrators who share their beliefs. A conservative (yours truly) was the lone dissenter and plaintiff.

August 2013. After it passed the house by a vote of 112-1, Governor McCrory signed into law the first right to counsel legislation for college students in America. The bill ended the practice of UNC schools expelling students and student groups in kangaroo court proceedings where they were forced to face university counsel after being denied their own representation. I was pleased to be a part of this effort from the beginning – and proud to have former student John Bell sponsor the successful legislation. While this was a due process issue, it also has implications for free speech – given that many expulsion hearings involve campus speech code and speech zone violations. When we ensure greater fairness in expulsion hearings, universities are less likely to convene them.

March 2014. With the help of my ADF and ACLJ attorneys, we won a major free speech trial in front of a federal jury made up mostly of Democrats. I have written about this elsewhere so I will not rehash the details here. Suffice it to say that the proceeds from the legal judgment were spent on extremely expensive guitars that now adorn the walls of my living room. Out of affection, I named each one of the guitars after a defendant in the case. I’m sentimental that way.

July 2014. Thanks to the leadership of my friend and personal hero Thom Goolsby, we now have the best religious liberty statute protecting university student groups in all of America. Robert Shibley of FIRE first brought the bill, which originated in Ohio, to my attention. I then took it to Goolsby who was then the head of the N.C. Senate judiciary committee. The bill got buried in committee the first year but it eventually became law when Governor McCrory signed it at the end of the next summer. The bill never would have made it without the support of FIRE, the N.C. Family Policy Council, and the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy (now the Martin Center for Academic Renewal).

August 2017. Finally, as of last week, North Carolina became the first state to pass a model free speech reform bill advanced by the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition to effectively doing away with all campus speech codes and speech zones, it forces universities to educate students about the new pro free speech policies during freshman orientation, which was previously a place where students were introduced to anti-free speech concepts like “micro-aggression.” The best part of the bill is that it cracks down on students who attempt to disrupt the free speech rights of others. For example, the campus lunatics who tried to shut down a pro life display on my campus by surrounding the pro-lifers with a “human chain” so they could not speak to or share literature with passers by are now much more likely to face expulsion. We had to fight very hard to get this bill passed in light of public resistance by leftist anti-free speech newspapers like The Charlotte Observer – and relentless lobbying by UNC President Margaret Spellings. We will know it was worth the effort once we start to see heads exploding during the first freshman orientation.

I’ve been a busy guy with all of this so I am indeed looking forward to slowing down and enjoying my new life. For me, that will be spending the rest of my days ridiculing academic hypocrites. As for my letter of resignation, I will decide on my ride home to North Carolina exactly when it will take effect. I promise it will be no later than August 1, 2050.

In the meantime leftists, feel free to start another of your annual petitions to fire me. If you ever do succeed, it will mean more time on my hands to write the things that make you angry and keep sane people entertained.

I’m just a lesbian … trapped in a man’s body

Author’s Note: I have a new favorite standup comedian. His name is Maheep Singh. He’s from India. It seems that for several months he was doing a comedy routine in which he joked that he was a lesbian trapped inside a man’s body. After doing the routine for a while, a friend of Maheep’s informed him that there was a columnist named Mike Adams who had previously written a column about being a man trapped in a lesbian’s body. Concerned that he would be seen as plagiarizing my work, Maheep wrote me all the way from India to assure me it was just an accident. Two great lesbian minds think alike! We became fast friends after I told him that I thought I stole it from another trapped lesbian named Rush Limbaugh. It brought back old memories. Accordingly, I have reposted this old column in Maheep’s honor.

I love writing columns on the subject of political correctness. Even more than writing the columns, I enjoy reading the email responses I get from readers all around the world. But there are some emails I get tired of answering. The most annoying are the ones warning me that I will lose my job as a university professor if I continue to criticize the campus diversity movement. The people issuing these warnings seem to know that college administrators are usually intolerant of dissent, despite their emphasis on diversity. But there is one thing they don’t know. I have an ace up my sleeve.

Many years ago, I attended a “trans-law” seminar here at the university. The purpose of the seminar was to talk about the unique legal difficulties facing trans-gendered persons in the workplace. Several students attended the seminar in order to earn extra credit for their sociology classes. I attended just for fun.

While I was at the seminar, a former law enforcement officer, who was dressed as a woman, explained, “sex is between the legs, while gender is between the ears.” She further explained that she felt like a woman on some days and that he felt like a man on others. In other words, he felt that she could become a member of a protected class whenever he wanted. That day he felt like a she.

That evening, I went home and did some research on the issue of sexual orientation. Specifically, I was curious as to the proper classification of someone who has a sex change (from man to woman) and then decides to continue to date women. Is such a person homosexual or heterosexual? I also wanted to know if I could ever become a member of a protected class because of what is “between my ears” as opposed to “between my legs.”

In order to answer these lofty intellectual questions, I logged on to the “project B-GLAD” portion of our university website. Specifically, I looked at the “trans-gender” section of the recommended reading list. The “trans-gender” section is right below the “spirituality” section and just above the “youth” section. (The link can also be used to access one of the sources Justice Kennedy used to write his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. I never realized Kennedy was so cerebral).

