Professor Evangelizes Class, Then Whines When a Student Complains

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. He is also a contributor to the crazy right-wing website Town Hall, which does not bode well for anything he writes.

Let's have a look at his latest offering:

Recently, I received a rare student complaint over an e-mail I had sent to all my classes. In the e-mail, which welcomed all of my students back for a new semester, I characterized myself as an “outspoken Christian professor.” I admitted that I had been critical of some aspects of Darwinism and that I saw my students as more than mere “random mutations.” Finally, I said my Christian views would cause me to treat them differently - namely, by holding them all to a high standard that would help them find their purpose in life: a Divine purpose given to them by their Creator.

Gosh! Hard to believe a student would complain about that.

That's about as unprofessional as it gets. Let us leave aside the idiocy of attributing to Darwinism the idea that people are mere “random mutations.” (whatever that means). Placing your religious views front and center in a welcome e-mail to your class, and then stating bluntly that your religion will affect the way you treat the students is inappropriate, to put it kindly. It's also bizarre. Who thinks to mention his views on evolution as part of welcoming a class of criminology students? Why would anyone think his religion is the most important thing to mention in such an e-mail?

There is a special irony here in that right-wing professors (not to be confused with conservative professors, who are a different lot altogether) routinely whine and moan about left-wing academics preaching their political philosophies to captive audiences. As you no doubt suspected, it was not the preaching part to which they objected.

The remarks in this e-mail were all couched within the context of the story of a former student of mine. He had often come to class late and talked throughout my lectures -- at least until he received a poor grade on his first exam. Afterwards, I castigated him for his conduct and told him he would never become anything until he learned to act like an adult and to fulfill his God-given potential.

Having read many of Adams' columns I'd say it reflects well on the student that he knew better than to pay too much attention in class.

Let's get to the good part.

In his letter to the department chair, the student claimed that it was inappropriate and offensive for a professor to reveal his religious affiliation in class. He said he was also offended by what he perceived as an inappropriate put-down of Darwinism. Finally, he expressed his concern that he would become a victim of religious discrimination because he did not share my religious views.

Good for that student. He was entirely right to fear religious discrimination.

I would disagree with one thing, however. Context counts for a lot in these sorts of situations. Adams' conduct was improper not simply because he revealed his religious affiliation, but because of the context in which he did it, and because of the aggressiveness with which he did it.

When I go into class on Mondays I typically begin by asking something like, “Anyone do anything interesting this weekend?” Usually a few people have amusing stories to tell, and the whole thing provides a light-hearted way of easing into the week's activities. Inevitably someone asks me what I did that weekend. On one particular Monday during this past term I mentioned that I had visited my parents in New Jersey to participate in their Passover seder. Looks like I just let slip that I was Jewish, but in context there was nothing remotely threatening about it.

There is a big difference between having something related to religion or politics arise in the course of a light-hearted conversation with the class, and making your religion the first thing you want people to know about you.

If he'd bothered to approach me directly, I could have told this student a little of what I know about inappropriate and offensive religious expression in the classroom. In fifth grade I had a teacher named Barbara O'Gara. Mrs. O'Gara was my favorite teacher despite the fact that I was then a Baptist and she was an atheist. Mrs. O'Gara made no secret of this fact. She mentioned it on the first day of class, and she mentioned it throughout the year.

During the course of the year, though, it never occurred to me to report Mrs. O'Gara for simply stating her religious affiliation. If it offended me, I simply dealt with it. Even as a fifth-grader, I sensed that this was how mature people handled things. She had a right to her feelings, and I had a right to mine.

Anyone believe a word of that? Ten year old Adams going through a sober process of ratiocination about how mature people deal with teachers who discuss religion? Or do you think maybe ten year olds have other things on their minds, and don't really pay much attention to what their teachers think about God?

At any rate, here on Planet Earth the mature way of dealing with gross professional misconduct and borderline threatening behavior is to report it to the proper authorities, which is exactly what the student did.

