Update On Adams V. UNC-Wilmington Lawsuit

This is family policy matters program is produced by the North Carolina family policy Council of profamily research and education organization dedicated to strengthening and preserving the family, and often the studio hears John Rushton, president of the North Carolina family policy Council, thank you for joining us this week.

Profamily policy matters. We are delighted to have him with us on the program. Travis is counsel for alliance defending freedom in its regional service center in Georgia, where he engages in litigation to preserve religious freedom and freedom of speech on college campuses nationwide.

Travis is with us to discuss a huge victory for academic freedom in a case involving Prof. Mike Adams serves as a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Now Michael Adams will be a familiar name to many of our listeners. As he was the keynote speaker at all of the family policy Council's major speakers dinners last year on March 20 of this year, a federal jury found UNC Wilmington guilty of viewpoint discrimination against Prof. Adams. Travis is with us today to talk about the history of this lawsuit, as well as the recent jury verdict and what it means not only for Prof. Adams but also for academic freedom of Christian professors nationwide. Travis walking to the program. Thank you very much pleasure to be here to what were delighted to have you with us and appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to enlighten us about this issue tell us about the alliance. Defending freedom's lawsuit against UNC Wilmington on Mike Adams but have this whole thing begin.

Yet the story began all way back in 2006. What happens is Mike Adams came to us.

He'd just been denied promotion to full professor at UNC Wilmington is concerned about the process that is known on the way that that denial came about the asked us to investigate the matter and we ended up filing a lawsuit on his behalf, claiming that the University of North Carolina Wilmington had retaliated against him by denying him is this promotion that is they didn't like the things that he had written on Townhall.com.

They didn't like the things it written in his book didn't like the viewpoint that he expressed in his speeches and as a result of that, they denied him his promotion at eight textbook violation of the First Amendment and that's what gave rise to this lawsuit. Some of the key issues I know that you talked about the First Amendment violations are there other key issues that were really at stake in this case or was that primarily the focal point of the issue at hand here that's the focal point of the issue at hand. In this case, the treatment of conservative Christian professors. We alliance defending freedom due to the wide variety of freedom issues at heart in higher education. Some of these are things like universities imposing absurd speech codes on students trying to limit what they can say on campus. Some of them are situations where they impose speeches on policies with a second look. If you can express a conservative pro-life, a Christian perspective. You can only do that in this very small zone on the backside of the campus well away well away from where people could actually see what you're doing.

Those are the kinds of First Amendment violations we see that affect students but was in effect. Professors are like what happened to Dr. Adams here we have an accomplished scholar and award-winning teacher ate and acclaimed servant to the community is denied a promotion simply because his bosses do not like what he writes on his own time after work all in March 2010, the US District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a summary judgment in the case of essentially rejecting the claim that the University had violated Prof. Adams First Amendment rights. Tell us about that ruling. If you would, and how the court same tube to reach its conclusion in the court in that case, and that summary judgment case in 2010 concluded that Dr. added to speeches Collins's books and so on were not protected by the First Amendment that feel strange at first glance the way that what could be more protected than a done op-ed column and in a in a newspaper. That's the sort of speech that the founding fathers designed the First Amendment to protect the reason the court reach that conclusion is looking at a Supreme Court case that had been issued a couple years before card called Garcetti versus Ceballos.

In that case, the Supreme Court has ruled that when public employees. When government employees speak as part of their official duties. Speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

So if your free sample district attorney in your speaking as part of your duties as a district attorney, the first of the dozen protected speech. The government can discipline you as an employee, but importantly, the Supreme Court set said when we're not quite sure how this decision is going to affect professors because professors are different because of her different vineyard that you have in your DMV card or even a district attorney because professors are paid to speak their's paid to think they're paid to write the paid to investigate all sorts of viewpoints and follow the truth wherever it may lead so we don't want Justice Souter even highlighted this in his opinion. In that case we don't want professors to see your that when they write something, they express a controversial viewpoint that they're going to face retaliation, or punishment, later down the line because whatever they wrote or whatever they said might have offended someone within the University administration that would squelch free speech on campus free speech is of primary importance on a university campus, no doubt about that but the court.

The District Court here when it is when it really is Dr. and apply the first part of that case that Garcetti case and it didn't look closely enough at what the court had said about how this might apply to university professors is that that's what prompted us to file an appeal and to take this court up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just to have that part of the ruling correct MM in April 2011 after you did file that appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I ended up disagreeing with the lower court decision, explain for us in that ruling, how that the Court of Appeals found and how did it open the door for Prof. Adams case to go before the jury. But in the in the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Garcetti opinion that within said look at if a government employee speaks as part of his official job duties speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

The Fourth Circuit said that opinion does not apply to professors when they're engaged in scholarship and teaching and didn't apply to Dr. Adams when he was writing his columns and writing his books and giving his speeches as as a result, because that case does apply. The First Amendment protects all Dr. Adams speech is of the district court got it wrong when it said all of his columns in his books and speeches were not protected. Now they are protected by the First Amendment and is meant to hold the District Court okay go back now reassess the case and look at weathered there is enough evidence to show that Dr. Adams was denied. This promotion because of his speech was, he denied his promotion because of something else.

