Charity Soars Above Intolerance

You don’t hear many good stories about free speech on our college campuses these days. So I am pleased to write and share one today. It actually comes from my own campus, UNC-Wilmington. In a rare display of support for free speech, the Student Government Association (SGA) has decided to fund a speech by an extremely unpopular conservative professor (Can you guess his name?). In the process, they will be supporting free speech and the victims of Hurricane Harvey in Houston. This requires some explanation. So put away your handguns and go grab a beer – or grab a soda if you’re a Baptist.

It all started over the summer when the UNCW College Republicans (CRs) decided to host a speaker on the issue of free speech on college campuses. So they contacted Patrick Coyle of the Young Americas Foundation (YAF) for advice on whom they should invite. He suggested that they just have me give the speech since I am already there teaching at the university. So the CRs contacted me, inquired about my speaking fee, and requested that I give a November 9th speech in Morton Hall Auditorium, which seats about 100 people. I quoted my fee but told them I would only do the speech in Lumina Theater, which is a nicer venue and seats about three times as many people. After all, if I am going to offend people by suggesting they should tolerate offensive speech then I want to offend as many as possible.

Shortly thereafter, I learned that there is a committee that filters speaking event proposals before they are sent to the floor of the senate for a full vote. Imagine my surprise when the proposal made it out of the committee. But the committee members warned the CRs that they should not get their hopes up, as the event was not likely to be funded when the full senate voted on it. That warning did not surprise me, as there were likely to be two major objections to funding the speech.

First of all, many would naturally question why someone who works at a university would actually charge a fee to speak at the place where he works – and in a campus theater that is only about two hundreds yards walking distance from his office. That’s a reasonable objection if I have ever heard one.

Second of all, many would be hesitant to fund a speech by someone whose views are deemed to be offensive by most of the student population at UNC-Wilmington. That objection is less reasonable – but it is to be expected from a generation that values emotions more than it values ideas.

This presented a dilemma because I simply no longer waive my speaking fees for anyone. I have found that if you do not charge a fee then the host will not promote the event. And that means no one will show up. On the other hand, I often speak for cut rates. In fact, I always cut the rate when the host is a friend. But that doesn’t apply here. The Democratic Party runs the UNC system where I work. They might be my employer but these Democrats are not my friends. To be blunt, there is no way I am giving them a cut rate until they agree to cut my taxes.

Fortunately, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, I thought of a possible solution. Why not charge my regular fee and donate the money to a charity instead of spending it on guns, guitars, and cigars? That would seem to answer both objections. No one could accuse me of trying to milk the SGA for a couple of hours work within walking distance from my office. And those who said they objected to subsidizing ideas they found offensive would be hard pressed to say they were forcing students to subsidize “hate.” Clearly, if the money went to charity then they would be subsidizing an act of kindness.

It was a good idea but the question then became: Could I even find a good charity that would justify floating the proposal to the SGA through the CRs? There was no way I was giving the money to a large charity. I simply don’t trust large “non-profits” with significant overhead. Fortunately, I found a solution.

University Baptist Church in Houston had 23 people attend its second ever service, which was the first service I attended with my mother and brother back in 1974. But today they have grown so large that they were able to send out relief groups of around 200 people after Harvey devastated the Clear Lake area where I grew up. When I found out that they had a specific disaster relief program, I knew they were the perfect charity.

Fortunately, the SGA accepted my proposal – one the senators likely would not have approved if the money were not going to a good cause. And I applaud them for putting politics aside and doing the right thing.

So who wins in this one? Well, almost everybody. The students will learn about serious threats to their constitutional rights. The speaker will enjoy doing what he loves to do. Most importantly, the victims of Harvey will get some much-needed relief from a disaster that has seriously disrupted their lives.

Author’s Note: The November 9th speech at UNCW’s Lumina Theater will begin at 7 p.m. Protests will begin as soon as the hippies wake up, which should be some time late that afternoon.

The Idiot’s Guide To Censorship

Author’s Note: All proceeds from the following column will be spent on me.

Some college students know nothing about the First Amendment. I mean that literally. For example, a student recently complained to me that the police had violated his First Amendment rights by pulling him over without a warrant. First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, whatever! As annoying as the complete constitutional illiterate can be, I am perhaps more annoyed by those who have some familiarity with the First Amendment and therefore conclude that they are constitutional scholars.

