Many a campus "conservative" is born in the crucible of the ideological double standard. As students of campus politics well know, conservatism in the ivory tower is a very different creature than conservatism beyond it; outside the ivory tower, if you are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage, that pretty much certifies you as a liberal. On campus, it's not that easy: you can be all these things on campus, and yet still be labelled "conservative" if, for example, you question the logic or practice of affirmative action, if you think religious and Republican students should have just as many expressive rights as liberal agnostics and atheists, or, even more strangely, if you believe in a traditional curriculum that emphasizes mastery of a defined set of skills and a defined "canon" of content. Bottom line: if you depart from a widely accepted set of institutionalized norms, you are a problem whose name is, in the lexical oversimplifications that define the messier pockets of campus life, "conservative."

Mike Adams is, in campus terms, a conservative thrice over: an institutional gadfly who also happens to be a Republican and a Christian. For the good people at UNC-Wilmington, where Adams is a criminal justice professor, that's just more conservatism than others should have to stand. People were offended by Adams' views; some of his colleagues even found that his open, public expression of those views made them feel "uncomfortable." So Adams' administrative superiors did what they apparently do best: they solved the problem not by reminding Adams' colleagues that he has a constitutional right to express his beliefs, but by forbidding Adams to talk about anything that might make his colleagues uncomfortable while he is at work.

How did they rationalize this? By invoking political uniformity as an institutional ideal. ìNot everyone sees things the way you do, Mike,î they told him; in other words, those who "see things" the way Adams does should keep their visions to themselves. There's that pesky little problem of liberal bias, again. You know, the one that doesn't exist?

Details are here, along with a list of the things Adams' colleagues have said that make him personally uncomfortable. Those of us who have been the recipients of similar administrative directives will feel a certain sympathetic thrill at how Adams unmasks the righteous hypocrisy of his local feel-good censors.

Adams is hoping that the administration will honor his discomfort as swiftly as it honored those who complained about him. After all, since UNC-Wilmington admins have undertaken to violate the law in order to provide the comfiest workplace possible, they should at least take care to violate it in a fair and non-partisan manner.

Thanks to Todd Hartch for the link.

UPDATE: Ralph Luker has more. Don't miss the comments, wherein is discussed an emerging trend in college syllabus creation: the inclusion of an "offensive material" disclaimer. So far, no one has addressed the hypothetical in which a student, colleague, or administrator is offended by the offensive material disclaimer.

The whole PC mentality thing will not abate until the non-lockstep thinkers use all those idiotic 'bad feelings' protections back on the ruling elite. It is distasteful, but it will be necessary. They will not retreat until they start getting hoist on their own petards.

When is Mike up for promotion to full professor? That will be very interesting to see what happens...

With the emphasis on "comfort", and avoidance at all costs of making somebody "uncomfortable", perhaps it's best that we re-work the University curriculum to simply do away with all that troublesome stuff, like philosophy, history, comparative religion, literature, and stick with the safe subjects, like finger-painting and cooperative group play.

Then perhaps there would spring up little academies, centered around one or two dedicated and enthusiastic teachers, who would challenge their students and teach them how to think, how to question, and how to learn. It's happened before.

When is Mike up for promotion to full professor? That will be very interesting to see what happens...

Heck, I'm amazed that such an "uncomforting" person made Associate.

"So far, no one has addressed the hypothetical in which a student, colleague, or administrator is offended by the offensive material disclaimer."

This has happened. Remember the professor who warned students on his syllabus that he was a religious philosopher? There were complaints because apparently that disclaimer was... you know... offensive or something.

At some point, soon I hope, the alumi will have to institute adult supervision or they will be so ashamed they will stop buying the products that currently take up 85% of the space in most campus bookstores.

That's alumni, it's too early here in the west.

Well, that didn't take long.

In the well administered business environment, talk about political and social issues has been pretty much banned. Believe it or not, men fought back very quietly against the worst excesses of the PC era. I did. I made it clear that my lawsuit could cost just as much as a woman's or a black's or a gay's lawsuit. My employer heard me, and the result was an edict that everybody shut up.

This is better than what goes on in universities. I don't know if the same solution would work in the college environment. Maybe it is best to just make everybody shut up in the office or in the administrative setting. Perhaps the discussion of the big issues should be left to the classroom, when there is a good reason for it, and that discussion should be barred in all other environments.

I remember from my days as a student and teacher the constant discussion of the great issues. In retrospect, I think that the focus on this is somewhat misplaced. The time spent in the classroom debating such issues might be enough. If people want further political involvement, they can attend meetings and work for their favorite issue.

