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

[Jarhyn]

If you want to get an idea of how his bias is creeping into his academic field of study, try reading his articles on TownHall.com. The evidence is there for all to see. He advocates things directly opposed to the body of evidence. He is a criminologist, and the conservative fundamentalist Christian view of sin, crime, evil, and ethical determination is at utter odds with the academic body of research and knowledge. Would you let an anti-vax germ-theory-denier on the homeopathic warpath remain as a teacher at a medical school?

 

[laughing dog]

"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.

A much less verbose response is that you have no substantiated evidence. In the past, you have routinely decried judge and jury opinions which disagree with your views in the past, so I find your appeal to their authority or judgment now rather ironic. I have little faith that either a jury or a judge has the competence to make such judgments concerning academic quality or competence. However, I have been in academia long enough to know that college professors of all political persuasions can be petty ideological asses to one another.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to get an idea of how his bias is creeping into his academic field of study, try reading his articles on TownHall.com. The evidence is there for all to see. He advocates things directly opposed to the body of evidence. He is a criminologist, and the conservative fundamentalist Christian view of sin, crime, evil, and ethical determination is at utter odds with the academic body of research and knowledge. Would you let an anti-vax germ-theory-denier on the homeopathic warpath remain as a teacher at a medical school?

And even if one does (as is the case in this situation), why would one think such a person merited a promotion?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would you let an anti-vax germ-theory-denier on the homeopathic warpath remain as a teacher at a medical school?

Sure. To teach how to estimate how much malpractice insurance you should carry, or where to hide unreported income. Maybe how to avoid sexual harrassment of nurses...?
Nothing that requires sterility, obviously, but some of the peripheral stuff.
Oh! How to parallel park limos, wearing tuxes to charity dinners...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The school says he has virtually no single authored peer reviewed publications.

 

[maxparrish]

...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.

No doubt his political views and work are 'off the liberal-left reservation', and distinctly conservative. However, other than your instinctive antipathy for views contrary to your Zeitgeist, you have not provided any evidence or reason to believe that his teachings or research are unacceptable; after all, his publishing record in "peer-reviewed, yay!" journals is better than most of those promoted in his department, and by all accounts (including his critics) his teaching was superior (if not the best).

It is rather common these days turn a clearly political persecution and/or political discrimination into a trial of the offensiveness of a victim's views; after all, there would not have to be a witch burning if the witch did not hold the devil's views, and one cannot ever give the devil his due. Correct?

The issue is not whether or not a person would find Mike Adam's view of concealed carry in bars as reasonable, but of his teaching content and effectiveness, and his peer journal publishing record. If, as it seems, they pass muster I "propose a college deal with it" by giving him a promotion, rather carry on a campaign of persecution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No doubt his political views and work are 'off the liberal-left reservation', and distinctly conservative. However, other than your instinctive antipathy for views contrary to your Zeitgeist, you have not provided any evidence or reason to believe that his teachings or research are unacceptable; after all, his publishing record in "peer-reviewed, yay!" journals is better than most of those promoted in his department,

That is unsubstantiated. His lawyers said he published more than average in the department, but his department noted that he published virtually no single authored works.

and by all accounts (including his critics) his teaching was superior (if not the best).

That "if not the best" is unsupported by anything presented. His reviews were reported as being above average, however, good reviews from students don't necessarily equate how well he is teaching.

It is rather common these days turn a clearly political persecution and/or political discrimination into a trial of the offensiveness of a victim's views; after all, there would not have to be a witch burning if the witch did not hold the devil's views, and one cannot ever give the devil his due. Correct?

Well, you started this whole thing off as him being attacked partially because he was Christian. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that is the case, so I'd agree with your witch hunt on "witch hunters".

The issue is not whether or not a person would find Mike Adam's view of concealed carry in bars as reasonable, but of his teaching content and effectiveness, and his peer journal publishing record.

Of which you really only have very little data.

