After over six years of litigation, Mike Adams has won the right to present his retaliation case to a jury of his peers.  Back in 2006, he was denied promotion to full professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.  At the time, he had multiple awards and rave reviews from students for his teaching, he had published more peer-reviewed articles than all but two of his colleagues, and he had a distinguished record of service both on and off campus, culminating in earning UNCW’s highest service award.  But to his colleagues and department chair, all of this was inadequate, even though, for most of them, Dr. Adams’ accomplishments surpassed their own.  So—in a process replete with procedural irregularities, conflicts of interests, and vitriolic criticism of Dr. Adams’ Townhall.com columns and his conservative and Christian beliefs—they denied him the promotion he so richly deserved.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Adams filed suit because it is unconstitutional for public officials, including UNCW professors and administrators, to retaliate against an employee for expressing his views on critical social and political topics.  And at first, his case faced some difficulties when the district court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect his columns.  But after Dr. Adams appealed, the Fourth Circuit disagreed, and not only did it rule that his columns qualified as protected, private speech, but it also ruled that the UNCW officials could be held personally liable if Dr. Adams ultimately won the case.

The Fourth Circuit then asked the district court to answer one question:  Was there evidence that Dr. Adams lost that promotion because of his columns and the views expressed in them?  And in a decision released last Friday, the district court answered that question with a resounding “yes,” setting the case up for a jury trial:

Here, plaintiff has brought forth evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to deny [promotion] to plaintiff.  The court need not detail the evidence, but plaintiff has produced evidence which . . . shows the following:  (1) his internal evaluations declined after he began the speech at issue; (2) faculty attempted to stop or alter his speech; (3) the denial of his application to full professor was in temporal proximity to Adams’ columns openly criticizing the University on certain political and social issues; (4) the written comments of the faculty on the [promotion] decision committee show hostility toward plaintiff’s speech; and, (5) a faculty member who had accused plaintiff of harassment was allowed to participate and vote on the plaintiff’s application for promotion.

At trial this fall, a North Carolina jury will hear evidence supporting each of these points, plus several more.  And when it does, we are confident that it will uphold a simple principle articulated by Jordan Lorence:  “No university should refuse promotion to an accomplished professor simply because it disagrees with his religious and political views.”

At Brooklyn College this week, it seems that everyone is talking about academic freedom.  A student group, Brooklyn College Students for Justice in Palestine, organized an event highlighting the “BDS” movement, which advocates for a boycott of Israel, urges people to divest companies that do business in Israel, and promotes sanctions against Israel.  Holding this event in Brooklyn naturally sparks controversy, and the controversy only grew when the political science department chose to co-sponsor it.

Hoping to quell the critics, President Gould issued a letter outlining her commitment to free speech and academic freedom.  She observed that “[s]tudents and faculty . . . have the right to invite speakers, engage in discussion, and present ideas to further educational discussion and debate.”  She noted that the “mere invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of any particular point of view, and there is no obligation, as some have suggested, to present multiple perspectives at any one event.”  Indeed, this is, in her mind, the very purpose of a university:  “Providing an open forum to discuss important topics, even those many find highly objectionable, is a centuries-old practice on university campuses around the country.  Indeed, this spirit of inquiry and critical debate is a hallmark of the American education system.”  Thus, she emphasized that “it is essential that Brooklyn College remain an engaged and civil learning environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

Not only is this her position, but the political science department also “fully agrees and has reaffirmed its longstanding policy to give equal consideration to co-sponsoring speakers who represent any and all points of view.”  Those faculty also assured students that they “welcome—indeed encourage—requests to co-sponsor speakers and events from all student groups, departments, and programs.”

While many, such as Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, may be skeptical, students should embrace the tremendous opportunity the President just gave them.  They now have an open invitation—from the President herself—to put the College to the test.  Does it really treasure academic freedom?  Does it really celebrate vigorous debate of “any and all points of view”—even controversial or “highly objectionable” ones?  Is it really an “environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal”?  Or is all of this just empty rhetoric administrators trots out when citizens object to leftist or politically correct ideas?

Well, as they say, actions speak louder than words.  Students can find out what the College really believes by organizing a whole series of events—complete with speakers and panel discussions—in keeping with the “BDS” theme:

Students United for Israel could call for a boycott of the PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups that seek to destroy Israel; for the divestment of entities that financially support those racist—and often terrorist—groups; and for sanctions against those entities.

The Newman Catholic Club could call for a boycott of states that endorse same-sex “marriage” (including New York), for the divestment of groups that support same-sex “marriage,” and for sanctions against Catholics who stray from the Church’s teachings on this subject.

Chinese Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of China due to its forced abortion policies and religious persecution, for the divestment of companies doing business in China, and for sanctions against China.

Brooklyn College Intercollegiate Studies Institute Group could call for states to boycott the Obamacare exchanges, for the divestment of groups that supported Obamacare (e.g., AARP), and for sanctions against Obama administration officials for implementing Obamacare.

