Judge Awards Embattled Christian, Conservative Prof $50K – and a Promotion

[maxparrish]

The briefs are far too long to quote, but here is a sampling, by the plaintiff:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/AdamsSummaryJudgmentResponseBrief.pdf

When Dr. Adams applied for promotion in 2006, his record spoke for itself. For teaching, his student evaluations were well above the Department average (MSJ Ex. 8 App. 7 [Doc. 140] sometimes even achieving the Department’s top scores—while he simultaneously maintained a “heavy caseload” of student advisees (Compl. Ex. 9 at 16; Compl. Ex. 11 at 19, Compl. Ex. 14 at 26; Compl. Ex. 45 at 96). For research, he had published more peer-reviewed articles in his career (eleven) than seven
of the nine members of the Department, including his current and previous chairs—Drs. Cook (eight) and Levy (six). (MSJ Ex. 8 App. 4 [Doc. 135-14] at 206.) Only two Department colleagues topped his five peer-reviewed publications since the last promotion. (MSJ Ex. 8 App. 5 [Doc. 135-15] at 208.) In fact, no professor with a similar number of peer-reviewed publications had ever been denied promotion at the Department level. (Adams Decl. [Doc. 135-10] ¶ 16.)

Regarding service, he had advised seven student organizations and had served on twenty seven University or Department committees, while making over 125 public appearances as a speaker, lecturer, debater, moderator, interviewee, guest, host, reviewer, and writer in various local and national venues such as newspapers, radio shows, television shows, universities, conferences, and organizational meetings. (Compl. Ex. 45 at 108–20.) Additionally, Dr. Adams’ multiple columns and speeches on cultural, constitutional, and sociological issues constituted service to the wider community.3 (Id. at 112–20.) Thus, an elite student society awarded him his crowning service achievement, the Golden Seahawk. (Id. at 111.)

II. DR. ADAMS FACED EXPLICIT VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION.

After becoming a Christian conservative in 2000, Dr. Adams’ work environment changeddramatically. In 2001, his cautions against “interject[ing] political and religious bias into the hiring process” prompted Dr. Snowden to defend such political discrimination and to remove him from the faculty e-mail list for supposedly “campaigning for Bush.” Later, an e-mail to a student about the September 11th attacks prompted a campus-wide furor that landed Dr. Adams on Hannity & Colmes. Two months later, Dr. Snowden accused him of “workplace terrorism” and a “hate crime” by claiming—without a shred of evidence—that he sprayed an “unknown gas” or “pepper spray” in her office. These charges, which remained open for five years, became one of the “stories of the university.” She later accused him repeatedly of sexually harassing students, again without a shred of evidence.

In 2002, Dr. Adams began writing columns that were ultimately published on Townhall.com. They not only critiqued the University and Department but also addressed other cultural and campus issues from a conservative perspective. But even as he added “national columnist” to his CV, he continued to publish peer-reviewed scholarship at the same rate as before, continued to receive excellent teaching evaluations from his students, and continued to serve UNCW by advising students and student groups.

However, Dr. Adams’ columns frequently frustrated his colleagues, who took issue with his conservatism, often in crude terms. By April 2004, Dr. Willis instructed Dr. Adams not to discuss the columns at work as they disturbed a secretary. When Dr. Adams explained his upcom-However, Dr. Adams’ columns frequently frustrated his colleagues, who took issue with his conservatism, often in crude terms. By April 2004, Dr. Willis instructed Dr. Adams not to discuss the columns at work as they disturbed a secretary. When Dr. Adams explained his upcom-ing absence from a dinner party due to a National Rifle Association dinner, Dr. Levy (the interim chair) mocked him: “Go on . . . to your fascist pig meeting.” Dr. Snowden called him a “pathological liar” who was “mentally unbalanced” in the local paper, and Dr. King derided him as a “wannabe right wing pundit.” Dr. Levy also reprimanded him for his columns, saying he should change his “caustic” and “meanspirited” tone to be more “cerebral” like William F. Buckley.
(
This institutional bias extended to Chancellor DePaolo and other high ranking University officials. Though Chancellor DePaolo publicly acknowledged Dr. Adams’ free speech rights, she privately “prompt[ed]” the Faculty Senate to add “collegiality” to the promotion criteria because of the alleged “personal attacks” in Dr. Adams’ columns. Though unsuccessful, this action constituted an unmistakable and explicit attempt to scuttle his promotion prospects due to his conservative columns.