 

[maxparrish]

In due course I will respond to the (specious) point or two raised by the prior posters, but my research is uncovering so many delightful nuggets I cannot resist presenting them upon discovery. Mike Adams first difficulty arose after he became a Christian and became politically conservative (in 2000). The first incident alluded to earlier was his disagreement with an unsolicited 11/17/2001 email sent by Rosa Fuller, student and daughter of Philosophy Professor Patti Turrisi, the director of the Center for
Teaching Excellence at UNCW. Addressed to the faculty and students of UNC, and sent to seventeen individuals, it is was ranting diatribe on the causes of 9/11, based on her consultation with the teachings of the World Socialist Website, it stated (in part):

...We must untiringly examine causes and effects, and not allow any feelings of anger or depression to permanently cloud our vision. In light of this, we must not for a moment forget the following: (1) the US government has been engaged in a combination of occupation and imperialist warfare in the Middle East, aimed at domination of its oil resources, for nearly two decades; (2) the US government gives its unequivocal support to Israel’s assassination of Palestinians who are ‘suspected’ of being terrorists, falsely claiming that any opposition to murder committed in the name of the Israeli government amounts to Nazism; (3) as the World Socialist Website put it "far from America being ‘the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world,’ the US is seen by tens of millions as the main enemy of their human and democratic rights, and the main source of their oppression. The American ruling elite, in its insolence and cynicism, acts as if it can carry out its violent enterprises around the world without creating the political conditions for violent acts of retribution" and; (4) "both bin Laden and the Taliban mullahs, whom the US accuses of harboring him, were financed and armed by the Reagan-Bush administration to fight pro-Soviet regimes in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If they are involved in Tuesday’s operations, then the American CIA and political establishment are guilty of having nurtured the very forces that carried out the bloodiest attack on American civilians in US history"; (5) innocent Arab and Muslim Americans, including children, are being attacked and threatened in the chauvinist, racist fervor stirred by the war-mongering US media; (6) whatever their true feelings, the Bush administration stands, in several respects, to benefit from the results of the ‘attack on America’: (i) the current situation serves as a distraction from the fact that President Bush was illegally appointed to office by the reactionary majority of the US Supreme Court, through suppression of votes, in stark violation of the US constitution, and (ii) the current crisis serves as justification, to the American people, for the continuation and intensification of US imperialist repression already in progress throughout the world. The future is not about revenge, but about life. A humanity worth fighting for is a humanity undivided by petty nationalistic, imperialist, bourgeois squabbling. When this squabbling takes the form of all out war and the deaths of untold thousands of ‘Americans’ and ‘foreigners,’ the struggle for rationality is transformed into the struggle between life and death. The time for silence is ended; the time for rational discussion is now.

If you support open, unbiased, democratic discussion of all the facts, please forward this e-mail to friends and acquaintances both on an off campus. For more detailed information, see www.wsws.org .

Adams replied (as did several students and a university lecturer). His full reply to her diatribe:

I will certainly forward this to others and I hope they will respond. My
response will be brief as your "statement" is undeserving of serious
consideration. Your claimed interest in promoting rational discussion is
dishonest. It is an intentionally divisive diatribe. The Constitution
protects your speech just as it has protected bigoted, unintelligent, and
immature speech for many years. But, remember, when you exercise your
rights you open yourself up to criticism that is protected by the same
principles. I sincerely hope that your bad speech serves as a catalyst for
better speech by others.

Mike Adams

Apparently the thin-skinned and cloistered Ms. Fuller was not used to anyone taking offense on her unsolicited screeds, excoriating all four respondents who replied to her email:

... (those responding to her) have violated my rights, as a member of this community, by sending me e-mail messages to my University address that are abusive, threatening, profane or libelous, in violation of the Code of Student Life and applicable personnel policies.

A University faculty member, Mike Adams, sent me an e-mail message, dated September 17, 2001, with the use of the University’s central computing facilities and services, from the address: adamsm@uncwil.edu, which berated me, with no semblance of an argument, with abusive epithets, which falsely represented me as "dishonest," "intentionally divisive," "bigoted," "unintelligent," and "immature." The intent of such a message is intimidation and defamation. ... I, therefore, ask the Office of Information Technology, and any other appropriate office or officer, to let me and my representatives inspect the e-mail messages Adams sent, from September 15 to September 18... If it is found that Adams sent his false representation of me to others, inside or outside the University community, and if these others acted on his false representation, and sent me abusive e-mail messages, then I also shall accuse him of libel."