These semi-literate clowns email me pretty often. Just last week, one of them wrote to complain that I had blocked him on Twitter. According to this budding constitutional scholar, this was somehow inconsistent with my support for free speech in general and my opposition to safe spaces in particular. Those of you who had civics in high school are instantly able to spot the flaw in his reasoning. But since so many of my millennial readers are not likely to have benefited from a basic civics class, I’ll spend this column slowly explaining this common error. Here goes.

I regularly attack public universities for creating “safe zones” or “safe spaces” because they so often violate the First Amendment. For example, my university, UNC-Wilmington, established an LGBTQIA Office on our public university campus in 2010. As soon as it was established, the director started to host religious programing, which asserted that the Bible endorsed homosexuality. Worse, she condemned dissenters as homophobic bigots. Some local pastors were also bothered by the fact that she had characterized many of their churches as unwelcoming to gays.

Several pastors offered to come to the office to express a contrary point of view. But they were flatly prohibited from doing so. This kind of viewpoint discrimination on public university property is simply legally and morally indefensible. It is particularly problematic when mandatory student fees are used to fund the one-sided viewpoints of these hyper-politicized offices.

On the other hand, I seldom attack private universities for creating “safe zones” or “safe spaces” – simply because the First Amendment does not apply there. However, I will make an exception if the student handbook promises that the campus is dedicated to the free and open marketplace of ideas. If a private university makes that promise and breaks it then they have engaged in a contractual violation, rather than a First Amendment violation. They can still be sued – although this time in state court for fraudulent inducement, rather than in federal court for censorship. And they should certainly be criticized for tricking students into paying high private tuition rates by using false promises of intellectual diversity.

In stark contrast, Facebook blocking, Twitter blocking, and email blocking poses no legal problem whatsoever. In fact, blocking does not even pose a problem of hypocrisy – as I will explain in a moment. That is why I commonly block people (hundreds of them) for the following three reasons:

1. Profanity. You have every right to use profane language if you lack the intelligence to communicate without it. But you do not have a right to have me listen to it. For example, a homosexual atheist student recently messaged me with an invitation to perform oral sex on him. It was one of a number of profane messages he has sent to me. Rather than report him to the authorities, I simply blocked him on Twitter. And now he’s emailing me at my website claiming to be a victim of my “hypocrisy.”

This is incorrect. A hypocrite is someone who says he believes in something but really does not. I believe in free speech. I believe this lost individual has every right to say profane things. But his right to say them does not mean I have to listen. He can say profane things to someone else.

2. Ugliness. The day my father died of brain cancer, gay activists found out and swarmed by Facebook page. One told me I looked like I was thin and dying of cancer, too – adding that he hoped I would die soon and “burn in hell” with other family members. That included my dad who had just died a few hours earlier. I blocked him. And then he emailed me at work to call me a hypocrite.

This is incorrect. A hypocrite is someone who says he believes in something but really does not. I believe in free speech. I believe this lost individual has every right to attack me. But that does not mean I have to listen to his attacks on my mourning family and me. He can go attack me in front of someone else.

3. Idiocy. Some people are just idiots. Like the guy who kept emailing me saying my free speech activism on college campuses was misguided because “the First Amendment does not apply to the States.” Perhaps he has never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps he has never heard of Gitlow v. New York. Perhaps he just personally wishes the First Amendment didn’t apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment – as was made abundantly clear in Gitlow (at least as regards the free speech and free press clauses). After the fiftieth email, it was time to block him. So he found another email address and contacted me to call me a hypocrite.

This is incorrect. A hypocrite is someone who says he believes in something but really does not. I believe in free speech. I believe this idiot has every right to say idiotic things. But that does not mean I have to listen to his idiocy. He can go have a conversation with other idiots who are equally uneducated and equally unaware of their shortcomings.

Some people really are victims of censorship. Others are just so profane, ugly, and stupid that no one wants to listen to them. They will keep emailing after this column is posted.

And I will keep profiting from their consistently bad speech.