While I was doing my research something strange happened. I guess you could say I had an epiphany. After all these years of thinking I was just a white male heterosexual Protestant Republican, I realized I was wrong. I’m really a lesbian trapped inside a man’s body.

Naturally, I was concerned that when I revealed this to my girlfriend, she would be alarmed. I even thought it might end our relationship. But that wasn’t so. When I told her about my condition, she came back with this stunning revelation: She’s really a gay man trapped inside a woman’s body. It seems we really were meant for each other!

So now you know my secret. If the university tries to fire me for my conservative views, I will reveal my Lesbian In a Man’s Body Orientation (LIMBO). Then I will argue that my conservative views are caused by my gender identity confusion. If they happen to be oblivious to the status of LIMBOs, I will just go ahead and get a sex change along with my girlfriend (I hope cosmetic surgeons offer “two for one” specials). Certainly, they will decide to keep me if I actually become trans-gendered. And if I don’t feel like being a woman anymore, I will simply change back to being a man. Hopefully, trans-trans- gendered persons will have the respect they deserve by the time I have my second surgery.

I hope these new revelations do not overwhelm my readers. I also hope that I haven’t used any politically incorrect terminology in explaining my dilemma. If I find out that have, I will enroll in the new “Queer Theory” course (no, I am not making this up) being offered next semester in the Sociology Department.

And maybe the new course in “Queer Theory” will help me answer some other questions. For example, when did it become politically correct to use the term “queer?” And why do we need “queer theories” if sexual orientation is genetically determined? Finally, does anyone in the class want to be seen as an individual?

Inherit the Windfall

Bryan College is rapidly becoming Christian in name only. In fact, it is arguably the most corrupt institution of higher learning in America. Because the financial corruption of the administration has now reached unprecedented proportions, I must take a break from addressing the moral rot on our nation’s secular campuses to address the situation. To do otherwise would be an act of complicity in the spineless hypocrisy that has transformed Bryan into a ghastly caricature of its former self.

The present crisis dates back to 2009 when one of the founders of the National Association of Christian Athletes (NACA) was accused of sexual molestation. A proposal was made to sell a property owned by NACA, which is known as the Fort Bluff Camp, for an amount of $2.5 million. This would have covered NACA’s debt at the time, which was $900,000. Thus, it would have left them $1.6 million in the black. This is where Bryan College President Stephen Livesay gets involved. This is also where the gross financial misconduct begins.

Livesay managed to defeat the proposal to sell the land with an alternate proposal to get rid of the then-existing 13-member NACA Board. Livesay proposed a new 15-member NACA Board be put in its place. Elevating audacity to a Zen art form, Livesay suggested the following composition for the new NACA Board: Nine new members from the Bryan College Board and six members from the existing NACA Board. Unbelievably, Livesay proposed that he would be the one to choose all 15 members.

The proposal was accepted and Livesay was elected Chairman of the Board. It was a political move that even a third world dictator or a mafia boss would envy. In other words, it was the kind of move that no decent Christian man would even attempt. Worse, the rigged 15-member Board would ultimately dwindle to just seven members. The reasons for that will be obvious as the story unfolds.

By 2016, the NACA Board had been reduced to nothing more than a hand puppet of the Bryan College president. By June 27, they had adopted a resolution to transfer the Fort Bluff property from NACA to none other than Bryan College. Five of the seven remaining members of the NACA Board were staff or Trustees of Bryan when the property was transferred to the college. It was a bulletproof plan with only one opponent. That is a nice way of saying that only one member of the NACA Board exercised an ounce of Christian discernment in the situation. (He has since resigned leaving both NACA and Bryan leadership without anything resembling a Christian moral foundation).

Because President Livesay defeated the 2009 sale of Fort Bluff, NACA had already lost $1.6 million. Bryan College, on the other hand, received the property in 2016 with an appraisal of $6.9 million – with the lone drawback that they had assumed the $900,000 debt of NACA. In other words, the thwarted deal of 2009 that cost NACA $1.6 million set up a deal for Bryan that would net $6 million. It was pure genius by Livesay.

To make matters worse for NACA, the Bryan leadership set up a one-year lease of its newly acquired property to NACA. Now, they pay $120,000 per year to Bryan to rent property they used to own. The warden in Shawshank Redemption could not have cut a better deal.

Just eight days before the land deal came through Livesay was confronted about his conflict of interest, which he denied. Instead, he asserted that he had been asked by the previous owners of the property (Michael and Naomi Crain) to give the property to Bryan College. By the time the deal occurred, Michael Crain was in prison for sexual battery. But Naomi Crain was doing fine. She was getting a $4,000 monthly check from Bryan College as a “consultant.” Her “consulting” actually drew more money than the director of the camp. The line was hidden in Bryan’s 2015 budget under “interest and fees.”

For giving President Livesay cover for the land deal, Naomi Crain got a nice retirement pension from Bryan College. In return, Bryan College got a nice property with a big mansion sitting on top of it. It would be the perfect retirement home for an educator who has spent his whole life serving Christ above all.

