How Conservative “Hate Speech” Makes Our Campus Safer

Author’s Note: This column contains some extremely foul language from a critic. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

Good Afternoon, Margaret (

I am sure that you will recall an interview you gave back in January in which you characterized my political views as “hate speech.” I know that you and other administrators have been concerned that my views are causing prospective students to decline to enroll in the UNC system. A phone call I recently received from the parent of one prospective student shows that your fears are indeed well founded. Here is the exact wording of the voice mail I got from the parent who declined to leave his name:

“My son was planning on attending UNC-Wilmington in the fall of 2017. However, based on a column you wrote on the Internet, we are now withdrawing his acceptance per his request. Free speech is protected. But your hate speech isn’t.”

Based upon that one phone call, I would say that the university owes me a big pay raise. UNC- Wilmington was about to get yet another student who is so emotionally fragile that he cannot tolerate even a single opinion column that advances a view different from his own. Now, thanks to me, he is going to be someone else’s problem.

You can probably imagine how delighted I was when I received that voice mail. But imagine how much more delighted I was when I received a second one about an hour later. Once again, it was the father of the same prospective student. He left me a message in which he started off talking but ended up screaming. I have tried to reproduce it word-for-word below:

“I hope they fire you. You deserve it. Since hate speech is protected you are a vile piece of shit. I hope you fucking die. You mother fucker! You fucking asshole!! You despicable fucking piece of shit!!! I hope you fucking die!!!! Fuck you!!!!!

Naturally, when I received this message I tried to reach out to the parent to get more material for another one my “hateful” opinion columns. Unfortunately, when I called back I realized that it was not a residential number. It was a phone located in a bar called “The Dead Mule” in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, just a few miles away from your office.

The fact that the message was left at 4:41 p.m. on a Wednesday afternoon is significant. Most normal fathers would be working during the late afternoon in the middle of the week. In contrast, this father was sitting in a bar, getting drunk, and leaving profane messages in the voice mail inbox of a perfect stranger. If I were a betting man, I would say that the caller’s son is likely to be doing the same thing in a few years. Mentally unstable parents tend to raise mentally unstable offspring.

Margaret, it bears repeating that I deserve a pay raise for saving UNC-Wilmington from having this family of unhinged leftists become a part of our “inclusive Seahawk nation.” Can there be any doubt that such a man is prone to violence? Could there be any realistic hope that his son has the minimal level of emotional stability needed to function in a free and open marketplace of ideas?

Clearly, I have just made our campus safer and also saved the administration from a major headache. Of course, I do not expect the $775,000 annual salary you make as a public “servant.” Nonetheless, I do believe that I am entitled to something. After all, I have a gun collection to maintain. In a culture characterized by such tolerance and diversity one can never be too careful.

In all seriousness, the time has come for you to consider your role in encouraging these kinds of unhinged lunatics who decry “hate speech” while wishing death upon their political adversaries. It is clear that you have been stung by criticism from the political left and that now you seek to appease them whenever the opportunity arises. That is why you jumped on the anti-HB2 bandwagon. That is also why you decided to attack me in public back in January.

You need to reconsider your tactics. Experience shows that you can never appease leftists. If you give them a license to define “hate” then they will surely exempt themselves from the definition. It is far better to ignore them than to empower them. Let the sons of lunatics go to Berkeley with other fragile “warriors” who are compelled to riot every time they hear a divergent opinion. We don’t need them here in North Carolina.

In other words, your administration needs to stop marginalizing conservative professors. You need to clone them instead. We make excellent lunatic repellent for those who call ideas hateful because they lack the intelligence to rebut them.

Cruel To Be Kind

Several years ago, a feminist professor told me that she had decided to abort her child because it was the “compassionate thing to do.” Those were her exact words and she was serious. At the time, I thought she must have suffered a severe intellectual hernia from the strain required to declare an act of dismemberment to be an act of kindness. Since then I have realized that this was more than just an isolated instance of intellectual constipation. Disguising acts of cruelty as acts of kindness is a feature of virtually every policy position of the secular “progressive” left. Some notable examples follow:

Abortion. You don’t need to look at an actual video (but if you do please click here) to see that abortion is an act of dismemberment resulting in death. Everyone knows that – even though some lie and say they don’t. But when you start to use various “compassionate” justifications like poverty reduction to turn cruelty into kindness you are playing with fire. Of course, dismembering everyone would ultimately rid society of poverty. The problem is that such a “society” would in time be reduced to the last man standing with the biggest scalpel.

