Prof Mike Adams mocks CLS decision

The Supreme Court recently said a university is not required to give its student groups the same First Amendment protections a private group would receive so long as it is treating the groups equally. It’s akin to a private employer allowing its employees to form groups while putting the restriction on them that no employee may be excluded from any given group for any reason. It’s entirely reasonable.

Now a professor – Mike Adams – has a column I suspect is tongue-in-cheek.

I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group’s fundamental beliefs.

It’s perplexing why Adams is focusing on atheists. The decision was based upon the Christian group suing a university. Atheists had nothing to do with it. But whatever. He’s right, students hostile to the message of a group may still join that group – provided the school has an all-comers policy. I’m not sure Adams’ university, UNC, has that policy. If it doesn’t, his whole rant doesn’t apply.

Another site that picked up on Adams has pointed out another flaw in this DIABOLICAL PLAN!

The court’s decision pointed out that student groups could still, for example, expel members who didn’t pay dues, or restrict officer positions to those who had been members for a year or more. If his “young Christian warriors” wanted to disrupt an atheist club, they’d have to sit and wait for a year, paying to promote atheism the whole time, before they’d get their chance. I doubt many Christians would be willing to do that. Or an atheist law students’ club could just forgo official recognition, exactly as the court emphasized that they could, and restrict their membership to professing nonbelievers.

The final point is the primary problem with what Adams is saying. As so many angry, bitter, legally doltish Christians seem to do, Adams is conflating what private groups must be allowed to do versus what university endorsed groups must be allowed to do. As the Supreme Court noted, a student group can forgo official recognition by the university, thus becoming just another private group, allowed to exclude a great many people. In other words, the court said universities do not have to endorse bigotry.

But Adams continues.

The Court acknowledges that such “accept all comers” policies may not in fact be desirable for maintaining robust debate on public college campuses. I concur. And I like it that way. I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

The article is tongue-in-cheek and I don’t foresee Adams actually following through, but this makes sense. I mean, the arguments of atheists have long frustrated theists who are unable to give coherent responses. (And by “frustrated theists” I mean all theists who have ever bothered to think.) The only reason Christians and other theists are able to maintain any power is through sheer numbers, not rationality or reason.

But sure, Adams can go ahead and invade other groups if he really wants. He might even succeed in making sure universities do not adopt all-comers policies. But he’ll still be wrong about this Supreme Court decision. And all because he is unable to differentiate between protections for private groups under the constitution and protections for what private groups may do within their own internal structure. It’s sad and intellectually pathetic.

3 Responses

  1. Once again, another example of the fuckwads on the right who will do anything to get their way and their word across, even defying the US supreme court which, of course, they pay lip service towards. This nut job, Mike Adams is mostly all talk – he will be afraid to do anything, since if he does, he will be ostracized from his own university, since he doesn’t understand the culture.

    Just like the few atheist billboards that get placed and then vandalized by right wing nuts, while the thousands of theistic billboards and signs go unmolested.

  2. Until they catch those responsible for the billboard incidents, there is no evidence it is anything other than simple vandalism to get people upset. Like spray painting a “7” in place of a “1” one a 15 mile per hour sign.

  3. Of course this will produce some strange results no doubt, undermining many student organizations. A atheist student group could be over run by Christians or Muslims. A gay student group could be over run by those who disagree with their viewpoint.

    To be honest I think this does more damage to groups in the minority than the ones in the majority, although I agree in principle with the ruling I disagree in practice with it.

    The school should have to recognize student groups of any opinion or membership but not fund them, so long as funded groups are treated equally. I think that’s probably how this opinion will evolve/should evolve.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: