Table of Contents
On Free Speech, Double Standards, and Professor Mike Adams
Mike Adams, a professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW), is no stranger to controversy.
In 2014, Adams won a First Amendment lawsuit alleging that UNCW retaliated against him for his public expression of conservative views. Now, Adams once again finds himself at the over the boundaries of free speech鈥攂ut this time the university appears to be squarely on the side of free speech, and will hopefully stay that way.
In September, Adams harshly criticizing a UNCW student who received a visit from the Secret Service after she posted on Facebook that 鈥淸y]鈥檃ll are not prepared for what I鈥檓 about to do鈥 at an upcoming Donald Trump rally on campus. Adams was not kind to the student in his article. He called her a 鈥渃onfused teenager鈥 who, by describing herself as a 鈥渜ueer Muslim social justice warrior,鈥 was putting on 鈥渁n act designed to fit into as many victim categories as humanly possible.鈥 It is certainly understandable why the student was offended by Adams鈥 piece.
Now, however, Adams is being accused of far more than mere offensiveness. Multiple groups have referred to his article as 鈥渉arassment,鈥 and there is a with over 4,000 signatures calling for his removal from UNCW. In addition to the September article, Adams鈥 opponents are pointing to his long history of controversial comments about race, religion, and sexuality in the news and on social media.
Thankfully, UNCW is standing up for Adams鈥 right to free speech. In a statement to , the university said:
Dr. Adams鈥檚 online column and social media presence represent his personal expressions and opinions on a variety of topics. These expressions and opinions are neither within the requested scope of Dr. Adams鈥檚 duties with the university, nor do they represent the views of this institution. However, they are expressions protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
UNCW clearly learned its lesson from Adams鈥 successful lawsuit (in one portion of which FIREjoined the American Association of University Professors and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in filing an amici curiae brief about the importance of faculty free speech rights). It is rare to see a university come down so squarely on the side of free speech in the face of public pressure. Indeed, the past several years have been rife with examples of faculty members facing disciplinary action for their political speech:
- In 2013, University of Kansas professor David Guth was suspended after he posted a tweet鈥攊n the wake of a mass shooting鈥攖hat said, of the National Rifle Association, 鈥淣ext time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.鈥
- In 2014, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rescinded a job offer to Steven Salaita over his controversial tweets about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His tweets such as, 鈥淏y eagerly conflating Jewishness and Israel, Zionists are partly responsible when people say antisemitic shit in response to Israeli terror.鈥 Salaita sued the university and settled $875,000.
- Just last month, Oberlin College , an assistant professor, following inflammatory statements she made on Facebook. Among other things, that ISIS was 鈥渁 CIA and Mossad operation鈥 and shared posts suggesting that prominent Jews 鈥渙wn your news, the media, your oil, and your government.鈥
And currently, an administrator at Ohio State University (OSU) is the subject of an because of a Facebook post in which she called for 鈥渃ompassion鈥 for a student who perpetrated a violent attack鈥 inspired by ISIS鈥攁t OSU on Monday. The university has so far defended her right to free speech, that the Facebook post 鈥渃learly is not an official statement of the university and represents her own personal viewpoint.鈥
As Adams鈥 and these other examples clearly illustrate, individuals come under fire for public comments representing viewpoints from across the political spectrum. This is why it is so important to defend the principle of free speech without regard to one鈥檚 personal feelings about the views being expressed. I wonder: Would those who signed the petition calling for Adams鈥 removal also sign the petition for the OSU administrator鈥檚 removal, or vice versa? Or are their actions motivated purely by their dislike of the particular views each speaker is expressing?
I highlight the obvious parallels in all of these cases in the hope that more people will come to understand the critical importance of consistency on the issue of free speech. Too often, universities鈥攁nd the general public鈥攈ave a double standard: They wax poetic about freedom when their side is under fire, but remain silent, or even call for censorship, when the shoe is on the other foot. If eleven years at FIREhave taught me one thing, it is that the shoe will always find its way to the other foot. Which is why, for free speech and open debate to truly flourish on campus and beyond, this double standard needs to end once and for all.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.