Divinity and Diversity

Author note: This is the first installment in a short documentary series on the latest controversy at Duke University. Several more installment will follow.

Dear Professor Portier-Young (apyoung@div.duke.edu):

It is my understanding that on Monday, February 6, 2017, you sent an email to the entire faculty of Duke Divinity School, in which you urged them to attend a two-day 8:30 am to 5 p.m. “Racial Equity Institute” training program. I also understand that your email started an exchange that has resulted in harassment charges against – and, ultimately, the resignation of – a faculty member. As one who writes about free speech and diversity issues in higher education, I have taken great interest in that exchange. I have reproduced the lead paragraph of your February email below. Following that paragraph, I have listed some questions, to which I hope you will take the time to respond:

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

On behalf of the Faculty Diversity and Inclusion Standing Committee, I strongly urge you to participate in the Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training planned for March 4 and 5. We have secured funding from the Provost to provide this training free to our community and we hope that this will be a first step in a longer process of working to ensure that DDS is an institution that is both equitable and anti-racist in its practices and culture. While a number of DDS faculty, staff, and students have been able to participate in REI training in recent years, we have never before hosted a training at DDS. Those who have participated in the training have described it as transformative, powerful, and life-changing. We recognize that it is a significant commitment of time; we also believe it will have great dividends for our community. Please find the registration link below. Details about room location will be announced soon.

1. Could you list some specific details concerning the “transformative” nature of racial equity training? In other words, exactly how were the lives of members of the DDS community “transformed” by the training?
2. In what ways were these “transformations” similar to their conversions to Christianity? In what ways were they different?
3. What exactly are the “great dividends” you expect the racial equity training to provide to your divinity school?

That is all I have. I look forward to your responses.

Mike S. Adams

Columnist, TownHall.com

Washington Post Reporter Called A White Nationalist

Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson was recently given the responsibility of reporting on a lawsuit in which I am involved. The story he was assigned to write is actually quite simple. A California university unconstitutionally denied a student group’s request for funding to host a conservative speaker (me) on their campus. The decision to deny funding was a blatant case of viewpoint discrimination that is supported by a mountain of evidence. Thus, Wootson had an easy story to write if he simply stuck to the facts. Instead, his article wound up being a masterpiece of bad journalism.

Wootson begins his article with an image of campus violence that is totally unrelated to the group that invited me to speak. He then provides a list of “white nationalists” who have recently spoken on other campuses. He continues his journalistic hit piece by characterizing Charles Murray as a person who “has been called a white nationalist” – because, of course, anonymous accusations define the man. Only after sufficiently poisoning the well does Wootson get around to mentioning the point of the article.

It’s hard to miss what Wootson is doing here. He wants to link the plaintiffs in the California case to violence. Then, he seeks to link them to white nationalism in a case that has nothing to do with race. But the worst part of the article is probably his suggestion that Charles Murray is a racist, which is based solely on an anonymous accusation of adherence to “white nationalism.” Here is a newsflash for Cleve Wootson:

CLEVE WOOTSON HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED A WHITE NATIONALIST!

Of course, I don’t have to say who called Cleve Wootson a white nationalist because I am using the journalistic standards of Cleve Wootson and The Washington Post. Nor do I need to mention the fact that Cleve Wootson is actually black. I’m not interested in accuracy. I just know that calling someone a white nationalist is the best way to impugn his character and to shut him down when he is trying to speak. What’s good enough for the Washington compost and Cleve Wootson is good enough for me!

Of course, Wootson does not stop at smearing Charles Murray. He smears me in his article, too. For example, he falsely claims that I once referred to “abortion rights activists” as “animals” that “needed to be caged.” That is demonstrably false. My article “Caged Animals” did not make reference to abortion rights activists in general. It made reference to a specific group of activists who had to be placed behind an iron barricade by campus police after they were caught trying to shut down a pro-life event. Hence the title, “Caged Animals.” Wootson is obviously not Swift enough to understand the satire.

It is not enough to lie about me directly. Wootson, who has been called a white nationalist, also links to other articles that lie about me. Specifically, he linked to a petition started on Change.org by an unhinged leftist student from Colorado-Boulder. It contains the following gem:

“Most recently (Adams) wrote an article outing a young woman, using her full name, and mocked her sexuality and religion. Adams’s followers have since begun sending death threats to the student.”

A little research would have shown that the woman I “outed” was the president of an LGBT club who regularly did media interviews on LGBT issues and publicly identified herself as a “queer.” Those are not my words. Those are her words. A little more research would have shown that the accusations of inciting violence were thoroughly investigated. Unsurprisingly, they were proven to be false. No one’s “followers” threatened the fragile social justice warrior. It was just another campus hoax that leftists pretended to believe in order to give their lives meaning.

But none of this business about “truth” matters to Cleve Wootson, who has been called a white nationalist. He got his degree from UNC-Chapel Hill, which is a school that offers fake classes to its semi-literate athletes. He also writes for The Washington Post, which offers fake stories to its semi-literate audience.

Welcome to CSU-S&M

College administrators have a pretty easy job when it comes to free speech. They are simply there to facilitate a free and open marketplace of ideas while remaining viewpoint neutral on the controversies of the day. Sometimes, the universities opt to facilitate advocacy of ideas through the mechanism of mandatory student activity fees. However, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that the university can collect such fees only if they proactively ensure that the funds are allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

In stark violation of their obligations under the First Amendment, California State University-San Marcos (CSU-SM) has decided to use mandatory student activity fees in a way that produces two outcomes: 1) Students at are compelled to subsidize speech with which they disagree. 2) Students are denied the right to use a portion of the fees to promote a contrary point of view.

There is nothing wrong with the first of those two outcomes. However, the second one is illegal. That is why my friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have decided to represent Students for Life in a federal lawsuit, which they filed against CSU-SM just last week.

To date, the greatest injustice uncovered in this case involves the revelation that CSU-SM collects $1,300,000 in mandatory fees every year and skims $800,000 off the top to pay the salaries of its administrators. Thus, it seems that these mandatory student fees are little more than job creation programs for bureaucratic activists who are otherwise unemployable. The problem is compounded by the fact that CSU-SM then illegally distributes the remaining half million dollars that is not going directly into their own pockets (hence the term “bureaucratic activists”).

The crux of the illegal distribution problem is that Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) has been given unbridled discretion to dole out the mandatory fees. Unsurprisingly, ASI has exercised this unbridled discretion to allocate the fees in a discriminatory manner. Specifically, ASI favors the viewpoints of two student community centers, the Gender Equity Center (GEC) and the LGBTQA Pride Center, which are both run by the administration.

The decision of ASI to allocate more than $296,000 per year to those two centers virtually guarantees viewpoint discrimination – given that it constitutes more than half of the money the administrators have not skimmed off the top of the collection racket in order to line their own pockets. In fact, during the 2016-2017 academic year, only $38,629 was allotted for the more than 100 student groups at CSU-SM who paid into the corrupt system. This means that a miniscule 3% of all mandatory fees extracted by the administration actually winds up in the hands of student groups to use for their own advocacy. That is about one-twentieth of what administrators pocket for their salaries.

To focus solely on the fact that these administrators are thieves is to risk obscuring the fact that they are also perverts. This year, the administrators gave money to the GEC to host “the ABC’s of LGBTQ: Queer Women” and the so-called “Pleasure Party.” The voluminous GEC spending on sex makes you wonder why they need a separate LGBQTA Center, which, not to be outdone, hosted “Kink 101.” For those wondering, “Kink 101” was an interactive workshop and discussion of bondage, dominance, sadism, and masochism—and fetish-style practices. Talk about tying up your tax dollars!

There is more to the controversy than just the centers. Also at the heart of the controversy is a specific ASI allocation to sponsor an Arts & Lectures Series to bring speakers to campus to advocate for certain viewpoints. In contrast, ASI has denied Students for Life at CSU-SM’s request for speaker funding and have supplied two reasons for doing so: 1) ASI limits all student-run organizations to $500 per semester. 2) The student-run organizations are not allowed to use the fees to pay for speakers.

Under the current system, the only speakers members of Students for Life at CSU-SM hear are those they are required to subsidize, which are hired by administrators in the Gender Equity Center and the LGBTQA Pride Center. It should go without saying that members of the group disagree with the speaker viewpoints, which include advocating for abortion and sexually promiscuous behavior. Yet they are banned from bringing in their own speakers to present a contrary view.

I first learned about all of this last semester when Students for Life at CSU-SM applied for funding and invited me to speak on their campus about the issue of abortion. Unsurprisingly, ASI denied the funding request. That is when I put the students in touch with my old friends (and my former lawyers) at ADF.

As of this writing, ASI continues to provide funding through mandatory fees to the Gender Equity Center and the LGBTQA Pride Center, allowing them to pay to bring numerous speakers to campus, giving voice to their own views on a variety of topics that conflict with those of Students for Life, including abortion and human sexuality.

However, their chokehold on the marketplace of ideas will soon be broken and students at CSU-SM will be granted the right to bring in their own speakers with opposing viewpoints. In other words, CSU-SM has absolutely no chance of winning this lawsuit.

By defending the indefensible, these petty administrators give the impression that they enjoy inflicting pain upon themselves for pleasure.

University President Schools “Professor” On Free Speech

“Professor” Greg Thatcher of Fresno State was the subject of my last column here on Rightly Offended. If you read the column, you know that my friends at The Alliance Defending Freedom (see www.ADFLegal.org) have sued him. In response, he now says he thinks the lawsuit is “hilarious.” If Thatcher were an intelligent man he would start to take the lawsuit seriously – especially after a recent public statement by Fresno State University President Joseph I. Castro. As you read the following, try not to imagine the sound of a bus running over “Professor” Thatcher:

Fresno State supports and defends the right of students to free speech and the peaceful expression of ideas on campus. The university’s policy is clear: free speech on campus is not limited to a “free speech zone” or any other narrowly defined area. Universities have an obligation to encourage the free expression of ideas, values and opinions.

The students who wrote the chalked messages received prior university approval and were well within their rights to express themselves in this manner.

Those disagreeing with the students’ message have a right to their own speech, but they do not have the right to erase or stifle someone else’s speech under the guise of their own right to free speech. We are reviewing this matter and take the situation very seriously.

Fresno State President Joseph I. Castro

So, there you have it. Fresno State is not standing behind its fascistic public health professor as this case moves forward. They have thrown him under the bus with a statement, which unequivocally shows him to be in violation of the rights of the student/plaintiffs. You don’t need to be an expert in evidence law to understand that this statement is more than just relevant and admissible in federal court. It is also dispositive in the case against Thatcher. My free advice to “Professor” Thatcher is simple: Go get a lawyer and settle this case as soon as possible.

My free advice for those of you who have time on your hands (assuming you are not a fascist professor who is busy defending himself in a First Amendment lawsuit at his own place of employment) is to write a short “thank you” note to Fresno State University President Joseph I. Castro at this address: presidentjic@csufresno.edu.

We seldom hear university presidents make such strong an unequivocal statements in support of free speech. When they do, they need to hear from us.

Thatcher in the Rye

For the last fifteen years, I’ve been writing about the steady decline in respect for free speech on our college campuses. For those who think that dangerous trend is simply the fault of immature college students, I submit the case of Fresno State University Professor Greg Thatcher for your careful consideration. Before reading my response to Thatcher, please watch his brief sermon on the First Amendment by clicking on this link:

By way of background information, it was back in April that a Fresno State pro-life group received permission to chalk pro-life messages on the sidewalks leading to the university’s library. After they actually put some of the messages on the sidewalk, Thatcher, who teaches public health, confronted the pro-life students. In the confrontation, Thatcher alleged that the students could not chalk messages near the library, and could only engage in expression in the so-called “free speech area.” This is factually inaccurate as the university eliminated the speech zone in June of 2015.

After the president of the pro-life club explained that she had university permission to chalk messages in that precise location, Thatcher threatened to return and erase the messages. But then he did something even worse than that: He actually recruited at least seven students from his class to join him in the patently illegal enterprise of defacing constitutionally protected speech.

Fortunately, the pro-lifers caught the students on film. As seen in the video, they ran from the scene. Note that one fleeing student proclaimed a constitutional right to privacy while publicly violating the free speech rights of others. Thatcher, who is seen in the video wearing shorts and a tee shirt, then came to the rescue and told the pro-lifers, “The whole idea of free speech is that we have a free speech area on campus.” He then added, “Free speech is free speech in the free speech area. It’s a pretty simple concept.”