Could be that UNC is correct in its approach to Mike Adams, who I tend to agree with. Could be that UNC is displaying poor management in not telling the other side, who I tend to disagree with, to keep its mouth shut during business hours.

While this particular case is an injustice ban on freedom of speech; I just have a hard time feeling sorry for the 'marginalized' conservative in academic spheres. Too often on this blog, academia is discussed outside of its cultural context; academia is indeed left of major news organization and the general information exchange that takes place outside of classroom walls, but i think that hardly necessitates it as liberal. Similarly, National Public Radio is termed liberal, when clearly they try to report without bias, and with the lack of conservative slant, some people so readily accept the notion of liberal bias.

We live in a contemporary environment where progressive liberals are marginalized every day, by their family, in their public schools, by their religion, and most of all by the general cultural climate. Academia may for some provide an environment that alleviates these tensions, but this is not because of any bias but because of the free exchange of ideas. Indeed, we must ask when people are encouraged to think for themselves, exchange ideas, questions authority, etc, all elements of an intellectual, what happens if those people simply end up being liberally alligned? We seem to assume that there should be a fifty-fifty dispersal of conservative and liberal thinking, this is hogwash.

It's hard to feel sorry for conservatives in academia when they feel what liberals have probably felt their whole lives.

I apologize for the rash generalizations, but academia is just not a world only onto itself.

"We live in a contemporary environment where progressive liberals are marginalized every day, by their family, in their public schools, by their religion, and most of all by the general cultural climate."

What in the world is this supposed to mean? I can't make heads or tails out of it. Another victimized group? Progressive liberals?

As far as I can tell, the phrase "progressive liberal" means communist. Yes, everybody hates that. Why shouldn't they? The pile of corpses is limitless. The economic devastation was catastrophic. Yes, we don't want to resurrect the Soviet Union. If you feel "marginalized" by that, well I certainly hope that you are.

"Academia may for some provide an environment that alleviates these tensions, but this is not because of any bias but because of the free exchange of ideas."

Noah, it isn't a free exchange of ideas if Mike Adams is told not to discuss his views. Which, by the way, are not really extremist or weird.

Mike Z,

Fingerpainting offends me. Cooperative group play hurts my feelings.

On a more serious note.

Noah, how can you rationalize that while "academia is indeed left of major news organization [but not by much -willow] and the general information exchange that takes place outside of classroom walls," it isn't necessarily liberal? Sorry, that's just a bit too nuanced for me.

Furthermore, I don't believe NPR is (rightly) termed 'liberal' for its lack of conservative slant so much as for the prevelance of an obvious liberal one.

It is very interesting to see liberal or 'progressive' (I just love that term) viewpoints when conservative thinkers request that the rules liberals hoist upon them be made to apply to liberals as well.

Wheeee!

I am afraid that actions such as Professors Adams', while providing much needed discomfort to the administrators enforcing uniformity, are in the long run damaging to the cause of free expression in an academic setting. Why? - Because they grant the premise that the free exchange of ideas is less important than the hurt feelings that can result from tham. If the academic solution is the same as the one cited by Stephen in a business environment the loss to the concept of free enquiry in an academic setting will be incalculatable and we will all be the poorer for it. I think those of us who favor the free expression of ideas need to find better tactics for opposing the drift toward the restriction of it than merely insisting that the 'rules' that restrict that expression be applied evenly to all expression. I doubt that public embarrassment will succeed. That said, I am not sure what tactics would be successful.

I think many of you who are responding to my post, miss my point--maybe it wasnt entirely clear. What we term liberal is relative to what that status quo is, and the status quo is inevitably constructed by social institutions outside of higher education--the colpruts being major media, public school etc. And of course the status quo is already very conservative, this being the case the whole liberal-conservative spectrum is shifted greately to the right. So we have moderate being accused of being liberals, right wingers being called patriots, and facists being called conservatives. I know this is a severe generalization, but I think, god speed, you'll see my point. So when NPR is attempting to be unbiased, or rather do what media ought to do, question and probe what is going on, rather than faithfully report press conference preceedings which are always skewed in the first place.

Stephen its funny you bring up communism (such an easy accusation too), i remember having the sense that communism was wrong before knowing what it was...ask any ten year old what they think of communism and they'll give it the thumbs down automatically, if we lived in a truly 'free' environment certainly we wouldnt be taught to make judgements before we know anything about what we are judging. I'm no communist. My point is people who question authority and the status quo (unless in very priveledged settings) are marginalized even made to feel ashamed how they believe.

