Because I do not wish my speech to overlap with others, I will not mention the fact that there were no Republicans in UNC-Wilmington's Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice when I joined them back in 1993. But since a previous speaker remarked that most university English Departments have only one token Republican faculty member, I must point out that such a policy is not in place at UNC-Wilmington where there are no Republicans to be found among 31 full-time professors.
I will, however, refrain from commenting on the fact that the Political Science Department at UNCW has no Republicans among their full-time faculty. Instead, I will ask you all to join me in a round of applause for the Political Science department right here at N.C. State. They have only 27 Democrats and are truly celebrating diversity by allowing one Republican to teach political science.
Since I don't have to talk about political affiliation, let me turn my attention to the manner in which the diversity movement began to stifle intellectual diversity by launching a number of "multicultural centers" and diversity centers" during the 1990s. My university is but one of many examples.
Many people supported the idea of initiating an African American Center and an Office of Campus Diversity on our campus in the 1990s. Part of the reason for that support was the long history of racism in the city of Wilmington, which some also believed was a part of the legacy of the university. Supporters also made frequent mention of the fact that only 6% of the student population was black. Unfortunately, after several years and over $1,000,000 spending by the Office of Campus Diversity, the black student population dropped to only 4%.
Some wonder how the diversity movement spent so much money while the problem of black student under-representation was getting worse. The answer can be found by visiting the university website, specifically the B-Glad portion of the website. In fact, I would urge those of you listening to this speech to later type in www.uncw.edu/bglad to learn how the diversity movement has largely abandoned the idea of working on the problem of black student under-representation, by instead focusing on gay politics. If you do visit that site, you will notice that former Chancellor James Leutze signed a gay sensitivity awareness project into effect on September 11, 2001. Clearly, the gay activists would not allow a little thing like the terrorist attacks on the United States to interfere with their constant political activism at taxpayer expense. Thank God UNC-Wilmington has a new and more businesslike Chancellor in Rosemary DePaolo. Perhaps things will get better during her tenure.
Of course, few people realize that the diversity office has been a failure thanks in part to Wilmington's local New York Times affiliate. After the black student population dropped from 6% to 4%, the university spent more money on diversity to raise it back up to 6%. Afterwards, the local newspaper reported that there had been a 50% increase (from 4% to 6%) in the black student population at the university. University administrators argued that this proved that the diversity movement was working. The reporter allowed the university to get away with that unbelievable assertion without mentioning the fact that over a million dollars had been spend with no improvement in the overall black population since the inception of the Office of Diversity. I'm considering nominating that reporter for a Pulitzer Prize in investigative journalism. If we had her around in the 70s, I'm sure that the Watergate story would have broken much sooner.
So, what happens at a public university when a diversity office spends over a million dollars and does not do what it was originally intended to do? That's simple. We open another one. Enter the UNC-Wilmington Women's Resource Center.
Before it was launched, students were given a survey on their possible interest in a Women's Resource Center. Of course, the survey did not ask whether students wanted such a center. All they were asked was whether they agreed with thirty different activities and programs suggested by campus feminists. Among those options, "defense training" was the only one approved by a solid majority (two-thirds) of students surveyed. Since they initiated the center, the self-defense classes have been offered instead by the UNCW police, just as they were before the Women's Center came along.
So what has the Women's Center been up to over the last couple of years? It's all been very predictable. They have sponsored The Vagina Monologues, even putting up posters reading "pu**ies unite!" in front of the campus cafeteria. Recently, the Center's director accused me of falsely stating that the posters were paid for with the Center's budget, instead blaming the poster on a student. Now I have learned that the center did, in fact, pay for the posters. As a result of a public records request, I have obtained a copy of the receipt used to pay for the obscene advertisements. In fact, it bears the director's signature.
I should point out that the aforementioned posters cost less than twelve dollars. However, the Women's Resource Center recently spent $231 on chocolate candies for "Love Your Body" day. These candies were distributed in order to persuade young feminists that they shouldn't try to be skinny to please men. Another $271 was spent by the Center to pay a professional artist to draw a design of two women sipping coffee to be used for the Women's Center stationary. No wonder they went thousands of dollars over budget last year during Women's History Month (WHM).
WHM started off last year with an exciting speech called "How Bush's Attack on the International Family Hurts Us All." A woman in her early twenties who had been out of college for less than one year gave the speech. This was followed with a speech by a self-described "Queer Muslim." That one only cost $2000. I am certain that her speech convinced a lot of listeners that the gay rights and feminist movements are alive and well in the Middle East. This is, of course, in marked contrast to the considerable oppression for women and gays here in America. Finally, a speaker was hired during WHM to talk about "collective living." I've noticed that a lot of these diversity initiatives and programs are designed to support socialist policies. Unfortunately, my request to fund a speech called "Explaining the fall of the Berlin Wall within the Marxist dialectic" was denied.