Fortunately, all NACA Board members have to sign IRS Form 990, which is used to disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest – and to prevent organizations from abusing their tax-exempt status. In fact, the Board signed Conflict of Interest Statements on June 10, 2016 – just one day after Livesay was confronted about his obvious conflict of interest, which he denied.

To be fair, it is true that Livesay finally acknowledged his conflict and resigned from the NACA Board. But that did not occur until after the land deal was completed. In fact, he left NACA the very next day after the land transaction was approved.

NACA financial statements were released six months after Livesay abandoned the organization with their property secured for his college. The statement revealed a NACA deficit of $1.64 million. In contrast, Bryan College finished their fiscal year with a positive increase in assets of $5 million. But for the property transfer, they would have been $1 million in debt.

As of this writing, Naomi Crain continues to get her monthly “consulting” fee. President Livesay continues to get glowing reviews from his fine Christian Board. But there are not enough desperate wives of convicted sex offenders to save Bryan College from impending financial ruin.

Three Kinds of People

When I was growing up my father used to say there were two kinds of people in this world. When I would ask him “What time is it?” he would say “There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who ask what time it is and those who wear watches.” He had so many variations on the theme that I eventually decided there really were two kinds of people in this world: Those who dichotomize and those who do not.

But, later, with the help of Lt. Col. David Grossman, I decided there are three kinds of people in this world: Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.

The sheep form the largest segment of our society. According to Grossman, these are the people who are living in a constant state of denial. They are generally incapable of doing violence to another person and largely unaware of the existence of evil in this world – the true evil which is, thankfully, confined to a minority of the population.

The classic sheep mentality was demonstrated to me on September 12, 2001, which was, of course, the day after the worst terrorist attack in this country’s history – though certainly not the worst we will see in the coming years.

This sheep – unsurprisingly one with a PhD in the so-called “social sciences” – approached me with a request: “Hey, Mike, is there any chance you have a spare gun I could borrow for awhile?” To understand the significance of this quote one has to know something about the sheep that uttered it; namely, that he was adamantly anti-military and anti-gun on September 10, 2001.

However, in the first few hours (maybe few dozen hours) after 911 the sheep panicked. He was worried that the transportation system and banking system would be shut down indefinitely. And he knew there were crack and heroin addicts living in the vicinity of his neighborhood.

But when order was restored in this country – admittedly, faster than both he and I expected – he calmed back down. He hasn’t put a hand on a weapon in the nearly sixteen years since our conversation. He is back in a state of denial where he feels most comfortable.

But there are others among us who are fully aware of the existence of another class of persons we will call the “wolves.” These people are sociopaths who prey upon the sheep and wish to do them evil. My awareness of the existence of these people led to another noteworthy conversation on the evening of August 31st, 2001.

Shortly after purchasing a new car, I stopped by Wal-Mart to get some cleaning accessories and, as usual, picked up a few hundred rounds of ammunition. My girlfriend was waiting for me at the condo and spoke to me as I stored the ammo in my gun safe – the only one I had at the time. That was the first time she got a glimpse at my numerous weapons and the thousands of rounds of ammunition that accompany them.

“How many guns do you have?” she asked. I told her. “And how many thousands of rounds of ammunition do you have?” she then asked. I told her that, too – although you may rest assured that I wouldn’t tell the reader or the ATF, which, in my opinion, should be a convenience store and not a federal agency.

My girlfriend was so alarmed that later at dinner with her parents she mentioned our conversation. I don’t know whether she told them about how I warned her of the existence of the Islamic wolves who would some day release an atomic device in our country in the name of Islam. Nor do I know whether she told them about the domestic wolves I also warned her about. These are the folks whose withdrawal from addictive drugs in the wake of the chaos following a nuclear explosion would lead them to prey upon the sheep not prepared with gun safes that look a lot like mine.

But I do know that she apologized the following month. When the second tower fell, she knew who was responsible. She knew I was not just crying “wolf.” More importantly, she realized that I was a member of the third class of people: the sheepdogs.

Sheepdogs, unlike sheep, are fully prepared to kill other human beings. But, unlike the wolves, they do so in order to protect those whom they love – who, for the most part, are unable to fend for themselves. Their willingness to kill is a function of their love for their fellow citizens.

There are many people who find it odd that I shoot firearms on an almost daily basis with other sheepdogs including my good friend and occasional bodyguard. They would certainly find it odd that we compare notes over who fired the most shots through the same hole in the head of an Osama Bin Laden target. And, needless to say, they would certainly not understand why I kill literally hundreds of live animals per year (usually small varmints) in order to perfect my skills in hitting targets that actually move.

But the wolves are still out there and we do not know when they will attack. But they will. And, for most of you, the sheepdog is your best and only hope.

The Intellectual Poverty Law Center

Author’s Note: I made a prediction in this 2014 column, which just came true this week. SPLC has now called ADF a “hate group.”

When I was a graduate student, I had great admiration for the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 1989, I took a graduate seminar in race relations and learned all about how the SPLC helped shut down the KKK in the South – thus expediting the end of the practice of lynching. Because of their hard work, the targeted murder of blacks is currently confined to abortion clinics funded by leftist organizations yet to be defined as “hate groups.”