Anti-racism. I understand that fighting racism is a good idea – provided we are talking about actual racism. But when you start calling someone a racist for saying “all lives matter” – as one of my so- called colleagues recently did to a student in front of her classmates – you aren’t stamping out racism. You are just intentionally defaming people in order to end an argument with intimidation tactics.

Black Lives Matter! It certainly sounds compassionate to shout from the mountaintops about how much you care for black people. It’s sort of like bragging that you have a lot of black friends. But what happens when you start lying and spreading propaganda about the prevalence of white cop on black citizen violence? That’s not a rhetorical question. In fact, I have the answer right here: White cops eventually respond to false accusations of racism by withdrawing from black neighborhoods. This, in turn, results in significant increases in violence committed by black people against other black people.

Gun control. When leftists attempt to lock up your guns – or confiscate them altogether – it is usually done under the guise of protecting children. But notice the pattern that follows when one of their restrictive gun laws is struck down in court. For example, the Heller decision struck down a radically restrictive D.C. gun law back in 2009. Homicides went down by over twenty percent the following year. Progressives did not celebrate the reduction in crime. In fact, they were furious and pledged to reinstate the ban despite the evidence. It didn’t matter that relaxing the gun laws was saving young lives. Evidence is irrelevant to those on a quest for cosmic justice. Indeed, there is no amount of blood in the streets that will stop the progressive from telling you how much he cares about young people.

Trans-mania. Over a decade ago, leftists on my campus and in my department decided it would be a good idea to sponsor a film that encouraged young people to have sex reassignment surgery before they were legally old enough to drink. I was one of only two professors in the department who objected to our collective sponsorship of the film (and the only one in the department who would still object today). I argued that when someone has a delusion you should not encourage him to act on it. You wouldn’t tell a starving woman who was suffering from anorexia, “Yes, you are right, you sure are fat. Stop eating so much!” Nor would you help a man cut off his legs because he identified as handicapped. Similarly, we need to stop trying to convince young people to carve up their genitals because a mental disorder makes them think they are something they are not. It’s not compassionate to hop on the trans-mania bandwagon. In fact, it is always cruel to enable suffering people who wish to hurt themselves.

Welfare. What happens when you pay people to have children out of wedlock? Hint: The answer is that people have children out of wedlock. That’s pretty obvious. What is less obvious (but still readily discernible from the data) is that illegitimacy drives up virtually every negative social indicator known to man. When the government subsidizes illegitimacy in minority neighborhoods at disproportionate rates then who suffers disproportionately? Hint: The answer is minorities. That’s why welfare is not compassionate. In fact, it is a cruel form of institutional racism.

A friend from Texas once explained to me the true meaning of compassion. In the process, he also explained the difference between compassion and justice. He said that compassion is when we jump into a river in order to save drowning children. In contrast, justice is when we take a walk upstream with our shotgun to find out who keeps throwing our children in the river.

When you make your way up the riverbank of our culture you are likely to find a pack of smug leftists who toss children in the water with one hand while patting themselves on the back with the other. The one hand knows exactly what the other hand is doing.

My Philosophy of Mental Illness

Recently, I received an email from a professor in the philosophy department at Guilford College. Her short, strange, and unsolicited missive asked whether it was true that I think that “transgender folk” are “mentally ill.” She went on to say that such a view is “an insupportable position” that is “unworthy of a scholar.” She concluded her brief sermon by informing me that her “preferred pronouns” are “she, her, and hers.”

Although I don’t usually answer unsolicited emails I can answer her question succinctly: Yes, I do think “transgender folk” are mentally ill. I also think that any professor who actually thinks that my stated position on the mental stability of “transgendered folk” disqualifies me as a scholar qualifies as mentally ill. Please allow me to explain.

Until recently, it was understood that a man who thought he was a woman (or a woman who thought he was a man) suffered from Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. As Matt Walsh explains in his brilliant new book, The Unholy Trinity, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was only recently pressured into removing GID from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This was done solely for political reasons.

Now that GID is gone and has been replaced with “gender dysphoria,” which is not considered a mental illness, we are no longer treating it. Instead of trying to change a man’s feelings when he becomes convinced he is a she, we now try to change his body to match his feelings. This is done either by hormonal injection, surgical alteration, or both.

Obviously, this is part of a big change of philosophy in the span of just a few months. Hence, I believe it would be a good idea to review the different stages of this rapid change and briefly summarize the implications for “transgendered folk” and, perhaps as importantly, for transgender activists.