Needless to say, her claim of libelous treatment at the university (and in the internet magazine Front Page) died.

http://www.oocities.org/uncwtruth/index.htm

 

[maxparrish]

Of equal interest is the fallout:

"53. On September 20, 2001, Dr. Adams received a phone call informing him that Dr. Turrisi had told other University employees that she and her daughter would initiate an investigation of Dr. Adams for “verbally abusing” Ms. Fuller in his response to her manifesto. According to Dr. Turrisi, Ms. Fuller had sent the e-mail only to Dr. Adams, which is patently false, and Dr. Adams had no right to forward the e-mail to others.

54. Later that day, the secretary for the Sociology and Criminal Justice Department informed Dr. Adams that Dr. Turrisi had called the department demanding to speak with Dr.
Willis, the department chairman.

55. Dr. Willis informed Dr. Adams that Dr. Turrisi demanded a list of the names of the people to whom Dr. Adams had sent Ms. Fuller’s e-mail. Dr. Turrisi also wanted to know
whether Dr. Adams had tried to “influence the discussion” of Ms. Fuller’s e-mail. Dr. Adams replied that influencing discussions was his job, not a crime. He declined to disclose to whom he had sent the e-mail.

After an investigation of Dr. Adams emails, and a flurry of repeated letters of demands of his emails to UNC attorney from Ms. Fuller (as well as public protests and legal threats from her parents) a second issue arose after Adams appeared on Hannity and Colmes:

"78. On November 9, 2001, Dr. Adams appeared as a guest on the Fox News television show Hannity & Colmes to discuss the unfolding controversy surrounding Ms. Fuller’s email
and UNCW’s decision to search Dr. Adams’ e-mail account to try to find evidence supporting her specious claims. A transcript of the Hannity & Colmes broadcast from November 9,
2001, is attached as Exhibit 29 to this Complaint.

79. On November 27, 2001, Dr. Lynn Snowden falsely charged Dr. Adams with a “hate crime.” In her charge of second degree breaking and entering, she alleged to UNCW police that Dr. Adams broke into her office to spray a poison gas, which she alleged was tear gas, in an attempt to poison her. The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) investigated this charge of “workplace terrorism” by interrogating Dr. Adams and taking swatches from the “crime scene” (i.e. Dr. Snowden’s office) to identify the poison. This investigation remained open until April of 2006.... (the police eventually wrote a memorandum stating they found no evidence of the allegation, and the case was unfounded.).

81. In April 2002, Dr. Adams informally requested that all records, items, reports, and transcripts related to the investigation of Dr. Snowden’s alleged incident of “workplace terrorism” be disclosed to him. When these requests failed, he formally requested the same in a letter to Mr. White on May 3, 2002....

Academia, what a zoo...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Adams replied (as did several students and a university lecturer). His full reply to her diatribe:

Apparently the thin-skinned and cloistered Ms. Fuller was not used to anyone taking offense on her unsolicited screeds, excoriating all four respondents who replied to her email

His response to the student was crass and unprofessional. Hell, it'd be mod'd at FRDB. His response could have been a tad bit more... umm... constructive.

 

[maxparrish]

That is unsubstantiated. His lawyers said he published more than average in the department, but his department noted that he published virtually no single authored works.

When speaking of what is 'substantiated' you might lead by example? You made an unsubstantiated claim about what his department noted, without quote, citation, or link. On the other hand, I have been quoting court briefs and judgments, and providing links. On scales of substantiation, need we say more?

Seventh, UNCW Officials applied manifestly higher research standards to Dr. Adams than any other current full professor in the Department.
They claim that research productivity was the “overriding concern” (J.A.184), but he excelled under every objective measure of this
criterion. The numbers do not lie. His eleven career peer-reviewed journal articles (J.A.130)14 exceeded the stated production levels of his
previous four department chairs (J.A.847-48, 1198, 1265-66, 1414-17, 1139-40) and the actual production of all but two professors in the
Department (including Dr. Cook, and Dr. Levy). (J.A.972.) His five publications since tenure similarly surpass all but two colleagues.
(J.A.974.) And his three single authored works exceed the Department average of 2.1. (J.A.973.)