Sadly, the once-great SPLC has abandoned its focus on fighting groups that terrorize the black community. Otherwise, they would be doing something about Planned Parenthood. Instead, the SPLC has turned its efforts towards promoting intellectual terrorism against all opponents of the American Left. Now, virtually everyone who disagrees with SPLC politics is branded a hate group and lumped together with groups like the KKK.

Recently, I learned that the now out of control SPLC has characterized the Alliance Defending Freedom as an anti-gay group, which means they are gearing up to attack and label them a full blown hate group. They already call them an “anti-gay” group.

Their reason for the characterization was simply that the ADF opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons. Some examples of ADF activism in this area follow:

Representing Bakers. The ADF has represented bakers who have refused to bake cakes for homosexual “wedding” ceremonies. The SPLC has a problem with this – suggesting that siding with the bakers constitutes anti-gay bigotry. In fact, they liken it to the mid-20th Century practice of denying blacks seats at counters in segregated cafes. This is a poor analogy, indeed. In fact, the SPLC position is morally consistent with saying that a black baker should be forced to bake cakes for a fundraising dinner for a white supremacist group. Of course, the moral inconsistency is a reflection of the fact that SPLC is dedicated to identity politics, not to principles of freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

Representing Photographers. ADF has also defended photographers who refuse to photograph homosexual “weddings.” This was also seen as hateful by the SPLC. Imagine what the SPLC would do if a black photographer had been forced to take pictures at a Klan rally. Would the SPLC defend the photographer or the Klansmen?

Representing Christian Student Organizations. You don’t really have to rely on a Klan hypothetical when trying to expose SPLC hypocrisy on the issue of freedom of association. Back in the 1950s, Klansmen really did try to join the NAACP in order to destroy them by changing their statements of belief.

Now, homosexual activists have stolen the old Klan tactic and used it on campus Christian organizations. And the SPLC is right there cheering them on!

Now that some of the Christian groups have gone to the ADF for protection against these Klan- inspired tactics, the SPLC has come out against the ADF – even characterizing their efforts to defend Christian group autonomy as part of a “sharp record of anti-gay bigotry.” Switching back to hypothetical mode, imagine that the ADF decided to defend the NAACP from Klansmen seeking to invade the group and change their belief structure. Would ADF be guilty of establishing a “sharp record of anti-Klan bigotry”?

Indeed, highlighting SPLC hypocrisy is like shooting fish in a barrel because the organization has no consistent set of moral principles. That is, unless you characterize defending Leftists no matter what they do as a “moral principal.”

Truth be told, the SPLC has become much less of a defensive organization in recent years. These days, they seem to remain on the offensive with this tired business of stigmatizing groups that hold fairly mainstream views as “hate groups.” Examples include the American Family Association (AFA), the Family Research Council (FRC), and World Net Daily

It is worth asking what Martin Luther King would think about the AFA or FRC if he were alive today. Would he brazenly lump them together with the KKK and the Aryan Nation? Of course he wouldn’t. In fact, King would probably be among their financial supporters.

It takes real moral bankruptcy to fail to grasp the offensiveness of such brazen moral equivalence. One could only hope that the moral bankruptcy of the SPLC will lead to actual bankruptcy as donors wake up and turn away from the practice of subsidizing their blatant hypocrisy. Or maybe members of the ADF could invade the group and reorganize the SPLCs core beliefs, thus making them consistent.

The core problem with the SPLC is that they simply don’t understand the definition of hate speech – the thing they so enthusiastically claim to be eradicating. In reality, hate speech is simply speech that liberals hate because they lack the intelligence required to offer a rebuttal.

Given that the SPLC hates an increasing amount of main stream speech, it is hard to avoid characterizing them as a hate group. Their battle against hate groups would best be advanced by closing their own doors and throwing a giant going out of business party. If they ever do, I will be there to take pictures and bake them a cake.

Please, don’t laugh. Queerer things have happened before.

Vigilante Rape As Social Justice

A group of self-proclaimed feminist scholars have published a collection of essays exploring themes of violence and retribution in Stieg Larsson’s millennium trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest). The essays, edited by UNCW Professor Donna King and Professor Carrie Smith, appear under the title Men Who Hate Women: And Women Who Kick Their Asses. A more accurate title might have been Feminists Who Promote Vigilante Anal Rape: And Leftist Universities that Promote Them.

It is difficult to imagine a more unusual subject for a set of scholarly essays. Those familiar with the plot of the Larsson Trilogy know that it centers on Lisbeth Salander, a feminist heroine who is sexually harassed by Bjurman, a lawyer and social worker. Early in the first movie, he makes her perform oral sex on him in exchange for a welfare check, which she needs desperately. Later, she hatches a plan for revenge against Bjurman. Things go downhill rapidly.

In the original revenge plot, Salander burglarizes Bjurman’s home in order to plant a hidden camera. She returns to perform oral sex on him again in exchange for another welfare check – only this time on hidden camera. This is done for the purpose of blackmailing him. But, predictably, the plan backfires. In fact, Bjurman binds and brutally rapes her in front of the hidden security camera. It is among the most graphic scenes of violence in the trilogy. But it isn’t the only one.