The Respectful Marxist

Author’s Note: The professor who is the subject of this column has argued that when we call someone out by name in an opinion column we invoke the Seahawk Respect Compact and therefore lose the protection of the First Amendment. Hence, I have omitted his name so he will not have me brought before the university respect tribunal.

A Marxist sociologist at my university has made the serious error of writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper calling on the university to impose “sanctions” upon me for violating the university respect compact in one of my opinion columns. Notably, his letter was written less than three years after the university was ordered to pay over three-quarters of a million dollars in a First Amendment retaliation claim to my lawyers and me. Of course, Marxists are not known for their ability to learn from history. However, it is my hope that the rest of us can learn something from his deeply confused letter. Let me summarize it briefly.

The respectful Marxist first contends that offensive speech is not per se outside the protection of the First Amendment. He gets this one right if only because they were still teaching civics when he was a seventeen-year-old high school student. But let’s give credit where credit is due. Most college professors in the so-called social sciences either do not know this or just pretend not to know it in order to quash debate.

The respectful Marxist next contends that people in certain professions agree to limitations on their speech by virtue of entering the profession. Examples he cites are the lawyer-client privilege and the doctor-patient privilege. He specifically contends that the First Amendment would not protect a doctor who decided to tell the public what medications his patient was taking. Our respectful Marxist got another one right. Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The respectful Marxist then makes a leap of logic predicated upon what appears to be a willful ignorance of the history of speech codes at our university. Specifically, he contends that professors at my university are formally bound by a professional “code” known as the Seahawk Respect Compact. He has somehow concluded that this compact is enforceable – just like the laws that protect a patient’s medical privacy. This is nothing short of a public display of professional incompetence by the respectful Marxist. Let me explain why.

There was no Seahawk Respect Compact in existence when I took my job at UNC-Wilmington in 1993. It did not appear on our campus until 2008 – shortly after it was devised by a group of government bureaucrats. Eventually, the university copied it, framed it, and posted it on every single classroom and administrative office wall at the university. Unsurprisingly, a few young and constitutionally illiterate professors and part-time instructors eventually came to believe the little piece of paper somehow trumped the United States Constitution. One example was an English instructor who we will call Hannah – because a) that is her name, and b) she has never specifically argued that the Seahawk Respect Compact comes into play when we simply mention someone’s name.

Hannah became emotionally distraught when she saw pro-Trump chalkings on the sidewalk of the university in the fall of 2016. So she ran around campus with water bottles washing away people’s speech and claiming she had a right to do so because the speech violated the Seahawk Respect Compact. Fortunately, she got caught. And she got publicly rebuked.

The public rebuke only happened because I was able to convince UNCW Chancellor Jose Sartarelli that the matter was serious enough to warrant a mass email to the entire university community. It was my contention that the administration needed to tell everyone in no uncertain terms that the compact was only an aspirational document reminding us we should be respectful. In other words, it is not a legally enforceable document creating an exception to the First Amendment for “disrespectful speech.” That kind of exception would never work in an environment dominated by thinned-skinned Marxists who characterize all disagreement with their extremism as “disrespect.”

It is sad that it took a mass email to remind people who teach at universities that you cannot simply hang a certificate on a wall and declare that it negates the United States Constitution. It is sadder still that at least one Marxist sociologist (pardon the redundancy) got the email and still did not understand that.

So how do we make things as simple as we can for the respectful Marxist sociologist? A lawsuit did not work. A mass email did not work. He’s still calling for sanctions so I’m calling for a little creativity. Let’s start by taking a look at the respectful Marxist’s Rate My Professor page. As we will see, he is having a pretty hard time abiding by the Seahawk Respect Compact. Therefore, he is in big trouble if the compact ever becomes an enforceable document:

“Makes students feel small and insignificant.”
“Extremely petty.”
“Treats you like you’re an idiot.”
“Is incredibly disrespectful.”
“Condescending and rude to his students.”
“Very rude.”
“Condescending.”
“Talks down to his students.”
“Very rude and condescending.”
“Talks down to students and ridicules them.”
“Isn’t very friendly.”
“Has no personal concern for his students.”
“NOT a nice man.”