By 2005, the institutional bias against Dr. Adams intensified. Dr. Levy gave him a poor 2004 annual evaluation,4 stating that he was spending too much time focused on “political matters” and not enough on research—a judgment she made without even examining his scholarly output. Had she done so, she would have discovered that his eleven career peer-reviewed publications to date—five of which he had produced since tenure—almost doubled her six peer-reviewed publications at the same stage of her career. Indeed, Dr. Adams’ scholarly research output exceeded all but two of the Department’s nine professors. She also opined that his service to the Department and the University suffered due to his political activities. (Pl.’s 1st MSJ Resp. [Doc. 135] at 5–6 ¶ 11.) But thatsame year, the Pandion Society—a society of the most exceptional UNCW students—granted him the “Golden Seahawk,” a service award reserved for the “most outstanding leader among all individuals, departments, and organizations at UNCW.” (Compl. Ex. 45 at 111.)
In 2006 when Dr. Adams addressed transgender issues in several of his columns, the Gender Mutiny Collective—an anarchist group from Chapel Hill—intimated that he might pass on “transphobia” to his students. Without receiving a single complaint from UNCW students and without any knowledge of the organization, Chancellor DePaolo accepted this complaint at face value and ordered Dean Cordle and Dr. Cook (the new Department chair) to investigate whether Dr. Adams was “passing on transphobic views to students.” After a week-long secret investigation, involving Dr. Willis and Dr. Levy, Dr. Cook reported back that she had found no evidence against Dr. Adams.

Had Chancellor DePaolo fully examined Dr. Adams’ teaching record, she would have found that he was one of the most highly rated teachers in the Department, scoring well above the Department average on student evaluations and sometimes with the highest scores in the Department. While often attracting the “highest course enrollment [numbers] among all of the, he also consistently maintained a “heavy caseload” of thirty or more student advisees,7 and every year was identified by graduating seniors as having made distinctive contributions to their success at.

In February 2006, Dr. Snowden again accused Dr. Adams of harassment without evidence. After this final false allegation, UNCW finally resolved her still-pending 2001 felony accusation with the campus police finding it wholly unsupported.

III.DR. ADAMS WAS DENIED PROMOTION DUE TO HIS POLITICAL EXPRESSION.

In its Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, this Court recounted Dr. Cook’s explanation or the promotion denial (Order [Doc. 117] at 7–8), how Dr. Adams’ contested it (id.), and how he alleged that his political views contributed to the denial (id.). Discovery confirmed and expanded on these facts, painting in vivid colors what Dr. Adams only sketched in his complaint.

In July 2006, when Dr. Adams formally applied for promotion to full professor, he was required to “have exhibited during [his] career distinguished accomplishment in teaching, a tangible record of research . . ., and a significant record of service.” Teaching received the greatest emphasis, followed by research, with service a distant third. (Pl.’s 1st MSJ Resp. at Notably, the faculty handbook does not limit the consideration of an applicant’s “career” to only his career at the University, instead looking at the entire body of his work.
Empirically, Dr. Adams’ record was overwhelming in every area. For teaching, his above Department average student evaluations, multiple teaching awards and recognitions, and “heavy caseload” of student advisees testified to his dedication. Regarding research, his eleven career peer-reviewed articles (with five coming since receiving tenure) surpassed all but two of his colleagues at corresponding junctures in their careers. No professor with a similar record had ever been denied promotion at the Department level. His service spanned from student organizations to University and Department committees to his growing national demand as an author, speaker, and commentator. (See supra Summary I; Pl.’s 1st MSJ Resp. [Doc. 135] at 7–8 ¶ 16.)

Hence, sources outside of his Department recognized Dr. Adams’ accomplishments: students generated his SPOT (i.e., student evaluation) scores (Lagrange Dep. [Doc. 140-10] at 11); his teach-ing awards and recognitions, with one exception,8 were conferred by students, the Dean of Students’ Office, and the state legislature9; independent juries of editors reviewed and published his refereed journal articles; and an elite student society awarded his crowning service achievement, the Golden
Seahawk. (Compl. Ex. 45 at 100–04, 111.)

In contrast, his internal Department peers’ subjective evaluations of his work had been sliding. Despite his high student evaluations, his peers marked down his teaching without even watching him teach. (Pl.’s 1st MSJ Resp. [Doc. 135] at 7 ¶ 14.) Despite his publishing scholarly articles at a rate exceeding all but two members of the Department, they downgraded his research. Despite his extensive work with students and in spite of the fact that his columns and speeches provided the public with the benefit of his considerable sociological expertise, members of the Department slighted his accomplishments while openly applauding the “activism” of more liberal members of the faculty. (MSJ Ex. 2 [Doc. 135

This decline in internal evaluations coincided with Dr. Adams’ increased public criticisms of Defendants. ...This criticism stirred up considerable hostility against Dr. Adams—hostility expressed inwriting. Before meeting with the senior faculty about his promotion, Dr. Cook solicited their remarks. Though Dr. Adams received positive reviews from several faculty members, others applied incorrect standards to minimize his research, misrepresented his accomplishments, and considered prohibited criteria. Many unleashed a storm of disparaging comments about Dr. Adams’ conservative books and columns.

As Dr. Cook edited and retyped these remarks into a single document to direct the upcoming discussion with the senior faculty, she distorted the record by including predominantly negative comments, omitting positive comments, providing incorrect promotion standards, deflating Dr. Adams’ publication numbers, and repeating statements she knew to be false.

Dr. Snowden—who had lodged multiple false complaints against Dr. Adams, including the incredible and false complaint that he had tear-gassed her office—could not attend the September 14th senior faculty meeting where Dr. Adams’ promotion was to be discussed. Despite her obvious conflict of interest, the senior faculty unanimously voted to allow her to vote by proxy, and Dr. Cook (who was fully aware of Dr. Snowden’s false claims against Dr. Adams) personally cast this proxy against Dr. Adams.

...Regardless of the justification given—whether Dr. Cook believed Dr. Adams was deficient in all areas (as she told Dr. Adams) or merely deficient in one (as she told Dean Cordle)—the result was the same: For the first time in Department history, an associate professor was denied promotion to full professor at the Department level with a teaching, research, and service record like Dr. Adams’. He was denied through a process where his political and ideological views were expressly mentioned as relevant, his conservative views and writings held against him, and colleagues with obvious conflicts of interest permitted to vote against him—by proxy. And these actions took place against the immediate backdrop of a Chancellor-initiated secret investigation of Dr. Adams alleged “transphobia,” an investigation directly triggered by his columns. When Dr. Cook denied Dr. Adams’ promotion there was no doubt where her Chancellor stood on the issue—or the reasons for her hostility.11 In short, Dr. Adams is prepared to present voluminous evidence to a jury, evidence that explicitly demonstrates that Defendants considered his viewpoint when they denied his promotion.

 

[maxparrish]

I beg to disagree. His unwillingness or inability to rationally reject the fundamental religious claims of the Christian religion indicates either a lack of rational academic rigor, a lack of ethical integrity, or a deficiency in his ability to reason logically and rationally.

Whatever the cause or reason for the shutting down of the rational part of his brain, it is relevant to his abilities to impartially distinguish fact from fiction, and truth from fabrication, possession of which is a faculty certainly relevant to teaching in the field of criminology and forensic investigation.

So one supposes that Newton, Pauli, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck, Mendel, Einstein lacked academic rigor, ethical integrity, or a deficiency in reasoning. So did these great scientists have "brainS (so) fucked" they could not reason?

Did their belief in God make them "unfit and unsuitable" as academics?

It is understandable why UNC would not desire to advance, or be associated with this embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity.

Well yes, it is understandable that UNC departmental academics would not wish a conservative and religious person as a colleague, most intolerant and thin skinned academics of the left are like that.

On the other hand, there is no evidence of his scholarship or academic integrity being 'an embarrassment'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, if his lawyers say he was unfairly treated, you have to take it at face value.

Seems like the only thing we have to go on are his side of the story, limited tidbits of the defense, and a guilty verdict of the jury. I haven't seen anything regarding his religion being an issue.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't see how his being a Christian is relevant to the field of Criminology one way or another (excepting, of course, a potential bias on his part if he's asked to participate in a UN Commission to charge Jehovah with genocide for the whole Flood thing or the like). If a Spanish professor believes in alien abductions or a Computer Science professor thinks global warming is a hoax or a Criminology professor thinks that the world was created 6,000 years ago, that doesn't seem like something which should affect the assessment of how he's doing his job.

If they let this unrelated belief affect their teaching and have exams have students translate a demand that the aliens respect the Alpha Centari Protocols of Star Date 4563 when visiting our planet or write a program to show how many climate scientists are part of an international conspiracy using late bound object referencing or asking that if there are three potential suspects for a crime and one's an atheist explain why he's guilty, then that's a different matter. Simply being an idiot in one area of their life isn't an excuse to penalize them if they're intelligent and competent in regards to the area that they're instructing students in, however.

 

[Bronzeage]

From the brief:

Dr. Snowden—who had lodged multiple false complaints against Dr. Adams, including the incredible and false complaint that he had tear-gassed her office—could not attend the September 14th senior faculty meeting where Dr. Adams’ promotion was to be discussed. Despite her obvious conflict of interest, the senior faculty unanimously voted to allow her to vote by proxy, and Dr. Cook (who was fully aware of Dr. Snowden’s false claims against Dr. Adams) personally cast this proxy against Dr. Adams.

Tear gas? What kind of circus is UNC trying to operate?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

From the brief:


Tear gas? What kind of circus is UNC trying to operate?

It does sound like the issues they have with their professors are much bigger than whether or not one of them is a Christian.

 

[Bronzeage]

It does sound like the issues they have with their professors are much bigger than whether or not one of them is a Christian.

I grew up on a college campus and am very familiar with this kind of thing. It seems every department has a loose wheel every so often. This maybe a department of loose wheels.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I grew up on a college campus and am very familiar with this kind of thing. It seems every department has a loose wheel every so often. This maybe a department of loose wheels.

I think that someone who falsely accuses someone of setting off a tear gas grenade in their office qualifies as for a title quite a bit worse than "a loose wheel".

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that someone who falsely accuses someone of setting off a tear gas grenade in their office qualifies as for a title quite a bit worse than "a loose wheel".

This is true, but remember, this is the Criminology Department, which is a fairly new University discipline. It was created to produce professional law enforcement officers. Who would we expect to have tear gas close at hand? That's right, a policeman.

It's within reasonable possibility that pepper spray or some other irritant was accidentally released. There would be plenty of it around. Dr. Snowden says it was an attack. It's not the sort of thing that can be kept hidden for very long.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is true, but remember, this is the Criminology Department, which is a fairly new University discipline. It was created to produce professional law enforcement officers. Who would we expect to have tear gas close at hand? That's right, a policeman.

It's within reasonable possibility that pepper spray or some other irritant was accidentally released. There would be plenty of it around. Dr. Snowden says it was an attack. It's not the sort of thing that can be kept hidden for very long.

OK, fair enough.

However, if you have a Professor of Criminology who goes around making unsubstantiated claims against other people which he can't back up, you have a professor who's activities are directly relevant to displaying a lack of knowledge about the subject that he's teaching and who's career should be negatively affected as a result. It's no different than if a Japanese professor takes the Dean out to a sushi restaurant and has to order in English. The Dean needs to realize that this guy isn't qualified for his job and act accordingly.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

So one supposes that Newton, Pauli, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck, Mendel, Einstein lacked academic rigor, ethical integrity, or a deficiency in reasoning.

You throw out a list of names, apparently unaware of the views on religion held by each of these individuals, nor to take into consideration the social restraints that prevented full and free expression on such subjects in their day without stigma and academic repercussions.

So did these great scientists have "brainS (so) fucked" they could not reason?

A question that could only be answered on a case to case basis, investigating the statements and evident ethics of each individual.
They could reason well in some subjects. Some of them could not reason rationally on questions of religion. Still a human problem.
Should all conservatives be categorized as 'brain fucked Christians' simply because Jerry Farwell, Pat Robetson, and George Bush have carried the Zombie Jezuz Brain Disease virus? Do you have the ZJBD?
Amazingly, one can be a conservative without needing to endorse the vacuous horse shit of the Christian religion, or its teachers.

Did their belief in God make them "unfit and unsuitable" as academics?

Depends on what field they were in. Any of that held a 'belief in god' had a mental aberration or ethical flaw that they would have been better persons without.
Einstein was no theist and most certainly should not have been included in that list.

It is understandable why UNC would not desire to advance, or be associated with this embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity.

Well yes, it is understandable that UNC departmental academics would not wish a conservative and religious person as a colleague, most intolerant and thin skinned academics of the left are like that.

And if understandable to you, it was also understandable to Mike Adams when he betrayed and renounced the liberal views that had made him acceptable to UNC for consideration for a career within their liberal institution. Mike Adams then unethically took advantage of his acceptance into the University system to use it as a platform to preach against the known liberal views of that institution and of his former collegues. He is no longer a colleague other than in title, he is now a pulsing cancerous growth in their midst.

On the other hand, there is no evidence of his scholarship or academic integrity being 'an embarrassment'.

Others would (and have) disagreed. They disagree with the opinions he expresses, they disagree with particular contents and conclusions given in his various publications and speeches.
Those conservative views and their Republican/political ersatz religiosity do not reflect the views of the institution where he is (now under protest) employed and it is embarrassing to the members of that institution to have their names and careers being associated with, and sullied through such undesired association with this unethical and despicable character. I have much more graphic and colorful terms for such a lowlife, but am for decorum's sake exercising great restraint.

 

[Bronzeage]

OK, fair enough.

However, if you have a Professor of Criminology who goes around making unsubstantiated claims against other people which he can't back up, you have a professor who's activities are directly relevant to displaying a lack of knowledge about the subject that he's teaching and who's career should be negatively affected as a result. It's no different than if a Japanese professor takes the Dean out to a sushi restaurant and has to order in English. The Dean needs to realize that this guy isn't qualified for his job and act accordingly.

I imagine the Dean has his hands full with this situation and it maybe his incompetence which let things get to this point.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

I'm sure the job must be difficult, dealing with retrograde assholes, while trying to advance knowledge and education.
Of course if we watch and listen closely we all learn a bit more about life, and how to either succeed at being a sleazeball, or how not to.

 

[maxparrish]

You throw out a list of names, apparently unaware of the views on religion held by each of these individuals, nor to take into consideration the social restraints that prevented full and free expression on such subjects in their day without stigma and academic repercussions.

A question that could only be answered on a case to case basis, investigating the statements and evident ethics of each individual.
They could reason well in some subjects. Some of them could not reason rationally on questions of religion. Still a human problem.

In other words, these famous scientists have demonstrated that holding religious beliefs and doing great science are not incompatible. The only 'human problem' I see is that after having into a swamp of polemical nonsense you are busy calling for a tow truck to pull you back out.

Should all conservatives be categorized as 'brain fucked Christians' simply because Jerry Farwell, Pat Robetson, and George Bush have carried the Zombie Jezuz Brain Disease virus? Do you have the ZJBD?

Unsupported polemical assertions backed by a drive-by ad hom. I don't mind you casting ad homs, but please avoid being so unfunny. Otherwise it is not worth reading.

Amazingly, one can be a conservative without needing to endorse the vacuous horse shit of the Christian religion, or its teachers.

LOL, amazing only to those who are intellectually slumming on a stereotype of conservatism/classical liberalism/neo-conservatism.

And if understandable to you, it was also understandable to Mike Adams when he betrayed and renounced the liberal views that had made him acceptable to UNC for consideration for a career within their liberal institution. Mike Adams then unethically took advantage of his acceptance into the University system to use it as a platform to preach against the known liberal views of that institution and of his former collegues. He is no longer a colleague other than in title, he is now a pulsing cancerous growth in their midst.

What was understandable to Mike Adams when he rejected his prior liberal views is as irrelevant to his employment at UNC as is his peers dogmatic political liberalism. Its a public university and as such cannot discriminate against folks because of their religious or political views.

All the authoritarian polemics not withstanding, you don't see to get that.

 

[Underseer]

In other words, these famous scientists have demonstrated that holding religious beliefs and doing great science are not incompatible. The only 'human problem' I see is that after having into a swamp of polemical nonsense you are busy calling for a tow truck to pull you back out.

Unsupported polemical assertions backed by a drive-by ad hom. I don't mind you casting ad homs, but please avoid being so unfunny. Otherwise it is not worth reading.

LOL, amazing only to those who are intellectually slumming on a stereotype of conservatism/classical liberalism/neo-conservatism.

What was understandable to Mike Adams when he rejected his prior liberal views is as irrelevant to his employment at UNC as is his peers dogmatic political liberalism. Its a public university and as such cannot discriminate against folks because of their religious or political views.

All the authoritarian polemics not withstanding, you don't see to get that.

Teach the controversy!

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, there is no evidence of his scholarship or academic integrity being 'an embarrassment'.

Is that claim based on
a) your expert opinion in the field of criminology after reading his scholarly work, or
b) your lack of knowledge about such evidence, or
c) an unsubstantiated claim made by someone else?

 

[maxparrish]

Is that claim based on
a) your expert opinion in the field of criminology after reading his scholarly work, or
b) your lack of knowledge about such evidence, or
c) an unsubstantiated claim made by someone else?

"It is understandable why UNC would not desire to advance, or be associated with this embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity."

That was an unsupported claim by the poster, there is no evidence to support his characterization of Mike Adams as "an embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity".

My own opinion is based on court briefs, jury findings, and other documents as well as the failure of those who hold a contrary review to provide necessary and sufficient evidence to support said characterization.

