Well, I thought I was done with Mike S. Adams, but I keep getting sucked back in. I was asked by the University Register, our weekly campus newspaper, to submit an editorial on Adams’ talk last week. “Sure,” I said, and whipped out eleven hundred words. You can read them in situ in the online edition of the Register, or you can look below the fold.
Talk by Mike S. Adams lacked that certain je ne sais quois
I attended part of Mike S. Adams’ talk last Thursday. I have to say that I was very disappointed.
He spent on hour telling us about his victimhood—that he has been continually oppressed by feminists, that feminists have such awesome power and so much influence on society that they control hiring and promotion at his university, that he is greatly offended at such emasculating displays of feminine power as, say, performances of the Vagina Monologues on campus. He was also fond of explaining how liberal university campuses try to restrict free speech using speech codes, specifically to silence conservative voices like his.
Firstly, I was disappointed to see the complete lack of appreciation of the irony that he, a tenured professor at UNC-Wilmington despite all the feminists there, was being paid to give this talk at our politically diverse university, where students were encouraged by their professors to attend his talk, not necessarily because they endorsed his views, but because it is important to listen to other opinions—even those of extremists. I understand he’s going to be giving this extended tirade about how his opinions are suppressed by the liberal universities at several other liberal universities, as well.
Hmmm. I suspect my litotes will not leave him nodding his head in comprehension.
I don’t even want to touch the irony of a fellow who claims that the abuses of power by feminists drove him to enroll in a group dedicated to defending the civil rights of average Americans…the Republican party. That’s too easy.
Mostly, though, I was disappointed because he had so greatly diluted the content of his talk from the rich, ripe lunacy of his columns; it was a kind of Adams Lite. Sure, he wallowed in his status as a victim like he does in his columns, and of course he took a few swipes at feminism, but I missed the juicy stuff, the kind of potent far-right-wing statements that his on-line audiences revel in.
For instance, I would have enjoyed hearing him discuss how “Republican women were more attractive than Democratic women” with some of our students. He has, after all, declared this to be an important topic, and part of the discourse the College Republicans should learn about:
The public discussion of this issue will help Republicans answer some important questions. For example: “Should we assume that being gay often causes one to be a Democrat? Isn’t it more likely that the lack of exposure to attractive women causes Democrats to be gay?” And “Do Democratic women consider compliments in the workplace to be sexual harassment simply because they rarely hear them?”
I’m sure a public discussion of the idea that Democrats support gay rights because Democratic women are ugly would have been vigorous and stimulating.
Speaking of gay rights, it’s another subject on which Mike S. Adams often converses at length. He’s against them. After all,
There is nothing wrong with discriminating against a class of people who are afflicted with an emotional or mental illness that is relevant to the completion of a given task—especially if that task is crucial to the well-being of the society at large. That is why I am opposed to the idea of gays adopting or teaching our children.
We could have spent hours discussing the idea that gay people are mentally ill individuals who need to be kept away from children. Why was Mike S. Adams reluctant to bring it up? I understand we’ve had similar sentiments against gay members of our community scrawled on walls here, so someone would have appreciated hearing about it.
Lately, our campus has also experienced some deplorable instances of hate speech against students of color. It would have been timely if he had discussed these matters in some detail; Mike S. Adams has interesting ideas about race. After all, he has encouraged students at his campus to celebrate diversity in an interesting way:
All UNCW students have to do on (Change Your) Ethnicity Day is to stop by the Registrar’s Office to have their race changed from White (or Asian, or Hispanic, or Native American, or “Other”) to Black. Once they do so, they will be eligible for lots of free stuff without having to earn it.
I should like to have heard more about all the free stuff black students get without earning it. He also recommends this as an easy way to rapidly increase minority representation on campus.
Personally, I had hoped he would discuss evolution. I do understand, however, that it is a rather narrow topic of greater interest to us biologists than to the broader spectrum of attendees at his talk. Dr. Adams, a criminologist, has been known to write discourses on evolutionary theory in his columns, though…long explanations of odd distinctions that he makes in the theory that bear no relationship at all to what biologists understand of the process. Perhaps it would have been too esoteric, but honestly, like all of his columns on science, I would have found it amusing. I would have laughed and laughed. It would have been great fun to explain why statements like this are ludicrously wrong:
The latter theory [macroevolution] is less than unproven. In fact, it isn’t even scientific. I believe that it is nothing more than the new religion of pseudo scientists who think that they are atheists.
Unfortunately, he also avoided this potentially promising vein of discussion. I’ve since learned that he had heard I would be at the talk, and has admitted to actually being afraid when he entered the lecture room, apparently because he was concerned that I, a hostile presence, would confront him on these kinds of statements.
Perhaps that explains why his whole talk was an extended whine about how he had been bullied and picked upon throughout his academic career, rather than his usual attacks on women, gays, and minorities. Unintentionally, and without even trying, I seem to have cowed the poor man into diluting the content of his speech into the sad pablum he served up last Thursday. I apologize to the student body of UMM for accidentally depriving you all of his insights, but of course, you can still read those lovely bon mots of his at townhall.com, and in particular, you can read his latest tirade against a certain PZ Myers at the University of Minnesota Morris—I seem to have earned his ire by not confronting him. I must also apologize to Mike S. Adams for failing to explain to his audience what an ass he is.