Jump to content

University Stung By Jury Verdict Over Religious Retaliation


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

A jury in North Carolina has decided that a university retaliated against a professor who got accolades from colleagues when, as an atheist, he was hired, but then faced retaliation when he became a Christian.

The damages for Mike Adams, a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, will be determined later.

But officials from two major legal teams, the the Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Center for Law and Justice, agreed it was a significant finding.

ADF represented Adams together with lead counsel David French, who began the case with ADF and now litigates for the ACLJ.

A former atheist, Adams frequently received praise from his colleagues after the university hired him as an assistant professor in 1993 and promoted him to associate professor in 1998.

But some of his views on political and social issues soon reflected his adoption of Christianity in 2000, and the legal teams reported subsequently, the university subjected Adams to a campaign of academic persecution, including intrusive investigations, baseless accusations and other factors that culminated in his denial of promotion to full professor, despite an award-winning record of teaching, research, and service.

In his lawsuit against the university, attorneys argued that officials denied him a deserved promotion because they disagreed with the content of his nationally syndicated opinion columns that espoused religious and political views contrary to the opinions held by university officials.

Named as defendants were the school and its trustees and a multitude of other school officials, including a dean, Stephen McNamee, and chancellor, Gary Miller.

The jury simply said “Yes” when asked “Was the plaintiff’s speech activity a substantial or motivating factor in the defendants’ decision to not promote” Adams.

The jury also found that the defendants would not have made the same decision “in the absence of plaintiffs’ speech activity.”

“We are grateful that the jury today reaffirmed the fundamental principle that universities are a marketplace of ideas, not a place where professors face retaliation for having a different view than university officials,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Travis Barham, who participated in the trial this week. “As the jury decided, disagreeing with an accomplished professor’s religious and political views is no grounds for denying him a promotion.”

“The jury saw what we have long known to be true about the wrong done to Dr. Adams,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “The verdict is a powerful message for academic freedom and free speech at America’s public universities.”

“We’re grateful the jury determined what we have long known to be true – that the university violated Dr. Adams’ constitutional rights when it denied his promotion,” said French, ACLJ senior counsel. “This is an important victory for academic freedom and the First Amendment.”

 

University stung by jury verdict over religious retaliation

 

I believe this David French is the same LDS-friend David French of evangelicalsformitt.org fame and columnist for Patheos.

 

Link to comment

Looks like nothing that would have affected the case.  I like Adams' future plans.  The 1st Amendment rights of speech and religion have been trampled by universities for decades and here is someone willing to put it all on the line to get it back.

Link to comment

Looks like nothing that would have affected the case.  I like Adams' future plans.  The 1st Amendment rights of speech and religion have been trampled by universities for decades and here is someone willing to put it all on the line to get it back.

 

No one not even the school violated his right to free speech or his religion. No one else should be required to pay him for him using his freedom of speech or religion. You have the right to teach your children anything you want. But the public university probably isn't the best place to promote things like this nonsense.

 

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

 

Once you get beyond simple addition and subtract all math is based on set theory. IE; How many sets of 5 are in 25?

Link to comment

No one not even the school violated his right to free speech or his religion. No one else should be required to pay him for him using his freedom of speech or religion. You have the right to teach your children anything you want. But the public university probably isn't the best place to promote things like this nonsense.

 

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

 

Once you get beyond simple addition and subtract all math is based on set theory. IE; How many sets of 5 are in 25?

I would fire him. This is as silly as the Nazis pushing "Aryan math".

Link to comment

No one not even the school violated his right to free speech or his religion. No one else should be required to pay him for him using his freedom of speech or religion. You have the right to teach your children anything you want. But the public university probably isn't the best place to promote things like this nonsense.

 

 

 

You need to keep up with the news.  This happens all the time, e.g. teaching one's political and social philosophy, under the guise of academic freedom.  Only when someone injects religion/morality is it a punishable offense.

Link to comment

You need to keep up with the news.  This happens all the time, e.g. teaching one's political and social philosophy, under the guise of academic freedom.  Only when someone injects religion/morality is it a punishable offense.

But when someone is teaching outright falsehoods.......

Link to comment

No one not even the school violated his right to free speech or his religion. No one else should be required to pay him for him using his freedom of speech or religion. You have the right to teach your children anything you want. But the public university probably isn't the best place to promote things like this nonsense.

