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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Anijen
      Public, Religious, and Legal Viewpoints are Similar and Different. 
      I am interested in an amicable dialogue discussing state discrimination statutes that seemingly go head on with a person's right to express his/her religious beliefs. I often thought of the upcoming Court battle between state made discrimination laws against a person's right of religious expression. (Note: In legal opinions, dissents, and in law review journals,  when the word Court is capitalized it generally is referring to the United States Supreme Court and when the word court is not capitalized it means any other court under the Supreme Court.)
      It is generally known that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This simply means the Constitution is supreme to state made law, there are no exceptions for a state statute to have supremacy over the Constitution.
      Here, is the wording of the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 
      In this thread I would like to discuss (1) the ramifications of the religious and speech clauses of this amendment when juxtaposed between state made discriminatory statutes and (2) can a state government rightfully force a person to think, speak, and act if it allegedly violates a state statute which may be contrary to the First Amendment?  In that context please consider also the following:
      Sunday Closing Laws:  The Court has ruled that states cannot force an establishment to serve its customers on Sunday. This simply means the state cannot force a store to stay open or closed on Sundays.  IOW, a state statute would be unconstitutional to force a store owner to serve its customers on Sundays going against the owners religious beliefs. (see Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985).) Justice Alito recently decided with Justice Kagan saying "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." Justice Kagan (an Obama appointee) generally liberal minded in her decisions said that the Court must remain firm on this issue, during a time when free speech is under attack." I for one am happy to see how all the current justices cross political and religious opinions to uphold the freedom of speech. Legal Viewpoint: is based on legal doctrine. Public Viewpoint: is based on current public opinion of a certain topic. Religious Viewpoint: is based on religious beliefs. Regarding legal viewpoint (legal doctrine), which may or may not be contrary to a religious or a public viewpoint. It is nice to see the Court overrule a lower court's decision, when that decision was based from a public viewpoint or one that goes against a religious viewpoint (expression of belief).  In other words, to me, it is nice to see a ruling by a judge be based on a legal viewpoint.
      I will start.
      Abortion: I am against all abortion, believing it is simply the killing of a human or future human being. If you kill me when I was only a clump of cells or kill me when I am 50 years old, it is still killing me. Religiously, I feel I can argue my beliefs for this stand. I know my viewpoint is even more opposed than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which allows for very few exceptions in very rare situations). Same Sex Marriage: None of my business. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am not against the marriage of those of the same sex so that they may have all the legal benefits of a hetrosexual marriage. State Discriminatory Statutes: I think these type of statutes generally are unconstitutional on their face because they compel a person how one should think according to the authors views. I know the intentions are to eliminate discrimination which I am all for. However, I am NOT for the forced obedience to a state law that dictates how one should think. Even if at its worse a person is racist bigot, the government should not be able to punish that bigot for the thoughts he has. Yes, education is good to help eliminate racism or prejudice towards homosexuals. Yes, I believe we should also continue in church to love everyone, but we should not be forced in how to think. Forced Speech (forced to do or forced not to do): I am NOT for compelled speech, which could be literal (e.g. write this, perform this, bake this, arrange that, etc.). It also could be symbolic; (cannot burn the flag or you have to burn the flag. You cannot wear that arm band or you have to wear that arm band, you cannot bake a religious or secular cake, you have to bake a religious or secular cake). You have to conform to the way we think (i.e. no gay discrimination) and at the same time we [the state] is allowed to show hostility to you for your religious beliefs. Just an FYI; I own a franchise (a national carpet cleaning company) that covers five states. I have in the past and currently do and will continue to give service to all of my customers. I have many times given service to known gay customers, married and unmarried. I do not serve my good customers because I am compelled by law, but I serve them because I am a smart businessman and want to continue to have their support. However, I do not think carpet cleaning or all other ancillary services I offer do not go against my religious beliefs. I don't even think carpet cleaning is an artform, although I take great pride in the knowledge, skill, and ability to clean them (message me if you want before and after pics).  I would be against my church or my government compelling me to serve gays or I not to give service to gays. I would be against my church and government (be it local, state, or federal) compelling me to think a certain way, even if that way of thinking is good.
      I like my free-agency to think for myself!
      I would like to discuss from these viewpoints laws on abortion, same sex marriage, forced cake baking, flower arrangement, and photography for gay couples. Keep in mind, that these discussions must maintain a religious theme and not a political one. Please do NOT get political outside the topic of this thread. I would like it to remain open. It sometimes, it least to me, will appear that one will intentionally go political just to have a thread they disagree with or an argument that is not going their way intentionally shutdown. If that is you just bow out and simply choose not to participate.
       