Moreover, their post-hoc efforts to contest the “quality” of his research fail because his publications were peer-reviewed, which—according to
UNCW Officials—meets the “’gold standard’ for academic research.”(J.A.509-10.) Thus, Dr. Adams relies not on his own subjective assessment
of his research, but rather, on the quality standards admitted by his chair (and of course the objective boards of peers that reviewed and published
each of his works) and the objective numeric comparisons to the research quantity of other full professors in the Department. 15 Critically,
since 1983, no Department member with ten refereed publications has been denied promotion to full professor at the Department level, except for Dr.
Adams. (J.A.847-48.) This objective evidence raises a compelling inference of discrimination.

http://adfwebadmin.com/resources/Files/AvT Fourth Circuit Reply Brief.pdf

 

[blastula]

Court briefs are adversarial contentions, not established facts. The judgment didn't rule on all these specific claims.

 

[maxparrish]

Court briefs are adversarial contentions, not established facts. The judgment didn't rule on all these specific claims.

LOL...for what normally passes as "substantiated" for posters at FRDB-TF, its more than substantiated, its a natural law of the universe. Should we actually go to trial in a court of law, however, you objection is duly noted.

 

[blastula]

Don't know what any of that has to do with you passing off the plaintiff's briefs as gospel.

 

[maxparrish]

As no one has found any counterfactual to undermine the claims and cites to exhibits in the briefs, even a cited counterclaim, it is the best evidence we have of what transpired (that and jury's disagreements and judicial opinions).

If you need to fly to NC and inspect the exhibits, get back to us later and join the discussion.

 

[laughing dog]

As no one has found any counterfactual to undermine the claims and cites to exhibits in the briefs, even a cited counterclaim, it is the best evidence we have of what transpired (that and jury's disagreements and judicial opinions).

A pretty pathetic and hypocritical appeal to authority. From what I can tell, the decision to award tenure was essentially based on the judge's substitution of opinion for the department's. It may be the department was unfair (for example, other faculty were promoted to full professors without single author peer-reviewed work in similar quality journals). Maybe the dept. was not unfair in its judgment but the other nonsense obscured it.

A
If you need to fly to NC and inspect the exhibits, get back to us later and join the discussion.

Translation - you are literally pulling your claims out of your ass.

 

[maxparrish]

A pretty pathetic and hypocritical appeal to authority. From what I can tell, the decision to award tenure was essentially based on the judge's substitution of opinion for the department's. It may be the department was unfair (for example, other faculty were promoted to full professors without single author peer-reviewed work in similar quality journals). Maybe the dept. was not unfair in its judgment but the other nonsense obscured it.
Translation - you are literally pulling your claims out of your ass.

Rest assured, when 'appealing to authority' I am not so pathetic or hypocritical so as to cite the disgruntled stewing of "Laughing Dog" as authoritative. Your reflexive distrust of the opinion of judges and juries, your 'authority' in hanging around academia, may be impressive to you but I suggest you do more than cite yourself in an argument.

Your 'expertise' notwithstanding, we are fortunate to have more than an appeal to authority that is more knowledgeable than you, we also have the factual review and opinions of those authorites - those of the trial judges, and the arguments and citations made in briefs. In fact, we have the same category of background information used in scores of prior debates on FRDB on court issues. And as in FRDB prior discussions most of us have, including myself, either supported or objected to a judge or jury decision and/or reasoning based on the legal arguments, evidence, and moral issues involved. There is nothing hypocritical in doing so again.

But as you are unable to form an opinion on that basis, other than making personal denunciations and citing yourself, why are you here?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When speaking of what is 'substantiated' you might lead by example? You made an unsubstantiated claim about what his department noted, without quote, citation, or link.

I don't mean to knock you off your high horse, but I linked to it earlier in this thread (Post 17). The source is the same you used in the OP, just a different link.