Later, Salander goes back to his home – again seeking extralegal revenge. This time, she handcuffs Bjurman. While he is handcuffed, she brutally sodomizes him with inanimate objects. Next, she tattoos “I am a sadistic pig and rapist” on his chest. Before leaving, she blackmails him with threats of putting the video of his rape of her online.

Before proceeding further, does anyone think we need an entire book exploring the question of whether such sadistic violence is empowering for women? Apparently, Vanderbilt University Press thought so. And editors Donna King and Carrie Smith seem to have been unable (or unwilling) to find a single scholar to condemn this brutal vigilantism as being immoral – or at least potentially bad for women.

In fairness, some of the feminist contributors to Men Who Hate Women seem ambivalent toward the movie’s vigilantism. But Professor Kristine De Welde endorses it wholeheartedly. That is to say, she deems the violence both legally and morally permissible. De Welde’s essay, “Kick ass feminism” actually reads more like the script of a reality TV show than a work of scholarship. For example, when De Welde discusses the reaction of one of Salander’s assault victims she notes that he “nearly shits himself.” When I found out De Welde had tenure, I had a similar reaction.

It is important to note that De Welde characterizes what happened to Bjurman as a rape. Jurisdictions are split on this matter. Some refer to forcible sodomy and/or sexual assault with inanimate objects as “felony sexual assault” and handle their prosecution under separate statutes. It is irrelevant here in North Carolina where the aggravating factors and punishment schemes are identical for both offenses. Nonetheless, as soon as De Welde admits it was a rape, she claims it was also an “act of self-defense.”

In her essay, De Welde also discusses another vigilante scene wherein Salander tried to kill her dad with an axe – first with a blow to the leg, then with a blow to the head. He survived the attack. That’s too bad, according to De Welde. She says it was merely self-defense. (By the way, her dad did not rape her. She just tried to kill him because he was abusive toward her mother when Lisbeth was a child.).

It is important to understand that De Welde is not saying that these acts ought to be self-defense. She’s saying they are self-defense. That is simply wrong for three reasons:

1. In order to have a valid claim of self-defense, she must experience reasonable fear at the time she engages in the act for which she is claiming self-defense. Lisbeth isn’t in fear when she rapes, tortures, and brands Bjurman. She is experiencing orgiastic ecstasy.

2. In addition to proving that she is experiencing fear, she must show that the outcome feared is imminent. As stated above, she fears nothing – certainly not the rape that already occurred.

3. Those claiming self-defense must show that the act of defense was proportionate to the attack. Although she rapes Bjurman in response to her rape of him, it is irrelevant. She’s already lost her claim of self-defense for the above stated reasons.

Turning to the attack on her father, which De Welde also calls self-defense, amplifies the incompetence of De Welde’s legal analysis. Salander tried to murder him in response to anger at generalized abuse toward another individual. It is simply bizarre that De Welde would attempt to stretch the law to excuse such a disproportionate and belated response.

De Welde finishes her essay attempting to sanitize her position on gender-based vigilantism: “I argue here that feminism can benefit from more fully incorporating women’s physical aggression as a way of challenging men’s domination and women can benefit from seeing physical resistance as a possibility.”

Actually, De Welde doesn’t argue that position. In fact, she doesn’t argue any position. She asserts a position. The difference between an assertion and an argument is evidence. And that is what she is lacking. Although she is a tenured sociology professor, she provides no social data in her essay. Vigilantism does not work in fiction. And there is no evidence that it works in reality.

Donna King and Carrie Smith should be ashamed of themselves for presenting De Welde’s sickening anti-male screed as an example of “feminist scholarship.” In the process, they lend endorsement to anal rape as a form of social justice. They also brand themselves as sadistic pigs in the process.

Die In Place

Some years ago, I received a note from a reader who made a generous contribution in support of my efforts to expose the hypocrisy, treachery, and filth that pervades higher education. Every time I consider cutting back on the time I put into this effort I sit down read his note. I would also urge all of you to read the following:

Dear Dr. Adams:

Perhaps you have received communications with similar language but, please allow me to explain the meaning of (the subject line of my email) “Die In Place”.

Years ago while in training as a Marine Officer, I first heard the expression “Die In Place”. The phrase was used as a teaching point to understand the concept of “Mission Type Orders”.

This concept directs that simple and concise orders be provided to subordinates without dictating the minutia of how to accomplish the assigned mission. A Marine given “Mission Type Orders” must; 1) assess the situation, 2) identify his tasks, and 3) develop an operational concept designed to accomplish his mission.

Simply put, a Marine given “Die in Place” orders understands the gravity of the situation as follows:

– He occupies the key terrain of his unit positions.
– There may be NO withdrawal or retreat.
– There are NO alternate or supplementary positions.
– There will be NO attachments or reinforcements.
– The position MUST be held.
– Failure to do so will result in the literal destruction of all friendly forces and the ability to successfully conclude the conflict.

In other words, death is preferable to the resulting loss of Marine Corps honor, culture, and prestige if he fails.

