I agree that as a matter of principle Professor Mike Adams was wrong to single out a UNCW student by name in such an incendiary way. His rhetoric was inflammatory and highly offensive to some, only furthering division on our campus. Professor Adams’ actions were morally wrong in my own judgement, along with much of the student body. The university however, does not make decisions based on subjective morality.

The present debate is not if Mike Adams’ rhetoric is inflammatory and morally reprehensible. Most people would agree that it is. The true debate is whether his viewpoints are so damaging that the university must censor them from us. So, should Adams be silenced because of his opinions?

The answer is simply. . . NO

This is not the first time that Dr. Adams has found himself in the media spotlight. In 2007, he applied for a promotion after fourteen years as an associate professor at UNCW. He previously won the professor of the year award in 1998 and 2000, and seemingly met all the other requisite requirements. Adams, however, was denied the promotion and later filed suit against the university for First Amendment based employment discrimination. Adams argued that he was denied the promotion based on his columns for the conservative news site Town Hall. 

Adams won the case, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling that the university could not use Adams articles in making employment decisions. The university had to promote Adams to full professor, and later paid him a settlement of $50,000 in back pay and another $700,000 to cover his legal fees.

According to the university’s prior case with Adams, his writings are constitutionally protected, but does his recent conduct rise to the level of harassment? That sounds like a question for a lawyer, of which I am not. But the university’s actions, or more accurately the lack thereof, are evidence that his actions are not considered harassment. 

With a yearly budget of nearly 300 million dollars, the university undoubtedly has more than a few lawyers. It is evident that these attorneys have advised the administration that Adams’ conduct does not meet any legal threshold and that any case would likely be a losing battle. It seems that Adams’ articles have been tasteless and divisive, but they are not yet legally reprehensible.

The university has been clear that it will not tolerate harassment on its campus. As numerous emails to the student body have reiterated, the administration encourages students to come forward about any harassing behavior.

Moreover, the university has addressed the harmful nature of Adams’s rhetoric. As Chancellor Vito Sarterelli commented recently, “Let me be clear: speech that is legal can also be hurtful. It deeply saddens me to see freedom of expression used as a weapon to degrade and demonize.” The university seems to have made the determination that Adams’ actions, while distasteful, are still legally protected. But the reason behind the university’s inaction far exceeds specific legal circumstances surrounding the definition of harassment. The university is also bound by one of the overarching principles that this country was founded on: the freedom of speech.

The argument for free speech is perhaps best articulated by philosopher John Stewart Mill in his 1864 book On Liberty. Mill argues that it is always wrong to silence an opinion because either:

One – the silenced opinion is correct, and the world misses out on the truth.

Or Two – you silence an untrue opinion, but the world still misses out on the debate.

Mill argued that ideas are not determined to be good because of some inherent rightness. Instead, they are determined to be good by being better in comparison to bad ideas. It is only through debate that correct opinions may be scrutinized and determined to be right. Take for example the preachers that come speak on our campus. One such preacher, Brother Ross, often visits UNCW to most everyone’s discontent. Brother Ross often draws a large crowd and preaches what a lot of people determine to be a hateful, fire and brimstone version of the gospel. Many detest his ability to speak on campus, but his hateful rhetoric actually strengthens our community.

I find Brother Ross particularly interesting to watch not because of anything that he says, but because of the way that we as a community respond to him. Oftentimes, when Brother Ross speaks, students passing by stop to vent their frustrations against him. For the most part, we respect his right to speak, and oftentimes we unite together to fight against him. It is not uncommon to see a group of five to 10 students of different backgrounds, races and political affiliations come together to argue against Ross. In doing so, the student body is involved in a debate that illustrates why Brother Ross’s views are harmful, and more importantly, students get the experience of uniting with one another to defeat him. These instances provide a real world demonstration of why hateful ideologies are bad, and how individuals can civilly fight against them together.

Similarly, the clamor surrounding Professor Adams stands to teach students a valuable lesson. Students are confronted with an example of the sometimes racist, almost always inflammatory rhetoric that Dr. Adams espouses. In doing so, the student body must determine, through rigorous debate and personal reflection, what they think about his comments.

Some have claimed that the university’s inaction stands as a passive support for racism and bigotry. However, this is simply not the case. Instead, by allowing Adams to stay on campus, and by allowing students to voice their objections, the university takes a clear stance that it protects the free exchange of ideas. By doing so, the student body is free to come to its own educated conclusions about the value of Adams’ rhetoric.

As a campus community, I agree that we should reject the hateful rhetoric of Professor Adams. However, as adults we should reject it in our own right, not expecting the university to protect us and censor what some determine to be views too offensive to be heard.

Jake is the politics producer for UNCW TealTV where he hosts the show With The Facts. If you are interested in debating this issue on his show please contact him at [email protected]