In a nutshell, this tenured Marxist who writes letters to the editor extolling the virtue of respect is the perhaps the rudest and most disrespectful professor in the entire sociology department – if not the entire university. And that is the way it has always been with censors. Those calling for hate speech exceptions to free speech are always the most hateful. Should we really expect respectful speech from a tenured Marxist who seeks to compel respect through the threat of government sanctions? Of course we cannot.

But we can expect him to lie about his commitment to respect in an effort to silence his intellectual superiors. And there are many.

The Trees

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the books of Ayn Rand. After escaping from the Soviet Union in the 1920s, Rand became a famous American playwright, philosopher, and novelist. She has written many books – three of which I would urge everyone to read. The first, Anthem, is a lot like Orwell’s 1984. The second, The Fountainhead, is a longer novel expounding on her philosophy, which is known as objectivism. The third, Atlas Shrugged, is her most famous work and includes the most complete explanation of her views on economics and morality.

As a Christian, I reject a good bit of what Ayn Rand has to say. She defends capitalism eloquently but fails to understand exactly why it works better than socialism or communism. That reason, of course, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian idea of man as a fallen being. Man, by nature, is desirous of competition. He must try to best his neighbor and, therefore, cannot function in a system based on the idea of taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his need.

Nonetheless, atheist Rand comes to many correct conclusions without fully understanding the reasons why she is correct. That is why I am not at all uncomfortable recommending her books. There is much to be learned by studying the works of those with whom you disagree – and much to be missed by ignoring them.

For those interested in Rand, I also recommend a song that was inspired by a rock musician who reads her work. His name is Neil Peart – a member of the band “Rush.” Neil is the greatest rock and roll drummer who ever lived. He is also one of the greatest songwriters who ever lived.

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, Peart wrote “The Trees,” which fast became one of my favorite songs. I didn’t know at the time that the song was a stinging indictment of socialism and communism inspired by Neil’s reading of Ayn Rand novels. I’ve reprinted the verses below with some brief comments in between most verses.

There is unrest in the forest,
there is trouble with the trees,
for the maples want more sunlight
and the oaks ignore their pleas.

When I look back on it, I am somewhat embarrassed that it took me so long to figure out the symbolism behind the oak versus maple contrast. This is a classic Marxist over-simplification, which is intentional on Peart’s behalf. There were only two classes of people according to Marx – the “haves” and the “have nots” or, as he called them, the “bourgeoisie” and the “proletariat.” Here, the oaks are the “haves” or the “bourgeoisie” and the maples are the “have nots” or the “proletariat.”

The trouble with the maples,
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right) they say the oaks are just too lofty
and they grab up all the light.

This verse is interesting because it raises the issue of absolute versus relative poverty. When the maples claim that the oak trees grab up all the light they are exaggerating – actually, the author of the song, Neil Peart, is exaggerating for effect. Oaks are big trees, to be sure. In my own yard, there is an oak that is 100 feet tall that will eventually grow to be about 125 feet tall. But maples are big trees, too. I have a maple that is about 60 feet tall that will eventually grow to be about 80 feet tall.

Peart, quite ingeniously, shows that the “have nots” would be more accurately characterized as simply “having less than others.” Their problem is not that they do not have enough to get by. The problem is that, in their view, the oaks are just “too lofty.”

In other words, others have too much. That is the key phrase in this paragraph because it reveals that covetousness, rather than true need, is what motivates the maples. In reality, that is always the motive of the collectivist.

But the oaks can’t help their feelings if they like the way they’re made. And they wonder why the maples can’t be happy in their shade.

It is funny to me that the lyrics to this song were written just a few years before Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. After he took office, there was no small amount of controversy about his ideas concerning “trickle down” economics. Here, the oaks seem to reference the idea that their loftiness benefits others, too – this time, in the form of shade. This is a classic “trickle down” economic argument.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
as the maples scream “Oppression!” And the oaks just shake their heads.
So the maples formed a union and demanded equal rights.
“The oaks are just too greedy; we will make them give us light.”

This is classic Ayn Rand. She focuses on unjustly taking from someone that which he has earned – noting that this always involves a violent struggle. The maples begin by screaming, and then they start demanding. Finally, they settle upon force, not reason, in order to obtain what they want. The results are always predictable.