If you have such evidence, feel free to provide it for discussion.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

"It is understandable why UNC would not desire to advance, or be associated with this embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity."

That was an unsupported claim by the poster, there is no evidence to support his characterization of Mike Adams as "an embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity".

My own opinion is based on court briefs, jury findings, and other documents as well as the failure of those who hold a contrary review to provide necessary and sufficient evidence to support said characterization.

If you have such evidence, feel free to provide it for discussion.

The statement

"It is understandable why UNC would not desire to advance, or be associated with this embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity."

was made by me in Post #19
That statement was made in a specific CONTEXT, and served as a summary of the foregoing paragraphs.

In Post #22 maxparrish chose to cite my statement while omitting, not addressing, or in any way acknowledging the existence of that CONTEXT, is quoting out of CONTEXT as doing so is beneficial to his method of argument.
one of the most common of ******* and ******** political ploys. (avoiding calling a spade a spade here)

Here again, is that omitted CONTEXT;

Does Mike Adams the great criminologist know how to forensically investigate and impartially and rationally judge the credibility of the claims and testimonies of the cult that he has joined?
In my view either he does not, or is so brain fucked he is unable, or is so dishonest and unethical that he will not.

Whatever the case, it is a defect in either his intelligence, his character, or in his ethics that renders him unfit and unsuitable as a teacher or representative of UNC.
(and incidentally transformed him into a gaseous conservative asshole on legs)
It is understandable why UNC would not desire to advance, or be associated with this embarrassment to scholarship and to academic integrity.

The above taken in whole (along with my Post #14 regarding 'a modicum of academic and intellectual integrity') relates directly to the matter of Mike Adams employment of his high intelligence and forensic academic abilities, and a level of personal integrity to examine the claims of the religion he has chosen to align himself with, and only peripherally does it relate to the quality of his academic literary output, or abilities as a instructor, in regard to whether his Christian bias and association affects the quality of, or accuracy of his reasoning and judgment in matters other than his religion.
I do believe that it does, but that was not at all the premise of my statement.

I would make a similar statement regarding any other educated individual, irregardless of political affiliation, that for whatever reason joins, endorses, and sacrificing personal integrity, uses the christian horse shit religion for political advancement, whether down at the local town hall, in the halls of acadameia, or in the halls of Government and Justice.

 

[Jarhyn]

So I did a thing and actually tried to read some of those 'articles' at townHall.com, to see if their content was inconsistent with an academic and rational view of criminology, his stated field.

Max, how do you propose a college deal with someone who is supposed to be teaching kids about how the human mind goes south, when that person, by their own admission, thinks it is because they like dudes, and who thinks the solution to crime is to have everyone carrying guns everywhere so that every situation with high emotions can become a bloodbath? I don't think he would have seen any kind of backlash at all if he had either backed up his views with more than just faith (peer review, yay!) or not let his faith contradict mountains of evidence of an entire academic field, especially one deeply engrained in how and who we look at as criminals. The guy was seriously off the reservation.

 

[maxparrish]

The statement was made by me in Post #19
That statement was made in a specific CONTEXT, and served as a summary of the foregoing paragraphs.

In Post #22 maxparrish chose to cite my statement while omitting, not addressing, or in any way acknowledging the existence of that CONTEXT, is quoting out of CONTEXT as doing so is beneficial to his method of argument.
one of the most common of ******* and ******** political ploys. (avoiding calling a spade a spade here)

Here again, is that omitted CONTEXT;

The above taken in whole (along with my Post #14 regarding 'a modicum of academic and intellectual integrity') relates directly to the matter of Mike Adams employment of his high intelligence and forensic academic abilities, and a level of personal integrity to examine the claims of the religion he has chosen to align himself with, and only peripherally does it relate to the quality of his academic literary output, or abilities as a instructor, in regard to whether his Christian bias and association affects the quality of, or accuracy of his reasoning and judgment in matters other than his religion.
I do believe that it does, but that was not at all the premise of my statement.

I would make a similar statement regarding any other educated individual, irregardless of political affiliation, that for whatever reason joins, endorses, and sacrificing personal integrity, uses the christian horse shit religion for political advancement, whether down at the local town hall, in the halls of acadameia, or in the halls of Government and Justice.

One of the disadvantages of digging deep to throw up an obscuring cloud of dust is that one only ends up digging his hole much deeper. The fact remains that you have made a number of assertions regarding Dr. Adams professional integrity and accomplishment without substantive support.

You still have not produced any support.