I believe you hold this key terrain in the realm of academia. If we fail to correct our educational philosophy and put an end to the continuous and grievous assault on the minds of our nation’s youth, we will lose all. As a nation we will likely survive any challenge (military, political, economic), but failure to change the current socialist/anti-American attitude in our academic institutions will ultimately result in our undoing as a nation as we slowly drift away from belief in our individual liberties and freedom. Education is the foundation for the continued success of our nation. We cannot allow it to crumble.

It is apparent to me that you clearly understand the importance of your position and the tasks that must be accomplished to end the assault on academic excellence. You routinely expose the hypocrisy, perfidy, and filth perpetrated at our colleges and universities. I also appreciate and commend your operational concept of an aggressive assault on those you identify. By identifying those responsible for the activities you expose, you allow direct participation in reestablishing academic excellence. I love it.

Few, if any of your peers strike directly at the specific individuals, events, and institutions that are detrimental to our long-standing academic values. Your recent columns indicate you have the attention of your targets and have also energized support for your efforts. I applaud you for this success.

Another lesson from my time in the Marines is that you always “Reinforce success, never failure”. Your recent columns demonstrate success and I am compelled to support your efforts. I recently returned from Iraq where we are provided hazardous duty pay. I have forwarded some of that pay to you for the hazardous duty you perform. I know that by embarking on your current course, you are at risk professionally and personally and I wish you well in your efforts. I will continue to support when I can and I look forward to assisting in stepping on a cockroach or two.

Perhaps I have stated the obvious to you, but what you are doing is that important to our educational system and I as I write the following, it is meant with all due respect and sincerity,

Die in Place.

My Victim-Centered Tuition Proposal

Dear UNC President Spellings:

For years, my opposition to UNC diversity initiatives has been a source of controversy across our seventeen-campus system. Many have assumed that my opposition has been a function of personal prejudice or insensitivity to the needs of various “disenfranchised” groups. In reality, it is a function of my belief that people should be judged according to individual character traits, not group stereotypes. However, despite years of opposition to UNC’s victim centered diversity movement, it appears that my side has lost. Accordingly, I write to you today with an offer to join the war against white privilege and ultimately make your long term vision a reality on each campus in the UNC system.

As you know, we have traditionally promoted diversity by providing a sliding scale for students in terms of admission requirements. The theory was that we could neutralize white privilege by making whites score higher on standardized test scores in order to be admitted to one of the UNC schools. Ultimately, we have failed in the goal of making our campuses less white because we have failed to account for overriding economic considerations. My plan will fix that once and for all. It involves two very simple steps.

1. We need an immediate $10,000 tuition increase for incoming white students. Obviously, if we are going to include more marginalized groups on our campuses we need to make room for them. This tuition hike will help accomplish the goal. Critics who say this is racist are wrong. Some whites who are penalized by the hike will have an opportunity to benefit from some of my proposed diversity exemptions, which will help offset the costs of the initial hike.

2. We need an immediate $2000 tuition decrease for students who come from marginalized groups in our society. The money we gain from charging higher tuition to students benefitting from white privilege can be used to fund my proposed tuition cuts for students who promote victim-centered diversity. A list of eligible groups is provided below with justifications for their inclusion on the list.

Women: Critics will point out that our campuses already have more female students than male students. While this is technically true, it ignores our important obligations to the federal government. In recent years, the feds have made it clear that universities will not be the beneficiaries of federal funding unless they continue to promote the myth that there is an epidemic of sexual assault and sexual harassment occurring in America. The more female students we have, the more complaints we will have. Many, or perhaps most, of those complaints will be false. But that is beside the point. Universities are no longer concerned with promoting truth. We are only concerned with identity politics.

Blacks: When it comes to diversity and inclusion, black students matter. We still owe them for slavery. Granted, it has been more than a century and a half since the Civil War. But some white North Carolinians think it is still being fought. The least thing we can do to repay blacks for the trauma of seeing an occasional Confederate Flag is to give them a break on their tuition. This is far better than bringing them in on athletic scholarships and offering them fake classes in African American Studies.

LBGTQIA (and other alphabetically marginalized people): We know that many students decide to experiment sexually while they are in college. A tuition break will just encourage some of them to start experimenting early. If students are allowed to commit to four years of service in the military for help with their college tuition then there should be a similar benefit to reward those enlisting in the sexual revolution for four years.

Illegal Immigrants: Trump is making these richly diverse people rare. Hence, we must recruit them while we can. In addition to the obvious out-of-state tuition waiver, we need to give them the additional tuition cut. Every college campus in North Carolina should be a sanctuary city.

Muslims: Trump has not actually started banning and deporting Muslims. But most “social science” and humanities professors think that is happening. So we need to start bringing them to campus in order to give these professors someone to protect, which, in turn, will give their lives meaning. If our diversity mission succeeds, many will graduate as atheists, which might actually save them from eventual deportation!

Social Justice Warriors: This is bound to be controversial, given that most social justice warriors are bored middle class white kids. But we need to face the reality that we can’t eliminate all white people from campus, regardless of how desirable that may be. The very least we can do is to make sure that the dwindling white minority feels as guilty as possible during their tenure in the UNC system. Even if it is only a process of self-flagellation, it will be a worthy goal. Guilt can be a powerful tool for social reform.