It's a desolate set things up for further proceedings in District Court. After that, the University and work on Wilmington again filed a motion trying to get the case kicked out of 40 and say look, there is no evidence no evidence whatsoever that we discriminated against backgrounds because of the speech and the judge looked at all of our evidence look. The only evidence we amassed in everything we written down as a note, I disagree is not evidence here so we need to have a jury decide is because it is or it could go either way. Reasonable minds could differ, but there's enough evidence here that they retaliated against Dr. Adams that we need to have a jury trial and that's what occurred just a couple weeks ago in Greenville, North Carolina traverses understand that you were involved in arguing that case before the jury tell us little bit about the jury trial and what questions came before the jury and what evidence did lots defending freedom present all Dr. Adams behalf during that trial. Certainly the jury was commissioned to answer really two questions. First of all they had to decide what was Dr. Adams's speech a substantial factor in the University's decision to deny him that promotion and then they had to decide what would the University have made the same decision anyway and threaded through the course of that four-day trial.

We presented evidence that the University had ignored the written policy documents that govern promotion standards.

The just informed us they ignored the written rules. Instead, they invented a new rule begin the written rules require the University to look at everything Dr. answered written throughout his entire career. Everything he had done throughout his entire career. All the teaching is done through his entire career. University officials decided they would ditch that standard.

Instead, they were only look at what he had done within the past few years since he been granted tenure. They called this boy to be done for me lately.

Standard that standard had no foundation anywhere.

They basically change the rules of the word along and apply the new rules only to Dr. Adams and so, after hearing all this evidence and after hearing evidence is there is other evidence we wait we had evidence that the University changed its story as to why they denied Dr. Adams at first they said it was just because he was deficient one area and later his deficient in all three areas. In reality Dr. Adams out published all but two members of the department in numerous teaching awards numerous service awards. There was no good reason to deny him his promotion and that's what the jury ultimately concluded after hearing all this after hearing from the defendants. The jury concluded that Dr. Adams's speech was a substantial factor in their decision to deny him a promotion and then they decided they found that the University had not proven that it would've made the same decision anyway.

As a result, the rule for Dr. Adams and the judge entered judgment saying that the University unconstitutionally retaliated against Dr. Adams in violation of his First Amendment right trumps how significant do you believe the jury's verdict in this case is not only for Dr. Adams but also for other Christian professors nationwide you. We certainly hope this is going to serve as a warning for universities nationwide. Another aspect of what the Fourth Circuit ruled a couple years ago when Dr. Adams case is that is it the University officials are going to be held personally accountable for their decision. Often times when you sue government officials because for violating the Constitution. There, the doctor called qualified immunity complicated lawyer speak for unless the unit, the less the government officials have done something that is so egregiously unreasonable. Then there going up there in the dark of the on the hook.

Personally they're knocking to be personally accountable financially for their misconduct in the Fourth Circuit ruled here that the UNC Wilmington officials do not get that protection they do not qualify for the 90 qualified immunity. There there going to be held personally accountable, because any reasonable university official in their position would have known that it was unconstitutional to retaliate against Dr. and like this so the University and the University officials specifically are going to be held personally accountable for this and we hope that helps. Send a message to universities across the country that you can't blackball.

You can't blacklist you can't discriminate against retaliate against conservative Christian professors simply because you don't like the viewpoint expressed what you think accountability means in this particular case.

In this particular case is going involves financial payments, but we the case continues is still ongoing has not yet ended. The judges asked us to submit papers this outline what sort of relief should be given to Dr. Adams now that we've established that his rights were violated was horrible.

He should be granted and so far both sides agreed that he should receive that promotion to full professor and that he should receive an award back pay, still discussing how much that should be but that he should receive the promotion they should receive compensation that he would have received if he had been promoted back in 2000 trust like you were just about out of town for the week.

I just want to thank you for your great work in this case and also give a special shout out to Dr. Mike Adams. He is a great friend to the North Carolina family policy Council and we are excited about the direction that this case is taken at the outcome thus far and I couldn't agree more that we hope that there will be a meeting of the moms in this next decision about the damages in this case that are provided to Dr. Adams and that we can all put this behind us and that the universities will have learned a very important lesson about the religious rights in the fundamental free speech rights of students and professors and other staff on the University campus is Travis working on our listeners go to learn more about this case. If they're interested in, digging into it a little bit and also to learn more about alliance defending freedom in the best spot for both is probably our website alliance sending freedom.org if they go to that website alliance defending freedom.org to learn more about the work that we do not only defending religious freedom on campus but defending religious freedom in other contexts in defending the sanctity of life in defending the definition of the family and they learn more about diagrams and were just grateful that the Lord has blessed our efforts on his behalf and victory so far and look forward to continuing to defend him as the case continues to unfold.

Travis parent thank you so much for your great work at ADF and for being with us on family policy matters.

We appreciate so much all that you all doom and for your involvement in this particular case again, which is of great interest to us and to many of our listeners to know Dr. Mike Adams personally sent thank you so much for being with us. Thank you so much pleasure's family policy matters. Information and analysis, future North Carolina family policy Council join us weekly discussion on policy issues affecting the family. If you have questions or comments. 91 907-0800 or visit our website and see family.org