Now there’s no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law,
and the trees are all kept equal
by hatchet, axe, and saw.

This last verse is chilling because it reveals two truths about progressivism:

1) Progressivism is not progressive. Oppression is ended and equality is achieved not by advancing anyone but by retarding the achievements of some.

2) Social justice is punitive, not restorative. No one is restored under a progressive system, but people are often punished in order to guarantee equal outcome. That is another reason why Rand prefers to use the term “collectivism” rather than “progressivism.”

Ayn Rand was not a Christian. Nor was she one who professed belief in the Ten Commandments. Nonetheless, she understood that what is often packaged as compassion is really covetousness in disguise. We would do well to familiarize ourselves with her work in an age of “collective” historical amnesia. Screams of oppression and cries for revolution are never more than a generation away.

How The GOP Beat Campus Censors

Back in January of 2016, I sent a letter to UNC-Wilmington President Jose Sartarelli, which was copied to all sixteen members of the Board of Trustees. I later published the same letter on TownHall.com. In my letter, I accused the university of having at least two policies that clearly violated the First Amendment. I then asked the administration to work with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to do an audit of our policies and then revise them towards the goal of attaining a coveted green light rating from FIRE. For those not familiar with the FIRE rating system, a green light simply signifies that a school has no policies that threaten free speech.

It should go without saying that when I sent my letter to the administration there was no guarantee they would respond. Thus, I was pleasantly surprised when UNCW Board of Trustee Dennis Burgard responded within just a few hours. Burgard, who is a registered Republican, urged the administration to take my letter seriously and contact FIRE for an audit of our policies. Without his support, my letter would have gone nowhere.

Within the following weeks and months a constructive dialogue took place between FIRE and UNCW’s Office of General Counsel. During that dialogue, it was revealed that I had misstated the number of unconstitutional policies at my university. There were more than just a couple. There were nine. Working together with FIRE, my university abolished eight of them before the beginning of the fall semester of 2016.

Later on, negotiations apparently stalled. During an unexpected yet cordial encounter with UNCW’s lead counsel I was told that the exchange with FIRE had been “enjoyable” but that there were “disagreements.” Arguably, to the extent that UNCW had “disagreements” with FIRE, the university should have deferred to their judgment. After all, FIRE is the leading defender of campus free speech in America. In contrast, UNCW lost a costly federal First Amendment case just two years before they agreed to the audit by FIRE. I was simply trying to save the university from further embarrassment. Unfortunately, there was no progress for the better part of a year until another Republican got involved.

Enter Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest.

In the fall of 2016, Forest’s office decided to advocate for a modified version of a model free speech bill proposed by the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. The bill was not perfect but it had many elements essential to free speech reform in the UNC system. For example, it virtually eliminated speech zones and speech codes. It also prevented universities from adopting official positions on controversial issues and then forcing faculty and students to espouse those positions. It also made universities educate students on free speech principles during freshman orientation. For students who wished to ignore those principles and disrupt speech, new sanctions were created – but they were accompanied by guarantees of due process for accused disrupters.

I was pleased to work with the bill’s sponsor, Representative Chris Millis, as modifications were made to the Goldwater proposal in order to address concerns raised by UNC administrators. As usual, the administration misled us and suggested they would support the bill under the condition that we made a few modifications. When they were made, the administration still opposed the bill.

But there was no denying the inevitable. When the bill got to the higher education committee all the GOP had to do was show up and outvote the Democrat opponents. The same was true for the vote in the house and in the Senate. Predictably, all of the opposition to the free speech bill came from Democrats.

Keep in mind that two prominent features of the bill were 1) That it banned speech codes that regulate the content of speech, and 2) That it banned speech zones that regulate the location of speech. Unbelievably, Democrat Representative Verla Insko was quoted as saying “My main objection is it’s regulating free speech.” Thus, Democrats characterized our deregulations as regulations in order to preserve campus censorship.

When the bill finally hit Governor Roy Cooper’s desk, he knew he could not sign it. To come out in favor of free speech would anger his leftist constituents and compromise his re-election. They would never forgive him for helping to break the stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas in the UNC system. Without campus censorship and young uninformed voters the Democratic Party would cease to exist. But Cooper could not officially vote against free speech, either. So he just let the bill become law.