(Author note: The combination of unprofessional attire and dripping condescension is probably best explained by the fact that Thatcher majored in sociology as an undergraduate before discovering the more prestigious academic discipline known as “public health.”)

Just in case some people within earshot did not understand his elaboration on the “pretty simple concept” of free speech, Thatcher decided to walk over to one of the pro-life messages and offer a visual lesson by erasing it himself. Claiming that he was exercising his own free speech rights, he actually said the following: “You had permission to put it down. I have permission to get rid of it. This is our part of free speech.” He capped it all off by erroneously proclaiming, “College campuses are not free speech areas. Do you understand? Obviously you don’t understand.”

We learn at least five lessons from this incident – all of which I have been trying to express with clarity in my column for the last fifteen years:

1. College administrators, and increasingly college professors, erroneously think they have the right to paper over the constitution with their student handbooks and syllabi (creating things like speech codes and speech zones).

2. College administrators, and increasingly college professors, have so many policies that they cannot even keep track of them (most don’t even know where the miniscule “speech zones” are located).

3. College administrators, and increasingly college professors, think that destroying speech is actually protected speech (see the learned Thatcher in the video).

4. College administrators, and increasingly college professors, think the unconstitutional rules they have created apply to everyone but them (also see Thatcher expressing his “speech” in what he just deemed to be a non-speech area outside the “speech zone.”).

5. College administrators, and increasingly college professors, think it is their job to treat college students like children and shield their innocence by protecting them from “offensive” speech (hence the pun in the title of this column, which was inspired by J.D. Salinger).

In a nutshell, college campuses are free speech areas. “Professor” Greg Thatcher doesn’t understand that. But he is about to learn because pro-life students at Fresno State University are about to sue his little shorts off. And the administration should follow up on this case by firing Thatcher before he is granted tenure.

Otherwise, he will have a lifetime permit to abort free speech before it comes to term.

(Another author note: Go to www.ADFLegal.org to learn more about the fantastic lawyers who have taken this case. They are simply the best in the business.).

How To Treat Trans-Gendered Students

If you are teaching at a secular university and have not yet encountered a student who is going through (or has already been through) gender reassignment, you will before long. I had my first such experience a few years ago and I learned some valuable things in the process. Although my experience occurred within the context of higher education, much of what I learned is equally relevant in other settings. I have written the following with conservative Christians in mind, simply because they are the ones who struggle the most in trying to be compassionate without compromising their principles:

Always use the student’s preferred name. You might call the name of Charlene on the first day of class and be corrected by a voice asking to be called Charlie. Or Patricia might ask to be called Pat. Or the requested change could be something a little less smooth – such as Bruce demanding to be called Caitlyn. Regardless, always show respect for the person by using the name they prefer because it is just that – a preference. There is nothing inherently male or female about a first name. This is a non-issue. Don’t make it one.

Avoid using pronouns. Pronouns are different. When Bruce goes from simply asking to be called Caitlyn to demanding to be called “she” you have a potential problem. Calling Bruce “Caitlyn” is simply honoring a preference. In contrast, calling Bruce “she” is telling a lie. In a nutshell, Bruce is now asking you to accommodate his mental disorder by lying and saying he is something he is not. Just as there is a good reason to refrain from lying and saying “she” there is also good reason to refrain from saying “he.” The reason is that it is completely avoidable. When my first transgendered student asked to be called by a male name on the first day of class I had no idea that she would also become my best and most outspoken student. There were numerous times throughout the semester when her comments were so enlightening that I almost responded by saying something like, “Did everyone hear what she just said?” In such cases, when I came to the part of the sentence with the personal pronoun I simply substituted the student’s first name, which is more personal anyway. Professors who make an issue of this by sending around sheets of paper the first day of class asking for each student’s preferred pronouns are just being pretentious. This is another non-issue. Learn your student’s names and use them whenever you call on them in class. Issue resolved.

Don’t take the bathroom bait. Some people say that North Carolina’s HB2 was an “unnecessary law.” I agree. Had it not been for the LGBT Chamber of Commerce of Charlotte passing a city ordinance (requiring all private businesses to allow access to any bathroom on the basis of perceived gender), the state legislature would have had no need to address the issue. Generally speaking, transsexuals have quietly used the bathroom of their choice for years with no problem – that is, until LGBT activists politicized the issue.

