Hello Ms. Goldstein [ firstname.lastname@example.org ]:
I received the following letter you wrote to Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo, in response to my recent column: “NOW and THEN”:
“Subject: Statements of Mike Adams …
A criminology professor at your University (Mike Adams) wrote the following on “Townhall”, a conservative forum.
“I call this to your attention, because Adams demonstrates a disregard for gender equality. His attitude on reproductive choice is disturbing (as well as his apparent enthusiasm for guns). Adams’ overall tone is condescending to women—not what one would expect from a university teacher.”
This is the fourth letter I have seen – in just the last nine months — written by leftists asking my university to silence me for expressing my conservative views. All four of these letters have been written by women. Three were native women, born with female genitalia. The other was a naturalized woman, surgically equipped with female genitalia. I think there’s a possible song here, perhaps sung by Urethra Franklin.
All kidding aside, I wanted to make a few points about your letter to Rosemary:
1. I just wanted you to know that it is senseless to address such letters to the Chancellor. You do so based upon the mistaken assumption that I have some concern for her opinion about my constitutionally protected speech. I simply could not care less what Rosemary DePaolo thinks about this or any other matter. DePaolo is a feminist who attends The Vagina Monologues. As such, her opinions are irrelevant in relation to any decision I make. If that offends you, I am truly sorry. I really mean that. And if it offends her, she can just read The New York Times instead of reading my columns.
2. It is unnecessary to tell the chancellor which professor you are talking about after you mention Townhall. There is only one professor at UNC-Wilmington who writes for Townhall. You knew that. And you wrote the letter because you assumed that there was only one conservative professor at UNC-Wilmington. And, of course, that is one too many in your view — a view you hold because a) you are a feminist, and b) virtually all feminists are ideological bigots.
3. Your letter implies that being pro-life is disturbing, but being pro-choice is not disturbing. If you want to eliminate all professors who don’t choose the views you choose, how can you call yourself “pro-choice?” How can you be intelligent enough to understand my positions if you do not even understand your own?
4. And how can you be disturbed by my hobby of collecting guns? All of my guns are prettier than the average feminist and most are not as loud. Click on this picture to see whether you agree.
5. I am also confused by your suggestion that being “condescending” is a bad trait for a university professor. You shouldn’t have addressed such a claim to UNC-Wilmington. Nearly all of their diversity policies suggest that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. I am one of the few professors so devoid of condescension that I actually support campus desegregation and equal standards for whites and blacks. The other professors think that blacks can’t succeed without special favors from liberal whites. To call them condescending is kind. To call them racists is more accurate.
6. Finally, I want to confess that I am guilty of a “disregard” for gender equality. This disregard is most often demonstrated by my refusal to harvest as many female as male animals when I go hunting. Click here to see evidence of my callous “disregard” for gender equality in hunting.
Actually, you might not have been able to tell whether that quail was male or female. It was much smaller than the victim of a partial-birth abortion.