The Coptic Christian Club could call for a boycott of the Muslim Brotherhood due to its persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, for the divestment of companies that do business in Egypt, and for sanctions against that country.

Intervarsity Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, for the divestment of all businesses that support Planned Parenthood (e.g., Susan G. Komen for the Cure), and for sanctions against Planned Parenthood because of its taxpayer fraud.

Once these groups have organized their own BDS events and invited the speakers, they should ask the political science department—or even the President’s Office—to serve as co-sponsors.  Perhaps it could even be the College’s theme for the semester.

The responses to such invitations would be telling.  If the President and the political science faculty were to decline for one lame excuse or another or if they were to insist on a more “balanced” presentation, students could simply say, in the monotone the National Weather Service patented:  “This is a test.  This is a test of academic freedom at Brooklyn College.”  Then they could call a group that really believes in academic freedom—the Alliance Defending Freedom.

On this blog, university speech codes and the evils associated with them are a frequent topic.  Our website outlines many the ways that these policies violate the First Amendment, and God has repeatedly blessed our efforts to eliminate these restrictions on free speech with success.  Not only have federal courts struck down these speech codes in places like California, Washington, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, but our victories even have also impacted other governmental bodies.

But our friends at FIRE recently unveiled a new way of illustrating the problems with speech codes—a video replete with whiteboard illustrations.  Lasting just over five minutes, Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate outlines the prevalence of speech codes (over 65% of universities have them) and gives examples of the absurd and biased way these speech codes are enforced to silence conservative students.  It also discusses the long-term harms that speech codes produce.  Not only do they eliminate the freedom of students to hold and articulate unpopular views, but the speech code mentality has also at times leeched out into society at large, cutting off debate and polarizing our civil discourse. 

How do they cover all this material in five minutes?  Well, you will have to watch this entertaining and informative video to find out.  Afterwards, contact us to see if your college or university is among the 65% and to learn what you can do about it.

President John F. Kennedy once said, “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”  This week, threats against the rights of two academics have come into the limelight.  In Maryland, Gallaudet University, the nation’s leading school for the deaf, put its chief diversity officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, on leave for signing a petition to place a referendum on the November ballot.  Why did Gallaudet take this action?  Well, the referendum was not just about taxes or redistricting, it asks whether Maryland citizens want to redefine marriage to allow for same-sex “marriage.”  McCaskill did not express her support or oppositions to that position, she simply agreed that the people of Maryland should have the final say on that question.  Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to Gallaudet, decrying the university’s actions and detailing the laws it may have broken.

In Iowa, a jury trial began in a lawsuit filed by a prospective professor at the University of Iowa College of Law.  Teresa Wagner applied for a full-time legal writing position at the law school, but alleges the school eventually hired less qualified instructors over her because of her conservative political views.  Wagner previously worked for the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council and claims that 90% of the law school’s faculty are registered Democrats.

These situations are but two more examples of the bias on universities campuses and the danger we all face if we trample the rights of others.  Too often, views outside the liberal mainstream on campus are not considered and debated, but excluded from the conversation altogether.  Alliance Defending Freedom is working to protect the academic freedom of faculty like Dr. McCaskill and Ms. Wagner.  And we have prevailed in lawsuits from coast to coast.  If you encounter a similar problem on your campus, please let us know.

As my last post indicated, the keepers of what is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas at our nation’s colleges and universities are increasingly liberal.  Professor Volokh’s recent survey of law school constitutional law professors only confirms this trend. It indicates they overwhelming support redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to “marry.” A full 87% of constitutional law professors answered “yes” to two questions:  Question 1: “As a policy matter, do you think states should legalize same-sex marriages?” Question 2: “As a policy matter, do you support federal recognition of same-sex marriages legalized by the states?” This starkly liberal view of marriage is in marked contrast to the rest of the population where only about 50% approve of same-sex “marriage.” Con law professors are even more liberal than folks identifying themselves as “LGBT” – only 85% of whom support redefining marriage.

The good professor notes that this is a huge shift, but it is not a surprising one. In 2004 a survey indicated that 69% of college professors thought homosexual behavior is “not wrong at all” The social and political views of american professors. What is surprising is Professor Volokh’s survey indicates 78% of con law professors at religiously affiliated schools support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

So whether you are attending a pubic university or a private Christian college, it is very likely that your biblical views of marriage are going to be contradicted by the professors you are sitting under. What’s worse, some professors take it upon themselves to vilify and even kick students out of school because they dare to adhere to biblical moral standards. We’ve represented students that experienced both of these types of discrimination and you can read about them here and here.

But thankfully, the constitution still provides protection for public school students who don’t subscribe to increasingly liberal attitudes toward sexual morality. And even private universities often provide protections for academic freedom for their students. Contact us at www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org for more information.