This year, the Women's Center is at it again, sponsoring a speech by Arianna Huffington for the low price of $12,500. That is a nice round figure so I guess it didn't include her travel expenses. Maybe she flew in on her private jet to tell us that we shouldn't own SUVs because they consume too much gas. She's a political force to be reckoned with, no doubt. I think that she was tied with Gary Coleman for 1% of the vote in the recent California governor's race. Rumor has it that she even beat out porn king Larry Flynt by several hundred votes.
The visit by Huffington was complimented by a showing of "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore. This goes to show that our diversity movement will listen to anyone speak; even college dropouts. And we don't care if the documentaries we show are actually fictional. In mean, the Motion Picture Academy doesn't care, so why should we? Of course, one may wonder what an anti-gun movie has to do with women's issues. Personally, I think our female students need guns, since the Women Center won't offer those self-defense classes they wanted.
Next year during WHM, I understand that the "guerilla girls" will be paying us a visit (see www.guerillagirls.com). These women try to avoid the stereotype of feminists as wearing combat boots and camouflage by instead dressing as apes. I think they wear boots too, but I'm afraid to ask. I know they don't have guns because they're feminists.
By now some of you are wondering what we can do about all of this non-sense. Columnist Walter Williams suggests that we should close our pocketbooks and stop sending checks to universities with such diversity centers. I recently suggested writing checks for zero dollars and zero cents to let the universities know we are boycotting them. I think instead that I am going to follow the advice of one of my readers who said that we should write a really big check to our local university and then write "Void for Diversity" before tearing it in two. Then we should mail both pieces of the check to the university public relations office.
I can see that I am running out of time, so let me turn to something I fear to be a new national trend, which constitutes a grave threat to the First Amendment on college campuses. In fact, it may be the greatest threat to the First Amendment in the history of higher education in America. The issue concerns the autonomy of student organizations.
Many in this audience will remember the incident with Intervarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) earlier this year. UNC-Chapel Hill received a well-deserved black eye from the media after it threatened IVCF with de-recognition for having the audacity to require that its leaders subscribe to orthodox Christian doctrine. With the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), they were able to have that threat rescinded.
But the situation at UNC-CH was worse than most realized. Other religious groups were threatened with de-recognition for such egregious violations as requiring their members to "believe in God." And most of the organizations gave in to the university instead of threatening litigation.
The combination of two factors; the refusal of student groups to threaten litigation, and the willingness of UNC administrators to lie to cover up the scope and nature of their threats against student groups, has caused the problem to become even worse.
Now, at UNC-Wilmington, the College Republicans are being told that they must adopt a pair of non-discrimination statements so broad that, if enforced, they will require them to admit Democrats as members of their organization. And, of course, Democrats will have to admit Republicans. I suppose that the Jewish Student Association will have to admit Nazis, all in the name of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion.
This student group issue is not complex, legally speaking. The First Amendment grants individuals the right to peaceably assemble and to freely exercise their religion. But the university handbook says that the groups must let in anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, political affiliation, and a host of other factors. So UNC administrators have concluded that their handbooks trump the United States Constitution.
Clearly, these PhDs are not so ignorant that they actually believe that their handbooks are the supreme law of the land. They just pretend to be ignorant to advance their agenda illegally.
In light of these new developments, I am asking the John Locke Foundation as well as everyone in this room to dedicate some time in the coming year to combating this new assault on student liberties by doing one of two things. First, we must educate students about the limitations of the state's authority to force them to adopt views alien to their conscience and to force them to associate with individuals who are hostile towards their beliefs. Indeed, we are seeing a new generation of students whose core rights can be easily violated because no one ever told them what those rights were.
Second, we need to make sure that students know that there are organizations and attorneys who will represent them if they should choose to litigate. If there is one thing we have learned in the past year, it is that administrators in this system will do the right thing only when threatened with litigation.
I can see that I am out of time. Looking at the back of the room and all of the students in attendance today, I think it can safely be said that they face greater threats to their fundamental rights than any of us ever faced in our educational experience. I hope that we all dedicate ourselves to doing something about it in the coming year. Thank you.
Dr. Mike Adams ( firstname.lastname@example.org ) could not remember the exact wording of this speech when he wrote it down several days after it was delivered. In places where he couldn't remember what he said, he wrote down things he thought he should have said in order to make the speech sound better than it really was.