Just one day before HB527 became the first law based on the Goldwater model, my university was given a green light by FIRE. It was the seventh campus in the UNC system to become a green light school. That makes North Carolina the state with the most green light colleges and universities – eight overall and seven in the UNC system.

Note that before Dan Forest got to work on what would become HB527, there was only one school in the UNC system with a green light. In the roughly six months that it took to move the bill through the House and the Senate and on to Roy Cooper’s desk six UNC schools got a green light.

After holding on to unconstitutional speech code and speech zone policies for a quarter of a century, these UNC schools suddenly gained an appreciation for free speech, right? Better think again. These schools, including UNCW, which got the green light 24 hours before HB527 became law, simply sensed the inevitable. They knew their policies were about to be struck down by law so they abandoned them at the last minute in a hypocritical effort to steal political credit from the GOP.

But let the record reflect that the DNC system, which owns the UNC system, was the enemy of free speech throughout the entire process. Remember that when they call begging for donations.

Why I Left the GOP

Over the last fifteen months, I have received numerous requests to speak at GOP events. In response, I have had to write numerous polite notes to my would-be hosts explaining that I must decline, as I am no longer a member of the Republican Party. Rewriting variations of the same note has become so tedious that I have decided to write a column I can forward to Republicans explaining why I can no longer speak at their events. But, first, let me say some positive things about why I joined the party in the first place.

My status as a left wing Democrat began to become a bit shaky in December of 1992. That was when a fraternity brother of mine was abducted and murdered along with his girlfriend who was also sexually assaulted before she was shot at point blank range in the head. Both were unarmed. I immediately abandoned my previous support for a federal ban on handguns.

In 1993, a family friend educated me concerning the scientific facts about abortion; namely, that abortion intentionally kills a distinct, living, and whole human being. After hearing her cogent argument, I abandoned my anti-science fundamentalism, which previously led me to accept the lie that the unborn was merely a “clump of tissue.”

In 1994, I sat in on my first faculty hiring committee meeting at UNC-Wilmington. After hearing the head of the committee reject an applicant because he was “a little too white male” I rejected race-based affirmative action. I realized it was just another form of racism advanced by illiberal leftists masquerading as enlightened liberals.

Eventually, enough was enough. I grew weary of rejecting the individual planks in the Democratic Party platform one by one. So I finally joined the GOP in 1999. That was also the year I joined the NRA.

Since joining the GOP in 1999, I can safely say that they have failed to nominate a single conservative over the span of five presidential election cycles. Three of those nominees have been particularly problematic with the last finally driving me over the edge and making me re-register as an independent. I will deal with each disappointment in chronological order.

George W. Bush. Candidate Bush had his finest moment of the campaign in debate #2 when he lectured Al Gore on the dangers of nation building. As President Bush, his view on nation building was close to the exact opposite of that of Candidate Bush. But long before our entanglement in Iraq, he began to display his big government utopian tendencies. In his first year in office, Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to expand the federal Department of Education’s stranglehold on public education. In addition to increasing the power of federal agencies that should never have existed he added more, such as the Department of Homeland Security.

By the end of his second term, the TARP fiasco revealed that our last two term Republican president had strong socialist tendencies. In a few short years, he had doubled the record for the highest budget deficit in American history. It was a record he had previous set with the help of a Republican congress.

Mitt Romney. I am deeply ashamed of the fact that I pulled the lever for Mitt back in 2012. If there is anyone who can watch the video of Mitt explaining to Bill O’Reilly how he was “always pro life” and believe it then I can probably convince you that Madonna is a virgin. Candidate Romney was a liar and a bad one at that. Clearly, Mitt’s support for socialized medicine with $50 copay abortions should have been enough to keep him from gaining the nomination of any truly pro-life party.

After the nomination it only got worse when Romney started to praise Medicare as a “great program.” He also insisted that he supported a federal requirement that corporations track and report data to the feds on the racial breakdown of job applicants and interviewees. That kind of federal government control of the private sector mixed with identity politics is a dangerous combination. If this fits within your definition of conservatism then you simply don’t know the meaning of the word. To be blunt, Romney was just another big government northeastern liberal. The fact that he campaigned the way he did and still got the nomination shows that the party was simply no longer conservative in any sense of the word by 2012.