When my first “transitioning” student decided she wanted to walk into the men’s restroom just as I was walking out I simply ignored her. It was awkward to be certain. But it wasn’t worth calling in the bathroom police. If you are ever assaulted in a bathroom by a transsexual then do what you would do if a normal person outside a bathroom assaulted you: Call the police and/or defend yourself. If not, just go about your business. This is yet another non-issue. Don’t make it one.

Provide an alternate basis for student identity. I cringe every time I hear the phrase “LGBT people” because it implies that those who are outside of the heterosexual norm are somehow defined by their sexuality. As educators, we should have no part in the undignified business of encouraging people to build their identity around their sexuality. We cannot love people by actually encouraging the spiritual evils that victimize them – even when the culture praises us for doing so. Thus, whenever I see my former student (who is obviously going through radical hormonal therapy to appear male) I do not ask her how her gender identity transition is going. I ask her how her studies are going. I thank her for being such an attentive student. I tell her how much I enjoyed having her in my class. I let her know that she stands out because of her mind not because of her membership in a newly contrived class of victims.

This is really all you need to know about how to deal with the transgender issue. Best of all, my advice is free of charge. I guess some problems are so simple they don’t even require a diversity consultant.

one giant leap for person kind

author’s note: i first ran a version of this nine years ago but a recent incident at northern arizona university (nau) has shown that the feminist grammar nazis still have not given up. you may read about that nau incident by clicking here.

when they aren’t attending masturbation workshops and orgasm awareness festivals on unc campuses, our feminist “scholars” are usually thinking of new words to ban in order to make womyn feel more comfortable in the workplace. recently, one of the sociologists at unc-wilmington actually banned the use of the term “mankind” because of its “sexist” overtones. but i write today, not for the purpose of ridiculing this seemingly outlandish feminist censorship. in fact, i’ve decided to join in with some new class rules i’ll use from now on (but not n.o.w. on).

1. all capital letters will be banned. for some feminists, capital letters are a reminder of an erect penis. so, from now on, all my class correspondence will have erectile dysfunction. i regret that i cannot take credit for this idea. it has already been employed by feminists at appalachian state university (sociology department) and unc-chapel hill (english department).

2. i will also ban the word “man,” replacing it with the word “person.” in fact, wherever the letters “m,” “a,” and “n” appear consecutively within a word, they will be replaced with the word “person.” this will be difficult but we will person-age. some examples follow:

democrats tend to favor unfunded government person-dates.
hillary clinton wants to be the first to get a person-icure in the oval office, though not the first to be pleasured in the oval office.
karl marx co-wrote the communist person-ifesto, which is required reading in most gender studies programs.
bill clinton used to fondle women in the governor’s person-sion.
and, finally, we have too person-y person-hating feminists teaching in our universities today.

3. i will also ban the word “his,” replacing it with the word “her.” in fact, wherever the letters “h,” “i,” (or, when appropriate, “y”) and “s” appear consecutively within a word, they will be replaced with the word “hers.” t-hers could be a difficult task. some examples follow:

i really dig hers-panic women, especially jessica alba.
hers-tory shows that fdr really was surrounded by communist spies. alger hers-s was one of them.
she had to go to the hospital to get a hers-terectomy.

4. i will also ban the word “men,” replacing it with the word “people.” in fact, wherever the letters “m,” “e,” and “n” appear consecutively, they will be replaced with the word “people.” this could prove to be a real people-ace. some examples follow:

some think al franken is suffering from male people-opause. i really think liberalism, like socialism, is a people-tal illness.
i’ve really been trying to people-d my differences with illegal aliens but, unfortunately, none of them speak good english.
“people at work” was clearly among the worst bands of the 1980s. “a flock of seagulls” gets honorable people-tion.

now, some – who are not in n.o.w. – will say my new feminist word-banning scheme is a bunch of person-ure. but i think it’s nothing short of hers-terical. and i really hope i’m not sounding people- dacious to my readers.

another author’s note: for those who are not particularly swift, dr. adams is not really going to imple- people-t this scheme. but the story of feminists banning the word “mankind” is, unfortunately, ongoing and true.

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 (president@northcarolina.edu):

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.