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.

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.

Aborting Hitler

Author’s note: This post is for a former student of mine who was recently asked whether it would have been better if Hitler were aborted. She did not know how to answer and sought guidance from me. Indeed, the question does deserve a thoughtful response. Here is mine.

Someone once asked me whether I would abort Adolf Hitler if I knew in advance he would try to launch a Holocaust against millions of Jews. I said I would not. That is because aborting Hitler would not have prevented the Holocaust. It would have justified it. The killing of millions of innocents does not begin with the killing of one innocent. It begins with the idea that in the larger scheme of things it is permissible to kill one innocent person.

The movie Judgment in Nuremburg (1961) shows that, even in Hollywood, Americans once appreciated this important principle. The movie is three hours long. But one only needs to watch the last ten minutes of the movie in order to see how far we have fallen in just a half-century.

For those who do not remember the end of the movie, Spencer Tracy plays an American judge who sentences former Nazis for their involvement in the Holocaust. One Nazi judge who sentenced innocents to death was himself sentenced to life in prison. As the sentence is read, he stares off in disbelief. He initially believes he is innocent because he was simply following the law. He later realizes his life sentence was just.

Only a couple of days after he is sentenced, the former Nazi judge requests that the American judge visit him in his jail cell. As he faces the man who sentenced him, he makes an odd request: he asks him to keep his personal memoirs – adding that they must be placed in the hands of a man who can be trusted. It is then that he declares the sentence passed upon him was just.

After pausing for a moment, the condemned Nazi judge says of the millions of dead Jews, “Those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that.” Spencer Tracy, playing the American judge, responds with one of the most profound lines of his storied acting career saying, “It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”

That has been the story of the American Holocaust as well. It began in 1966 in my native state of Mississippi. Just two years after I was born, a law was passed that made it legal to abort in the case of rape or incest. But then, the very next year, Colorado passed legislation allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother.

Then the floodgates were opened. By the end of the year, several states were pushing legislation modeled after the Colorado statute. Within just six years, abortion for mere convenience was not just permitted by several states. It was enshrined as a fundamental constitutional right.

Some have declared that they will not rest until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Others say that is too lofty a goal. I disagree. I believe it is too shortsighted. We must reach further back if we want to reverse our moral free fall. Pre-1973 thinking is not enough. We must go back to the time when no state authorized the killing of innocents – a time when only the rapist, not the product of rape, was eligible for a sentence of death.

Ideas have consequences. And so do exceptions. One of the consequences of embracing an evil exception is that it hardens our hearts and clouds our thinking in advance of our consideration of other exceptions. Eventually we come to a point where we cannot imagine life without that initial exception.

It is fitting that it all began in Mississippi. We have a legacy of executing innocents by denying their personhood. It happened with slavery. It happened again with abortion. Now we have learned to justify our own Holocaust. We didn’t need Hitler after all.

My Spread the Wealth Grading Policy

Author’s Note: A reader asked me to repost this article, which originally appeared on shortly after Obama was sworn into office.

Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value.

Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.

The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.

My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.

After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.

By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.

I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.

These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.

Finally, I want to note that a former presidential candidate named George McGovern also inspired this idea. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.

But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”

Divinity and Diversity Part V (Duke Process of Law)

Duke is the most fundamentally racist and sexist university in America. If you don’t believe me just ask Paul Griffiths – an Oxford educated now-former Professor at Duke Divinity School (DDS). Just last semester, Griffiths, who is white, expressed opposition to a Racial Equity Institute “diversity” program that was being pushed by one of his so-called colleagues. Expressing his opposition to the program resulted in a charge of racial and sexual harassment by a white professor named Thea Portier-Young. Rather than face a kangaroo court that refused to provide him documentation of relevant evidence in advance of his hearing, Griffiths resigned his tenured position.