It should go without saying that my proposed group exemptions are cumulative in nature. A black woman can earn a $4000 tuition credit, a black lesbian can earn a $6000 tuition credit, a black transgendered illegal immigrant can earn $8000 (provided he becomes a she), and so on. There is no limit to what a student can accomplish so long as he, she, undecided, or other is willing to take a stand against the status quo.

It should also go without saying that there will be no need for oversight in implementing this new system. We will simply defer to student perception and trust that they are precisely who they claim to be. Those who say they are women are women. Those who say they are black are black, and so on. Once we have rejected the notion of truth, we’ll no longer live in fear of “falsity.”

I hope that you will take my plan as seriously as I’ve always taken your commitment to institutional diversity.

Sincerely,
Mike S. Adams
Professor and Community Disorganizer

White Terrorist Privilege

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington employed a former domestic terrorist for several decades and no one seemed to care. Dr. James Reeves was a member of the Weather Underground domestic terror group back in the 1960s. By the end of the decade, Reeves was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, promotion of anarchy, assault with intent to commit murder, and receiving stolen goods. He was indicted on charges of stealing a rifle and firing it into the Cambridge Police headquarters near the campus of Harvard University. When a witness recanted, the charges relating to the attack on the police station were dropped. But there were other convictions awaiting the future educator who had declared war on his own country.

Perhaps most notably, future Professor Reeves was actually convicted of committing an assault at a public high school. The conviction resulted in a jail sentence of three months. He was eventually convicted on other charges and went to prison for two years. After his release from prison, he became a father and decided it was best to leave the domestic terrorist life behind. He decided to pursue a career in higher education. Where else could a domestic terrorist get a job?

There was already a crack in the foundation of higher education in the 1970s – the decade during which universities started to hire former terrorists like Jimmy Reeves and Bill Ayers. The fact that a criminal conviction for engaging in acts of violence in a public high school did not keep Reeves from becoming a professor speaks volumes.

To their credit, Reeves and his fellow Weathermen did leave their violent ways behind when they became professors. But they brought more important weapons into their new chosen battlefield. They brought explosive ideas that would take more time to detonate than the pipe bombs they had constructed in the past. Among the most dangerous of the ideas the Weathermen advanced was “white skin privilege.” It was first made popular when the terror group announced its war against the United States of “Amerikkka.”

Although the Weather Underground was a fringe group, their views on race eventually leaked into the dominant culture. That only happened because they had strategically positioned themselves within the public universities. If anyone questions their influence on our universities, consider the following:

*In 2005, a North Carolina State University Professor named Kamau Kambon went on national television (a CSPAN lecture to students at Howard University) and argued for the global extermination of white people. His field of expertise was “Africana Studies.”

*The very next year, the Duke lacrosse team was subjected to a public lynching over a rape that never happened. Over 100 professors led the charge against the innocent students denouncing them for “white privilege” every step of the way. Some students joined forces with them demanding the castration of the innocents.

*More recently, at Duke Divinity School, Professor Paul Griffiths was charged with racial harassment for merely criticizing a “diversity” program run by bureaucrats at the Racial Equity Institute (REI). Unsurprisingly, the re-education program was centered on eradicating white privilege. The REI recommended reading list includes such titles as “White Awareness,” “White by Law,” “White Lies,” and “White Privilege.” In effect, Griffiths was charged with harassment for refusing to embrace anti-white propaganda at a school that claims to be Christian.

*After students at Evergreen State College recently demanded that all white people evacuate campus for a “day without white people,” Professor Brett Weinstein objected to their racism. He was predictably dubbed a racist. In fact, a mob of students disrupted his class, hurled obscenities at him, and then demanded his firing. Eventually, the entire campus was shut down when the students overtook the president’s office.

This obsessive anti-white racism is also now fully engrained in the curricula of schools all across America. In order to better indoctrinate students, the field of Whiteness Studies has emerged at scores of universities around America. Feminist Peggy McIntosh (author of the aforementioned book on “White Privilege”) teaches in this area. She describes white privilege as an “invisible knapsack of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.” In other words, she is a pioneer in an entire academic discipline dedicated to proclaiming the worthlessness of white people.

Let the record show that students are all on board with this new racism. Even candidates for leadership of the Student Government Association at my school have actively campaigned on promises of eradicating white privilege from the campus. For these kids (who are mostly white) such self-flagellation is more like a religious ritual than a well thought out position on “social justice.”

Now that former Weatherman Jimmy Reeves has decided to retire from teaching, he will leave UNCW behind. He and his fellow Weathermen also leave behind a rich legacy to a new generation of self-proclaimed warriors marching under the banner of tolerance and diversity and destroying everything in their path.

The war on white privilege is nothing but an extension of the war on Amerikkka. Now that the enemy has enlisted your children it’s time to take notice.