    • By Mordecai
      I haven't been on this board for a long time, but I just finished reading _The Lincoln Hypothesis_, and I was wondering how many others had and how many others were persuaded of the truth of the author's inferences. Just a few claims from the book: Abraham Lincoln checked out the Book of Mormon and read it, leading up to the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's son died, and he began carrying around a pocket New Testament. He used a term from the BoMormon: "instrument in the hands of God," on at least five different occasions, to describe himself after having read the BoMormon. Lincoln returned the BoMormon to the Library of Congress only a week after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's first name, Abraham, was not a coincidence, just as Joseph Smith's name was not a coincidence. Lincoln had his own Hyrum, who was a target of an assassination attempt along with Lincoln. A miracle occurred after Lincoln covenanted with God that he would commit the United States to liberty, giving the North its first major victory. One Congressman said Lincoln's face "shined like a prophet," as he spoke of the North and South's need to repent and how God's will was that we have a land of liberty. Multiple dog ears were found on Lincoln's BoMormon, marking a passage in Isaiah that suggested that God would heal the land after repentance. Lincoln, when he was sworn in for his second term, had his hand on that verse in Isaiah. Lastly, Joseph Smith specifically said we needed new Amendments to control mobs and end slavery, which is what Lincoln brought about. I think I got much of what I found persuasive listed. Anyone else read it? Should the Church be jumping on board this "hypothesis" and support that Lincoln was doing the work Joseph Smith failed at when he was running for President, i.e. bringing the U.S. to repentance via a covenant with God and special amendments to the Constitution? For a used copy: https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781609078638
    • By Buckeye
      In a fairly new development, it appears that John Dehlin and Patrick Mason are collaborating on blog series at patheos: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormoninout/ The purpose of the series is to present a serious dialogue between a believer and a former believer. So far there are three posts, all of which are really good. John has asked pointed, but fair, questions. Patrick has done an admirable job in answering. Here's hoping that Patrick also asks John some difficult questions. 
      For my 2-cents, I believe that this blog series has the potential to be ground-breakingly good. I am hopeful that John and Patrick can bring to light many great insights. And perhaps more importantly, I am hopeful that by just trying, they are providing a needed example of how we LDS can productively dialogue with those of different beliefs (especially former believers).
       
       
    • By CWBstudy1
      Dear members of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board, 
       
      We’re doing an online survey about the experiences of Christians, and we hope you can participate! If you participate, you’ll complete a survey online and be able to enter to win a $15 gift card, and we are giving out 35 gift cards. Christians are a very under-studied group, and we’d love to hear from members your group. 
       
      You can participate if you are an adult, living in the United States, and identify as a Christian (all denominations are welcome!). 
       
      The web site for the study is: 
      http://tinyurl.com/ChristianStressStudy 
       
      Please note that we want to be clear that the purpose of this research is NOT to portray Christians in any negative light, whatsoever! We are interested in the daily stress experienced by Christians and factors such as whether they feel they can be open about their faith at work. Very little research has examined the experiences of Christians in this regard. 
       
      Please feel free to contact the study principal investigator, Dr. Mike Parent, directly at Michael.parent@ttu.edu if you have any questions or concerns at all about this study. 
       