Donald Trump. I don’t even know where to begin with this embarrassment. I guess he just couldn’t convince me to vote for him with his assurances that he had a bigger penis than Marco Rubio. After a few debates, I realized that the Republicans were finally going to do the inevitable and actually nominate a Democrat for president. That’s when I finally jumped ship and left the party.

After the Trump nomination, many Republicans justified voting for him on a “lesser of two evils” theory. That is entirely reasonable. Indeed, the Gorsuch pick alone confirmed the reasonableness of this view. What was not reasonable was that hordes of Republicans were praising him as an affirmative good – some going so far as to characterize him as the reincarnation of Reagan. Please.

In the months following the Trump inauguration, the GOP showed us all that with control of the House, the Senate, and the White House they could neither dismantle Obama Care nor defund Planned Parenthood. Thus, it should go without saying that they are no longer merely a useless appendage in the body politic. They are more like a cancerous organ that needs to be removed.

While I will occasionally vote for Republican candidates I simply cannot speak at their events or lend my name to their fundraising efforts. The GOP is now driving rather than reining in big government. That is why I no longer call them my people.

Some Animals Are More Stable Than Others

My university probably doesn’t realize it but they just accidentally micro aggressed the entire progressive population here at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW). And that is no laughing matter since about 99% of our “diverse” faculty see themselves as progressive in their political leanings. For those not aware, a progressive is someone who denies the humanity of the unborn, denies that there are biological differences between men and women, and characterizes political conservatives as “science deniers.” Regardless, it’s a good thing we have armies of mental health professionals on hand here at the university because we’re going to need them once they realize just how badly they have been victimized.

I began to notice the micro aggression of campus progressives the day after the election. That was when an email was sent to the entire university population acknowledging that some people were having trouble coping with the results of the election. But the email went further than that. It reminded people that the counseling center was there for people having emotional trouble in the wake of the election. In other words, it recognized that some progressives were too emotionally unstable to endure the consequences of living in a democracy where things don’t always go your way.

Of course, the email was not inaccurate. In fact, one of my colleagues was so emotionally devastated that she refused to teach any of her classes for two weeks. She was mourning the fact that voters rejected her bumper sticker, which clearly expressed her worldview assumption that “love trumps hate.” So if the email wasn’t inaccurate then what is the problem? And why am I writing a column about it?

The problem is that when Obama defeated Romney in 2012 there was no similar email to conservatives reminding them that counseling was available for those who were disappointed with the results of the election. The university administration just assumed that conservatives are emotionally capable of enduring the consequences of living in a democracy where things don’t always go your way. In other words, they assumed that conservatives are more emotionally stable than progressives. And anyone who has been through freshman orientation knows that is a micro-aggression!

Those checking their email last week at UNCW should now be painfully aware that this is part of a pattern of micro-aggression here at our little university. Just days ago, we all got an email about Charlottesville that stated, “If you think you may need to talk to someone about recent events, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our counseling center.” But why wasn’t there a similar email sent after five police officers were gunned down in Dallas, Texas in the summer of 2016?

The answer is very simple. The university responds to the actions of the new white supremacists (but not the new black panthers) because they have very different effects on the emotional climate here at UNC by the Sea. The very fact that white supremacists still exist reminds progressives of their failure to establish a secular utopia here on earth. It is also testifies to their failure to grasp the realities of human nature. Both of these things are deeply emotionally devastating to the so-called progressive.

In contrast, conservatives better understand the events in Dallas because they understand that we live in a fallen world. They are upset by such a tragedy but they still rise from their beds the following day to do the things they have to do. And the university realizes they will persevere even in the absence of a mass email reminding them of the availability of on-campus counseling services.

The condescending view that progressives are less stable than conservatives would be unbearable if it were not so accurate. But there will be hell to pay when progressives finally realize they are being micro-aggressed by their own university. The bad news is that some bureaucrat is going to have to craft a mass email informing them of this ongoing victimization.

At least it will give job security to other bureaucrats who provide emotional support for those unable to cope with reality. That is the point of college, right?

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.