Laura, i think its imprudent to generalize the Mike Adams case to all of academia--like said before he should be allowed to say what he wants. But equally his collegues can express thier discontent, but certainly not in the form of censorship.

I apologize for the use of 'progressive', it's difficult to describe what i mean without using some vaguely inaccurate or self-aggrandized term.

While many liberal efforts these days seem to be concerned with 'subject position' as means of oppression (be it by their gender, race, sexuality, etc), however, IMHO, it is 'ideological positions' that will inevitably become the oppressed. Its not so much who you are as what you say and believe that will cause people to push you to the outside.

It is simply no mystery to me that academia has been inappropriately labeled liberal and that our understandings of liberal is rather bogus.

One last thing, Willow--are you suggesting that academic venues are only slightly more liberal than Coporate Media? This is absurd, CNN etc, are in the business of making money, not in reporting news. They merely need to be smidgen left of the far-right politics (both Dems and Repubs) for the liberal media myth to thrive. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure what warrants the generalization that liberals don't practice what they preach. While I don't feel sorry for the poor conservative in academia, it doesnt mean i want to duck tape him. In fact, I'd treat them with respect, etc, etc.

It's funny how we don't see headlines that read: "liberals marginalized in business world." Though we all know they are.

The issues that Mr. Fisher mentions trouble me, too. I don't have the answer.

In 1999-2001, my office was convulsed with young kids out of college trying to enforce PC dictums. That meant a lot of arm twisting to force others to bow down to the demands of blacks, gays and women. It also meant an insistence that open discussion of hatred of white straight men should be corporate policy.

I wasn't about to kiss the kids butts.

The best solution was for everybody to shut up. Management also decided that we should fill up everybody's time with work to prevent employees from having time to bitch and fight over who gets the spoils in the race and sex competition.

Forcing everybody to keep their head down on their work and to keep their mouths shut has been a pretty good solution.

I don't think that the lawsuit industry will let academia go any other way. That's what's driving all of this... fear of lawsuit.

"It's funny how we don't see headlines that read: "liberals marginalized in business world." Though we all know they are."

The executive boards of virtually every corporation I've worked in are overwhelmingly very liberal Democrat. They overwhelmingly endorse feminism, abortion rights, gay rights and they overwhelming oppose President Bush and caricature him as a stupid cowboy.

You could not be more wrong. The PC agenda is now the agenda of every major American corporation. The diversity industry makes a fortune running its Red Guard indoctrination camps in corporate seminars.

What world are you living in?

"liberals marginalized in business world"...is this comment based on actual experience in actual businesses, or is it simply received wisdom?

Stephen, perhaps such is true in limited cases, but I find it difficult to accept that a majority of U.S. corporations are led by "very liberal Democrat[s]." Surely employers are generally opposed to higher taxes, government regulations (OSHA, EEOC, etc.), and unions. Where they stand on the issues of feminism, abortion and gay rights perhaps varies from individual to individual, but discussions of these social issues simply do not arise at most corporations as people are too busy working. I am clueless as to the political and religious views of my co-workers and bosses, other than a few with whom I socialize outside of work.

Your experiences sound alien to me; that you wrote "management also decided that we should fill up everybody's time with work to prevent employees from having time to bitch and fight" leads me to ask what exactly management had been doing in the past, if it wasn't filling up employees' time with work?

Nels, you are correct to ask why my employer wasn't "filling up employees' time with work." The boom of the late 90s led to an overindulgence of employees. That attitude had to be reversed in the aftermath of 9/11.

I'm pretty close to the executive board of my company, and my observations about social attitudes are based on my interactions with the executive board. The overindulgence of employees during the boom time led also to a willingness to entertain the kid's belief that PC was somehow the most predominant business issue. We had to retreat from this when reality intruded.

Our current CEO is indeed conservative in the ways you mentioned. He's fighting a continuing battle to focus the company back on productivity and work, after a period in which fighting a political battle over racial and sexual spoils seemed to most of our execs the purpose of our business. You must remember that it was young white college educated women who brought the PC battle into the workplace. The men wanted to be liked by them.

But, I'll stand by my original statement. And I'll state the corollary. It is the average worker in our corporation who is almost predictably conservative, while the executives and board members are overwhelmingly liberal and
Democratic. This is a dilemma that leftists have been unsuccessfully pondering for a very long time. Read Mikhail Lemontov's "A Hero of Our Times" for a window in this discussion in pre-revolutionary Russia. The masses don't welcome the Marxists with open arms.