To be sure, the decision of Griffiths to resign rather than fight has been met with sharp criticism. But critics of Griffiths seem to have forgotten what happens to people at Duke when unsupported charges are leveled against them. Lest we forget what history has taught us, let us review the actions of the campus community at Duke University beginning over a decade ago in the wake of the Duke lacrosse scandal.

After a lying criminal named Crystal Mangum accused two, then three, then four, then five, then six, then twenty white lacrosse players of raping her she finally settled on a version of events in which she was raped by three white lacrosse players. Later, she was unable to identify any of them from a comprehensive set of photos of players then on the team. By this point, it was clear she was lying. The campus should have come to the defense of the falsely accused students. But what happened next? Here are some highlights:

-Larry Moneta, vice president of student affairs at Duke, told a defense attorney that he thought the boys were guilty, despite the clear contradictions in Mangum’s story.

-Professor Tim Tyson protested outside the home of the Duke lacrosse captain. He later stated, “The spirit of the lynch mob lived in that house.” He added the asinine remark that it was probably “illegal” for the accused players to refuse to talk to the police without a lawyer.

-Professor Houston Baker demanded the dismissal of all 46 Duke lacrosse players – and dismissed the presumption of innocence as a “tepid legalism.”

-Professor Kim Curtis lowered the grades of two innocent lacrosse players in her class. She then joined a protest march in the neighborhoods of the innocent students.

-Emboldened by their professors, Duke students marched on campus with signs calling for innocent players to be castrated.

-Duke President Brodhead cancelled the lacrosse season and forced a completely innocent coach to resign.

-Brodhead then accused the innocent players of advancing “dehumanization,” “racial oppression,” – and then, bizarrely, “wealth,” “privilege,” and “attitudes of superiority.”

-A group of 88 professors joined the political gang rape of the innocent students by promising their condemnation of them would not end “with what the police or court decides.”

-After an ATM video cleared one accused rapist – and DNA analysis cleared everyone else – Duke President Brodhead said, “if our students did what is alleged, it is appalling in the first degree. If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough.”

-After all the players were cleared, 10 Duke sociology professors condemned them in an open letter declaring, “sexual assault is endemic” at Duke.

-Professor Paula McLain was then rewarded for her vocal role in falsely accusing the lacrosse players. Lauding her “concern for the individual well-being of students” Duke promoted her to dean of Duke Graduate School and vice provost for graduate education.

-In the wake of their unsuccessful 2006 witch hunt against the lacrosse players, Duke made policy changes that would make it easier to launch future witch hunts. Their 2009 “zero tolerance” policy included a new definition of rape, which warned that “Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.”

-Sheila Broderick, Duke’s gender violence intervention services coordinator, warned that when the campus judiciary acquitted an accused rapist “you and I know that he’s responsible, and that’s at the end of the day what really matters.” In other words, everyone is guilty of rape when accused.

-Duke then implemented a new training program to teach those who sit on sexual assault disciplinary panels that less than two percent of all sexual assault allegations are false. Duke also changed the sexual assault sanctions to allow for the expulsion of students who engaged in mere kissing without affirmative consent.

-A newly trained Duke rape tribunal then found a drunken male student who had sex with a drunken female student guilty of rape. Coercion was assumed because she was drunk. After his expulsion was recommended, the student’s lawyer pointed out that the presumption of non-consent based on drunkenness would mean that he was also raped by the woman he was accused of raping. Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek responded by saying, “It’s the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

Looking back at what happened in the case of the Duke lacrosse team, and subsequent changes in campus judiciary procedures, there are at least three reasonable inferences one can draw:

1. Duke’s obsession with racial politics guarantees that anyone accused of racism will be lynched in the Duke “community.”

2. Duke’s obsession with sexual politics guarantees that anyone accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment will be deprived on any semblance of due process or fair treatment.

3. In a case that involves both racial and sexual politics, the peril to the accused is exponentially increased.

So does anyone have any questions about why Professor Griffiths resigned instead of facing trumped up charges of racial and sexual harassment by a thin-skinned leftist professor with tenure?