 

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

 

Once you get beyond simple addition and subtract all math is based on set theory. IE; How many sets of 5 are in 25?

 

If it weren't college I might agree with you but universities are supposed to encourage looking for divergent views.

Link to comment

If it weren't college I might agree with you but universities are supposed to encourage looking for divergent views.

Divergent views are fine. IE; We can discuss which flavor of ice cream is best from now until eternity. However not all ideas are of equal worth. It is a totally fallacious idea that my ideas are somehow equal to your facts. Look the people who write those books are not stupid. They just think you are. A  stupid person is much easier to fool and control than someone with more intelligence than a gently stewed stalk of rhubarb.

 

Every math idea past simple addition and subtraction is based on set theory. IE; If you can't figure out how many sets of 5 are in 25? How on God's green earth can you determine the cost benefit ratio if you have no clue as to what a ratio is?

Link to comment

Divergent views are fine. IE; We can discuss which flavor of ice cream is best from now until eternity. However not all ideas are of equal worth. It is a totally fallacious idea that my ideas are somehow equal to your facts. Look the people who write those books are not stupid. They just think you are. A  stupid person is much easier to fool and control than someone with more intelligence than a gently stewed stalk of rhubarb.

 

Every math idea past simple addition and subtraction is based on set theory. IE; If you can't figure out how many sets of 5 are in 25? How on God's green earth can you determine the cost benefit ratio if you have no clue as to what a ratio is?

This. Wanting to teach that set theory is false or equally valid is like teaching creationism as science or insisting that your views that the moon is made of Gorgonzola cheese has equal merit to the idea that the moon is rock made up of varying common elements. People teaching crap like that should be shunned because they are objectively wrong.

Link to comment

I happen to know of a great little bistro just on the south edge of Mare Crisium that serves the best Gorgonzola. They dig it up from the basement supply tunnel.

Science tries to answer "why " questions, like 'why is the sky blue ?'. Through repeatable experimentation scientists usually can find some reasonable if not always precise answers. It is when it tries to answer the ' Why are we here?' types of questions which so far have eluded repeatable experiments, that they tread on the thin ice of philosophy.

Link to comment

Science tries to answer "why " questions, like 'why is the sky blue ?'. Through repeatable experimentation scientists usually can find some reasonable if not always precise answers. It is when it tries to answer the ' Why are we here?' types of questions which so far have eluded repeatable experiments, that they tread on the thin ice of philosophy.

 

Yeah, but this guy is arguing against the one area of science that seems in every respect to be absolute: math. You can't politicize or philosophize math away. You can argue it has something to say about the Universe but you can't debate against it. Anyone who argues that 2+2=5 would rightly be shunned and fired if they were teaching. I am not sure why they are letting this jackass get away with it.

Link to comment

Yeah, but this guy is arguing against the one area of science that seems in every respect to be absolute: math. You can't politicize or philosophize math away. You can argue it has something to say about the Universe but you can't debate against it. Anyone who argues that 2+2=5 would rightly be shunned and fired if they were teaching.

 

 

Yes, but the teacher can use math problems which are highly offensive, which have been reported in the media.

Link to comment

Joe was a plantation owner in Macon, Georgia.  He had 173 slaves on his plantation in January 1834, and bought 63 in March and 75 in May, but 16 escaped and died during the year.  How many slaves did he have at the end of the year?

 

(This is supposed to combine history with math)

Link to comment

Joe was a plantation owner in Macon, Georgia.  He had 173 slaves on his plantation in January 1834, and bought 63 in March and 75 in May, but 16 escaped and died during the year.  How many slaves did he have at the end of the year?

 

(This is supposed to combine history with math)

Word problems are math with extra junk tacked on. Math isn't the problem.

Link to comment

I happen to know of a great little bistro just on the south edge of Mare Crisium that serves the best Gorgonzola. They dig it up from the basement supply tunnel.

Science tries to answer "why " questions, like 'why is the sky blue ?'. Through repeatable experimentation scientists usually can find some reasonable if not always precise answers. It is when it tries to answer the ' Why are we here?' types of questions which so far have eluded repeatable experiments, that they tread on the thin ice of philosophy.

 

Actually science doesn't care about why. All it cares about is how. Our sky is blue because of the amount of oxygen in it. Oxygen scatters blue light better than red light.  Mars sky is reddish pink because of the relative lack of oxygen. How we are here is because of the science of evolution. 

 

For why we are here ask God.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...