 

[laughing dog]

Rest assured, when 'appealing to authority' I am not so pathetic or hypocritical so as to cite the disgruntled stewing of "Laughing Dog" as authoritative. Your gut 'trust' of the opinion judges and juries, your 'authority' in hanging around academia, may be impressive to you but I suggest you do more than cite yourself in an argument.

All I have done is ask for some actual evidence from you which you have refused to produce. My skepticism is based on my experience and observation. If you had actually bothered to read my posts with a modicum of elementary school comprehension, you would have noticed that I am not defending the school. Others have provided relevant refutations of your claims based on the actual evidence.

Your 'expertise' notwithstanding, we are fortunate to have more than an appeal to authority who is more knowledgeable than you, we also have the factual review and opinions of those authorites - those of the trial judges, and the arguments and citations made in briefs. In fact, we have the same category of background information used in scores of prior debates on FRDB on court issues. And as in FRDB prior discussions most of us, including myself, have either supported or objected to a judge or jury decision and/or reasoning based on the legal arguments, evidence, and moral issues involved. There is nothing hypocritical in doing so again.

You rely on their expertise and judgment without providing evidence (other than your glee that some "conservative" academic was awarded a promotion over the objections of "liberal" colleagues). Coming from someone who routinely derides judges and juries when they arrive at opinions and verdicts with which you disagree, this is hypocritical.

But as you are unable to form an opinion on that basis, other than making personal denunciations and citing yourself, why are you here?

I am unable to form a cogent opinion because the available evidence is lacking. Your response of "If you need to fly to NC and inspect the exhibits, get back to us later and join the discussion." is an explicit recognition of your failure to substantiate your claims. Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question you ask of me. I just wonder if you have the courage and reason to admit that it is to simply pull responses out of your ass.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

One of the disadvantages of digging deep to throw up an obscuring cloud of dust

No cloud of dust here except the one you are trying to use to cover the FACT that you deliberately quoted my statement out of context.
Which anyone with a grasp of basic English may determine by reading the material in its original and complete context.

is that one only ends up digging his hole much deeper.

And you don't have the good sense to stop doing so.

The fact remains that you have made a number of assertions regarding Dr. Adams professional integrity and accomplishment without substantive support.

The fact is, I have made a number of assertions regarding Mark Adams selling out both his rationality and his personal integrity for politics.
He did so when he joined himself to an insane Zombie death cult whose fundamental claim is that the entire universe and every thing in it is the creation of a Jewish man who died 2000 years ago, and now lives on forever as the zombie king. And a pile of other accompanying Christian horse shit.

Again, it makes no difference to me what political party or wing of politics he aligns himself with.
He flushed his personal and academic integrity and credibility down the drain when he snuggled up with the Jezuz freaks. It wouldn't make any difference if he had cuddled up with the christers that infect the Democratic Party.

You still have not produced any support.

As the basis all of my statements is Mike Adams self-professed religion, it is evident that he makes claims to a Christian conversion, and to holding Christian beliefs.
Do you wish to deny his claim of being a Christian?

 

[pegasus8]

These Christian Conservative Political Ideologues Want Our Public Universities Now To Control Like....

they are destroying America.

Yep noting like using the 1st Amendment rights to get your way and piss off your bosses I always like to say. Right Max?
Heh MaxP you keep going on about the legal briefs, decisions, determinations and settlement. Dude we get it OK. Is not this point Moot?

I mean your hero had the backing of the Alliance Defending Freedom from Arizona right? And we all know that the ADF has the $$$ financial backing of the National Christian Charitable Foundation which has a religious ideological war chest in the 100's of $millions! Or is this where one gets to use the old adage of where are your cites and sources? Come on dude I thought that we all got our degrees a long time ago.

Thanks MaxP. Maybe I can help illuminate and reveal what a dangerous ideologue this hero is to the Christian conservative right supported by the ADF, the NCCF, the Becket Fund, et al.

Oh and did you conveniently forget to mention in this thread that cry baby Mike Adams lost on his claim for an additional settlement of emotional damage and distress. Darn!

Peace bro

Pegasus