When A Free Press Opposes Free Speech

The Charlotte Observer recently ran an editorial, which seeks to intentionally misinform the public about HB527 – a bill to restore free speech on campuses in the UNC system. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: The editors who wrote this piece are not confused about what HB527 says. They are intentionally misrepresenting what it says because they oppose free speech. That’s a bold statement, which I intend to back by reprinting the worst parts of their editorial followed by my own observations:

…(T)he move by North Carolina and a handful of other states to enact laws that enhance punishment for students who disrupt speeches is a solution that would be worse than the problem. Despite what happened to (Ann) Coulter and the likes of Tom Tancredo over his immigration views, UNC Wilmington Professor Mike Adams and his conservatism, and Spike Lee, who faced death and bomb threats when he spoke in North Carolina years ago, free speech is well-protected on college campuses. The proposed law, which passed the House in Raleigh late last week, may end up undercutting some forms of free expression to purportedly enhance the protection of other forms.

The editors have managed to put three unsupported assertions into the same paragraph. They twice assert that HB527 may hurt free speech but they don’t tell us how. As bad as that is, it pales by comparison to the utterly absurd assertion that “free speech is well-protected on college campuses.” Such nonsense is on a par with saying that due process is well protected in North Korea. If the editors really believed that they would need to be hospitalized for severe intellectual hernia. But they don’t really believe that. In fact, no one believes that. The question is not whether there is a free speech crisis on our campuses. The question is whether it is a problem. The answer to that question depends upon two factors: 1) Your politics and 2) Your character.

If you are a conservative or an honest liberal you know there is a free speech problem on college campuses. Obviously, there are no conservatives or honest liberals working on the editorial board of The Charlotte Observer.

There has to be space for Coulter, despite her ugly rhetoric, which included saying Muslim countries needed to be invaded, their leaders killed and Muslims forced to convert to Christianity after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There also has to be room for students and others to confront her – as long as violence and other threats are not used. Coulter has the right to make audiences uncomfortable, and those audiences have the right to make her uncomfortable, too.

That last paragraph was written as if the editors did not even read HB527. Of course, we know that they did read it – but they are just misrepresenting what it says. Furthermore, the paragraph has no relevance to the HB527 debate – unless, of course, the bill purports to provide a constitutional right of comfort for conservatives like Coulter while denying a corresponding right to those who “confront” her.

The plain language of HB527 says, “It is not the proper role of any constituent institution to shield individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” In other words, HB527 nullifies campus speech codes that purport to create a constitutional right to comfort – and it protects potentially offensive speech on a viewpoint neutral basis. Thus, the editors use feigned support of a specific provision of HB527 as a reason to oppose HB527. This is Soviet style journalism.

Critics of House Bill 527, also called “Restore/preserve campus free speech,” rightly note that it is based on model legislation from a conservative think tank and is overly vague, leaving too much room for abuse. Who gets to define how “disruptive” is too disruptive? Some of the country’s most important and effective social movements have involved in-your-face activists disrupting meals while sitting at segregated lunch counters, disrupting the flow of traffic, disrupting speeches on campus and elsewhere.

There are two dangerous admissions in this paragraph. 1) The editors admit that their real reason for opposing HB527 is that it came from conservatives. According to the editors, free speech is not a problem on campuses. But if there was one the editors couldn’t let conservatives solve it because that would deprive them of the ability to depict conservatives as the real enemies of free speech. 2) The editors actually equate lying down in the middle of a public road and blocking the flow of traffic with protected speech. It must hurt to be this intellectually constipated. Nothing more need be said.

There are already plenty of laws against violence and trespassing, as well as court-based remedies for those who have been wrongly silenced. (Adams sued and won when he was denied a promotion.) Colleges and universities everywhere have conduct codes that deal with unruly students.

The “Adams won and so can you” argument is simply hysterical. The editors do not mention that it took me seven years and over a million dollars in attorney fees to win in federal court. Nor do they mention that before I went to court I was already a campus free speech activist connected with the best First Amendment attorneys in America. The average student does not have my connections or my resources. In fact, none of them do.

Furthermore, by claiming that “conduct codes” are a solution (to the free speech problem they already denied) the editors show their deep ignorance of university policy. Codes such as UNCW’s “disorderly conduct” policy have been used as weapons against free speech.

Case in point: In 2015, a UNCW student faced expulsion for sending a single campus email referring to UNCW administrators as “punk asses.” While crude, this is constitutionally protected speech. Fortunately, the student contacted me asking for assistance. I called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education who came in and saved the day by defending the student and getting the charges dropped.

Obviously, the “disorderly conduct” code was there to protect university administrators from being offended. HB527 does away with that. Under the new bill, students can’t be prosecuted for offending government agents with their speech. They can only be prosecuted for disrupting the speech of other citizens simply because they were offended. This distinction is so simple that even a newspaper editor could understand it.

The solution isn’t another ill-advised law; it’s better education about why free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy and a more robust adherence not only to the letter of the First Amendment, but its spirit.

This is more intentional deception by the editors. HB527 states that, “All constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina shall include in freshman orientation programs a section describing the policies regarding free expression consistent with this Article.” In other words, HB527 educates incoming freshman about proper respect for free speech as well as the university’s refusal to tolerate those who obstruct it.

These editors are not confused. They are in bed with corrupt administrators and rioting “progressives.” They have no journalistic integrity.