Treatment. Back when we used to treat “transgendered folk” as suffering from GID we intuitively recognized that we were dealing with a mental illness. If someone thought he was a she we treated him. We would no more want him to have his genitals surgically removed under the guise that he was a woman than we would want them sewn onto his forehead under the guise that he was a unicorn. If you think that sounds harsh, you are wrong. Treating people who are sick with the goal of keeping them from hurting themselves is not cruelty. It is called compassion.

Tolerance. When we removed GID from the DSM we did so under the banner of tolerance. But tolerance presupposes a moral judgment. In other words, we were declaring that although we judged something was wrong with people suffering from GID we would no longer express our judgment – so others would heap praise upon us for being “open-minded.” If you think that sounds harsh, you are right. When people refuse to help other people who are sick and thus allow them to hurt themselves it is called cruelty.

Acceptance. When you actually accept the idea that the he is a she then you have crossed a pretty serious line. Quite often, those who say they accept the transgender delusion are lying. They just want to come across as hip or cutting edge. But if they actually accept the delusion then they are also suffering from a delusion. Put simply, if you look at the he who says he is a she and actually come to believe he is a she you have lost your sanity. It is no different than hearing a man declare that he is a poached egg and then coming to believe that he really is a poached egg. In other words, true acceptance and internalization of craziness is properly dubbed as craziness.

Mandatory Acceptance. Once you cross the final line and go from merely adopting the other person’s delusion to demanding that others do the same there is really no turning back. The very idea that a professor with a PhD in philosophy would have the unmitigated gall to demand that I adopt her delusions in order to be “worthy” to be classified alongside her as a “scholar” shows that the inmates have taken over the asylum. But it shows much more than that. It also reveals that rigid ideological conformity has now replaced reasoned debate in higher (hire?) education. This mindset can be referred to as intellectual coercion. To the extent that it demands conformity without debate it can also be dubbed as intellectual cowardice.

Making identity relative is not the final goal of these so-called progressives. But with it all things are now possible. It takes a complete divorce from biological law in order to affect a complete divorce from the moral law. This, in turn, will allow these so-called progressives to eventually become gods. That is their final goal. It’s been that way since the fall of man.

Of course, if their identity relativism is false then it is false. But if relativism is true then it is also false. Thus, there can be no objective standards by which to judge whether my views are “unworthy of a scholar.” All that matters is my subjective view of my own worthiness. Once that standard is accepted then teaching is rendered obsolete. The idea of peer-reviewed research is also rendered obsolete. We have all been appointed to lifetime tenure as our own judges.

In the final analysis, one thing is certain if this worldview prevails. We must acknowledge that the pursuit of truth was never anything more than a sad delusion.

Why I Ban Illegal Aliens From My Classes

The sky must be falling. Just a few hours ago, a Marxist feminist professor sent an email that I agreed with completely. It explained why she doesn’t allow people to cut in line by enrolling in classes for which they have not yet satisfied the enrollment requirements. I’m so inspired by her eloquence that I am extending her logic and banning illegal aliens from enrolling in my classes. Her inspirational email is printed below:

“I do not provide overrides for students who haven’t completely satisfied the pre-requisites for the senior seminar to enroll. That would be like allowing (cutting) in line in front of someone else who has been waiting (his or her) turn. Once (they) have senior standing, then (they) can enroll in the class provided all the other pre-requisites are completed too … Several faculty members have sent advisees to me to request an override. I’m not doing them. I would appreciate it if advisers would not send their advisees to me with these requests.”

In case you did not follow that, let me provide a little context. Our majors are required to take a senior seminar before they graduate. However, before they enroll in the senior seminar, they have to take two classes – one in research methods and the other in statistics. Students usually take these two classes their junior year so they can be prepared to take senior seminar their senior year, which, of course, makes intuitive sense.

Of course, for every student that is less motivated than the average student there is one more motivated than the average student. In fact, some are so highly motived that they actually complete their research methods class and statistics class by the end of their sophomore year, rather than their junior year. So why not let them take the senior seminar their junior year? They have already completed the necessary prerequisites. Why hold them up based on the mere technicality that the senior seminar is only for seniors.

The answer is that allowing cutting in line has real world consequences. We have about 80 graduates per year. Thus we offer about four of these seminars per year with an enrollment of about 20 per class. That means we have just enough seats to accommodate all the graduating seniors. But if we granted registration overrides, which would allow juniors to enroll, then some seniors would be bumped out of the classes. That means they would have their graduation postponed as a result. In her email, the Marxist professor indicates she understands this and then proceeds to raise two moral objections. The first objection is explicit and the second one is implicit:

1. Allowing people to cut in line is simply wrong. This one fascinates me because the author of the email is avowedly postmodern in her worldview. Her postmodernism questions the existence of objective truth. But when it comes to living in the real world, as opposed to the classroom, there is an acknowledged need for moral absolutes.

