Get Out of My Class and Leave America


#1

We need more people like him.

I really liked his response on Church and State and the Constitution.

Pure awesomeness!:flag:

(Going Viral)

Get Out of My Class and Leave America - Mike Adams - Page full


#2

Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington

What’s at stake

(1) The right of university professors of any faith or political perspective to express their views without facing retaliation from government officials.

(2) The right of conservatives and Christians to serve as university professors without experiencing discrimination and retaliation for expressing their views and beliefs.

(3) The right of conservative and Christian university professors to receive a fair evaluation, without being punished or passed over because they express opinions that university officials do not like.

When Dr. Adams arrived at UNCW in 1993, he was a liberal atheist.

In 2000, Dr. Adams became a Christian, and his conversion impacted his political views.

When Dr. Adams applied for promotion to full professor in 2006, he had no idea he was about to embark upon a constitutional adventure that would last more than seven years. Given his record of accomplishment as a teacher, scholar, and community servant, he had little reason to be concerned about his prospects. But when he was denied promotion, he would gradually expose the depths of animosity towards Christians and conservatives at UNC-Wilmington.

In April, the district court ruled that UNCW must promote Dr. Adams to full professor and pay him $50,000 in back pay. In May, UNCW appealed the jury verdict and the court’s ruling. In June, the district court ordered UNCW to pay Dr. Adams’ attorneys’ fees.

Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington


#3

:yeahthat:


#4

I remember seeing this on Facebook. I’ll be very surprised if Adams is still working for that college.
In American alleged “higher education” there is no room for independent thought.


#5

I believe that he is still there.
Mike Adams: Sociology and Criminology: UNCW

Final victory: UNCW won’t appeal ruling in favor of professor denied promotion for his views

Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Quote

GREENVILLE, N.C. – Criminology professor Dr. Mike Adams’ seven-year quest to vindicate his First Amendment freedoms concluded with a settlement in his favor Tuesday. In March, a federal jury ruled that the University of North Carolina–Wilmington illegally retaliated against Adams when it denied him a promotion in 2006 because of his conservative views.

As part of the settlement in Adams v. The Trustees of the University of North Carolina–Wilmington, the university agreed to drop its appeal of a federal district court’s decision in Adams’ favor. The university also agreed to promote Adams to the position of full professor and pay him $50,000 in back pay as the court ordered, to adopt procedures protecting Adams from renewed retaliation, and to pay $615,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Adams v. The Trustees of the University of North Carolina


#6

Here is a site that allows students to rate their professors.

Looking at the comments from his students … I’d say he has a lot of fans.

Mike Adams at University of North Carolina Wilmington - RateMyProfessors.com


#7

This reminds me of two classes I had in college. In a tax course we had to rate the teacher. This was the first time I had encountered this while going and it maybe because she was new. Well the class gave her a poor rating because she really did not explain things properly and kept throwing up at us how she held a job took care of her children and still had a full load of classes… What I got out of that class was it depended on how you held your mouth that day that determined what rule you would follow for a tax problem. This still applies today. If you call the IRS they tell you that their advice maybe wrong.

Next I had a class in Excel and we had to provide email accounts so the teacher could give you lesson plans. He liked to send jokes.


#8

Okay…I bookmarked that one. Love it!

Purrs,
Tigger


#9

I had an attorney professor in Business Law. The guy had us all write a paper on Marberry vs Madison, expecting us to JUSTIFY it. Mine didn’t (the only one in a class of 30) and he pointed out that my reasoning was wrong and we discussed it at length in class. By the end of the second class period, half the class agreed with MY assessment of it. I maintained (and still do) that Marberry applies ONLY if the SCOTUS bases it’s “interpretations” of the Constitution on what it actually SAYS and what the INTENT was of those who wrote and ratified it and that EXPANDING (or contracting) the Constitution requires a Constitutional Amendment, which CANNOT be done BY the SCOTUS. For example, the Miranda rule of the Warren court was WRONG, because there is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires law enforcement to INFORM or WARN a suspect of his Constitutional rights before he can be questioned. I don’t deny that a suspect has the RIGHT to remain silent, etc., but that’s something every citizen should KNOW…and most do–especially criminals. By requiring law enforcement to REMIND a suspect of his/her rights, you often prevent him from admitting his crime when he might have otherwise been inclined to do so, making solving crimes just that much more difficult. If the conflict between criminals and law enforcement was on a level playing field, it might be different, but it’s not. Criminals can do or say anything that they want to keep being criminals. Law enforcement is constrained BY the law. Criminals aren’t, which is WHY they are criminals in the first place. Criminal defense attorneys aren’t constrained by the truth and can (and do) anything they like to get their client acquitted in court. Prosecutors are constrained by the law and MUST adhere to the truth or be disbarred.