      This study is being conducted by Dr. Mike Parent (Texas Tech University), Dr. Melanie Brewster (Teacher’s College), and Dr. Stephen Cook (Hardin-Simmons University). This study was approved by the Texas Tech Institutional Review Board, and posting this link was approved by your group moderator Nemesis (Thank you!). 
       
      Thank you! 
       
      Dr. Mike Parent 
      Dr. Melanie Brewster 
      Dr. Stephen Cook 
    • By Joshua Valentine
      [i saw the lower case LDS too late, and couldn't find a way to edit it.  I apologize for the error. Please let me know if there is a way to edit topic titles.  Thanks!]
       
      This topic is not about whether or not Mormons are Christians.  It is not about whether Mormonism is a Christian religion.
       
      It is about whether and how the LDS leadership undermines its own position, and that of the membership - that other Christian groups should recognize it, them, as Christians - when it refuses to recognize other Mormon groups as Mormons.
       
      Following are statements made by the LDS Church:
       
      1) A recent news story referred to fugitive Warren Jeffs as a “fundamentalist Mormon” and “leader of a polygamist breakaway Mormon sect.”
       
      Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To refer to them as “Mormon” is inaccurate.
      http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/fundamentalist-mormons
       
      2) Fact:
          There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
      http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/fundamentalist-mormons
       
      3) Recent news reports regarding various issues related to the practice of polygamy, especially focusing on groups in Southern Utah, Arizona and Texas, have used terms such as "fundamentalist Mormons," "Mormon sect" and "polygamous Mormons" to refer to those who practice polygamy.
          There is no such thing as a "polygamous" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
      http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/polygamous-mormons
       
      4) "...it is estimated that approximately 30,000 Mormons live in polygamous households in Utah."
      Fact:
          The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Groups that practice polygamy have nothing to do whatsoever with the Church and should not be referred to as Mormons.
      http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/30-000-mormon-polygamists
       
      5) There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.
      -President Gordon B. Hinckley
      https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng
       
      All of these official statements made by the LDS Church deny the use of “Mormon” when referring to polygamous or fundamentalist groups.  How is this to be justified when the LDS Church and its members decry Christian groups that refuse to refer to LDS as Christians or the LDS Church as a Christian church?
       
      In all of these quotes the term “Mormon” is being defined as a member of the LDS Church.  But that is at least an outdated definition - denying the reality of the existence and legitimacy of other groups that embrace Joseph Smith’s restoration and scriptures.  It is certainly self-serving, especially if used to differentiate between the “Mormon” issue and the “Christian” issue.
       
      Why do Christians deny that Mormons are Christians?  Why does the LDS Church deny that off-shoot Mormons are Mormons?
       
      See the following (especially in bold):
       
      6) The Associated Press style guide tells its reporters that the term Mormon “is not properly applied” to the other churches that resulted from the split after Joseph Smith's death. It should be obvious why the AP has adopted that policy. It is widely understood that the word “Mormon” refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sends out “Mormon missionaries,” sponsors the “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and builds “Mormon temples.” Associating the term ‘Mormon’ with polygamists blurs what should be a crystal-clear line of distinction between organizations that are entirely separate.
      http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/-mormons-and-polygamy
       
      While the terms LDS and Mormon are not brands in the commercial sense, these terms reflect the identity, reputation and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS Church has the right and expectation that the use of these terms will convey certain impressions to those who become aware of them. This is known in the business world as brand equity and in the words of NetMBA.com it "is an intangible asset that depends on associations made by the consumer."
      http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700224488/Adoption-of-FLDS-name-is-akin-to-identity-theft.html?pg=all
       
      Christians don’t want the public (consumers) to confuse Mormonism for Christianity.  LDS leadership doesn’t want the public to confuse Mormon off-shoots for Mormonism or the LDS Church.
       
      Insofar as the LDS Church denies off-shoot groups the name “Mormon”, the LDS Church undermines its call for non-LDS Christians to accept it as Christian.  In nearly every way that the LDS Church justifies denying “Mormon” to off-shoots, it justifies Christians denying “Christian” to Mormonism.
×
×
  • Create New...