2. Asking someone to extend preferential treatment is also wrong. Notice the testy tone at the end of the professor’s email, which, again, I fully endorse. She is absolutely correct to object to colleagues who have put her in a difficult position by sending students to her with special requests. This produces the awkward dilemma of having to either a) explain the obvious wrongfulness of allowing line cutting, or b) extend special treatment to someone.

Some people who are reading this column think they know where I am going with all of this. They assume that I will try to compare students seeking overrides with illegal immigrants seeking amnesty. That assumption is born of careless thinking and is way off the mark. Allow me to correct the error and explain why the two groups are not equal.

Our students who seek early enrollment in senior seminar got into the position they are in by being responsible. They finished their prerequisites early and now seek a reward for engaging in what is indisputably good behavior. But practical considerations require us to deny their requests. In contrast, illegal immigrants who seek amnesty got into the position they are in by being criminals. They jumped the border early and now seek a reward for what is indisputably anti-social behavior. Such people don’t really care about practical considerations.

So what makes some of my leftist colleagues against allowing line jumping by good students yet enthusiastically in favor of allowing line jumping by illegal immigrants? In other words, why don’t they live out their professional lives the same way they live out their political lives? (For additional context see my recent post, “Professor, Hypocrite, Tear Down This Wall!”).

The answer of course is that all reason goes out the window when it comes to the campus left’s war on white privilege. These leftists are trying to fundamentally transform America into a Marxist utopia. And that requires nullifying the votes of those who have all the power. Their politics reigns supreme over principle, which is a nice way of saying they are hypocrites.

In contrast, I have a worldview that seeks consistency. Now, thanks to the email from my Marxist colleague, I am going to take a stand for what is indisputably morally right. From now on, I am going to check the immigration status of every one of my students. If any are illegal aliens, I will not let them remain in any of my classes. To paraphrase my colleague, to do otherwise would be allowing cutting in line in front of someone else who has been waiting his or her turn.

This is not the end of the world for illegals. Once they have earned citizenship, they can enroll in my class provided all the other pre-requisites are completed, too.

Prof. Hypocrite Tear Down That Wall!

One of my conservative friends recently suggested that leftist professors should be prohibited from putting political posters and bumper stickers on their office doors. I strongly disagreed and told him I would defend the leftists if he ever tried to interfere with their political speech. But I wouldn’t do it for reasons of principle. I would do it because I enjoy the wealth of good writing material supplied by my more extreme left wing colleagues – most of them self-described feminists. A case in point is the recent poster that is making its way onto so many faculty office doors on campuses across America. In case you haven’t seen one, here is the exact wording of the poster:





It’s hard to comprehend so much idiocy crammed into such a small space. So just in case you missed some of the more intellectually herniated nuances, let me break them down for you. In just five lines, the leftist professor sporting this sign manages to call attention to five distinct things about her character, her professionalism, and her worldview. They follow in no particular order of importance:

She really isn’t looking to bring refugees and immigrants into her office; she is looking to bring like-minded disciples into her classes. This poster is just one way of letting students know that a leftist who teaches politicized classes for white middle class social justice warriors occupies the office. Those are the people she is really trying to attract – not refugees and immigrants. If you doubt the veracity of my claim then just put it to the test. The next time you see such a poster on a professor’s door, go find a homeless immigrant. Then pay him to ask the professor to let him sleep in her office over night. She’ll probably call the university police and have him deported from the campus “community” in a matter of minutes.

There is no Muslim ban but the professor is too misinformed to know it (or ms-informed if she is a feminist). Her assertion that she does not ban Muslims is posted to remind everyone that she is morally superior to those who do support the Muslim ban. But there is no Muslim ban. Therefore, she is morally superior to no one. She is just an angry zealot protesting things that are probably too complex for her to understand.

She locks her doors instead of adopting an open borders practice in her day-to-day living. Recently, I tried to do one of these professors a favor by letting her know that there really isn’t a ban on Muslims entering America. So I went to her office and knocked on her door. But she hadn’t yet arrived at work. After I knocked, I checked the door to her office and noticed it was locked. I also noticed that the walls of her office are made of impenetrable cinder blocks. I don’t know how all those refugees and immigrants will find shelter if she keeps locking her doors while she is away. Maybe I’m cynical, but I suspect that she has deadbolt locks on the doors of her house, too.

She works in a profession lacking diversity. The first time I saw one of those silly posters on a professor’s door I decided to do a little research. The poster says that her “communities stand tall.” By that, she must mean they are “tolerant” and “inclusive.” Yet going to her department webpage revealed a different story. A cursory examination of the page showed that every full professor, tenured associate professor, and untenured assistant professor in her department is white. Furthermore, after searching diligently, I couldn’t find a single registered Republican in her department.

She is a mouthpiece for Marxist propaganda. The logo on her poster really says it all. Anyone who uses this Soros-funded propaganda website as a means of staying “informed” is a willfully uneducable Marxist. She could have chosen to criticize regimes that are so oppressive they must build walls to keep citizens inside their own countries against their will. Instead, she criticizes countries that are so desirable they must build walls to keep citizens from other countries out. In other words, she is too blinded by utopian notions of cosmic justice to bridge the gap between economic theory and historical reality.

In a nutshell, these posters perform the valuable public service of alerting impressionable youths as to the whereabouts of uninformed, hypocritical zealots posing as objective educators. When students see them on a door they should not bother knocking. The lights are off, no one is home, and it’s better to just move on.

Life Lines

I get tired of hearing pro-abortion choice advocates claim that pro-lifers are really “only anti-abortion” but not “truly pro-life.” The motivation behind such attacks is usually political. Typically, the accuser wants to shame a pro-lifer into supporting some massive social program, which ostensibly helps the “already born.” As usual, the pro-abortion choice advocate makes the major error of assuming without evidence that the born are humans worthy of support while the unborn are non-humans and thus lacking intrinsic value. That major scientific and philosophic error is compounded by a factual error: It ignores the massive investment the pro-life movement is making in crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs.

Even during the height of the abortion holocaust in the early 1990s, there were two million couples willing to adopt children here in the United States alone. This easily exceeded the 1.5-1.6 million children that were being aborted in America annually. Pro-life couples have long been prepared to save lives and to provide good homes to those babies whose lives were spared. But it gets even better. As the decade progressed, the willingness of pro-lifers to step up and adopt “unwanted” babies was supplemented by another positive trend: The CPCs actually began to outnumber the abortion clinics.

Fully appreciating the importance of this requires knowing something about what CPCs actually do. Contrary to pro-abortion choice propaganda, they are not there to shame women into keeping their babies. In fact, such slander against our CPCs is just the opposite of the truth.

The initial trip to a CPC usually results in a pregnancy test. Often, the pregnant woman cannot yet have an ultrasound because she is not far enough along in the pregnancy. Fortunately, many pregnancy centers are fully equipped with the technology and personnel needed to provide ultrasound testing when a woman returns for a second visit.

Our local Life Line Pregnancy Center here in Wilmington, North Carolina, is one such center (see They have an ultrasound machine and they always have nurses on hand to perform the tests and explain the results. The end result of their work is nothing short of miraculous. At Life Line in Wilmington, 89% of the women who seek their help in a crisis pregnancy situation end up choosing life over abortion.

But the help does not end there. Life Line also helps the women get connected to a church that can provide them with additional support. Life Line does not provide direct financial assistance to women facing crisis pregnancy situations. They do so indirectly by plugging women into networks that provide needed resources.

If you take a quick survey of the church websites here in Wilmington you will see that many of them support Life Line Pregnancy Center. The only question is why every church does not support a CPC like Life Line. Imagine the impact if all of them did. By some estimates, there are about 750 churches in the Wilmington area alone.

The decision to support a CPC is not one that should be politicized. When it comes to the work of CPCs we have a rare issue upon which both conservative and liberal Christians can agree – although they may arrive in the same place for somewhat different reasons.

Consider the following:

1. Conservative Christians want to eliminate abortion and preserve innocent life. Obviously, the conservative wants to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade and save millions of lives. But that is no impediment to his decision to save some lives in the interim by supporting his local CPC. He can attack abortion in both the community and legal realm simultaneously.

2. Liberal Christians want to eliminate poverty and preserve a woman’s bodily autonomy. Anyone claiming to be liberal should be on board with helping poor women obtain much needed financial support. Furthermore, those who support the idea of a woman doing what she wants with her body would never want a woman to be forced into having an abortion due to economic hardship. Clearly, supporting a CPC is consistent with basic liberal principles.

At all times we must remember that abortion only exists in America with the permission of the church. It is past time for congregations with different political views to unify and do something about it. We are all commended to care for women and children. We are also reminded that sin is not just doing something bad – it is also knowing the right thing to do and refusing to do it.

For further reading: See James 1:27 and James 4:17.