That basic courtesy eluded this student, though. (It eluded my department chairwoman, too -- she notified the Dean's Office) Whether out of his fear that I wouldn't tolerate his views (though nowhere in my e-mail did I say I would single anyone out for disparate treatment), or out of his zeal to suppress mine, he entirely missed the point that I was making -- a point not unlike the one made in the Declaration of Independence. I simply added the concept of “purpose” to the list of gifts (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) bestowed upon us by our Creator ... and said that everyone in my class would be held to a high standard -- the same high standard -- to encourage their progress toward that purpose.

For pure, unadulterated crazy, that's hard to top. Adams didn't seem to worry too much about basic courtesy when he was browbeating his students about science and religion. It was his e-mail that was discourteous, not the student's reaction. But that's the least of it. Has Adams never head of an implied threat? Does he honestly think that so long as he doesn't come out and say explicitly that he will discriminate against students with different religious views it is unreasonable for a student to infer that that is the case?

And how on Earth did the Declaration of Independence get dragged into this? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator; the Declaration says nothing about gifts. It makes no sense to talk about having a right to purpose.

Adams was assuming the mantle of Thomas Jefferson by sending an e-mail to his students containing a declaration of faith and a crass scientific error? Really? It is often said that a sure sign of a scientific crank is when someone likens his accomplishments to those of Galileo or Einstein. I think gratuitously invoking Jefferson or the Declaration is the humanities equivalent of that.

Now, clearly, discovering his higher purpose is less interesting to this student than reveling in his heightened sense of victim-hood. But while it is tempting to get angry at young people who assert a “right to be un-offended,” the fault is not really with this generation of students. It is with this generation of college administrators.

The crazy just keeps on coming. The student wasn't asserting any right to be unoffended. He was asserting his right not to be intimidated by a religious fanatic professor who never learned the basic canons of proper professional behavior. And I suspect this student is plenty interested in learning about his higher purpose in life, he just doesn't think Adams will show him The Way. I would also remind Adams that directing students towards their higher purposes is not his responsibility.

Adams blathers on for a few more paragraphs. Read them if you must. Contrary to popular belief, conservative professors, especially of the libertarian variety, are a dime a dozen. What is rare are fanatical right-wing professors. Holding such views requires an utter blindness to your own arrogance and hypocrisy and ignorance. Most of us had those tendencies beaten out of us in graduate school. Occasionally, alas, someone like Adams slips through.


More like this

Geez I got my BS from a Catholic university and no professors (including the priests who taught some of the religious classes) ever did anything even close to that.

They seemed to understand and respect that not everyone shared their belief system and that their jobs as professors was to educate and not evangelize.

But this criminology professor from a secular institution doesn't realize that?

A PUBLIC secular institution, it should be noted.

By ritebrother (not verified) on 01 Jun 2009 #permalink

So, any indication of what UNC has done to rein in this wackaloon?

It would help to realize that the student is a paying customer. He should get refunded some of his tuition, since he didn't get all what he paid for, and the school should take it out of Adams' pay.

I never had an overtly, directly preachy professor. But the closest I had was an anatomy professor who used to put Bible quotes in her emails, the course syllabus, and the course reader. Her favorite one was some Psalm that stated that the human body was "beautifully and wonderfully made," so as to be somewhat "relevant" to the course.

It didn't really bother me though, since she never discussed them in class. Also her class was ridiculously easy, and as we all know, students like their easy professors and never complain about them. =P

What I just can't get my head around is that this guy is a criminology professor.

What does Darwin, evolution and Christianity have to do with any aspect of criminology?

The professor was being terribly unprofessional, but I disagree that the "mature" response to this situation was to go straight to the authorities about it.

A student offended by this should have spoken to the professor personally and explained their feelings about this e-mail. This would have given the professor a chance to explain more fully what he meant by his e-mail--and to me it sounds like it was quite probably kindly meant in spite of not being particularly well-thought-out.

If the professor had responded defensively like he seems to be doing in his statements here, then by all means take it to the professor's supervisor.

By going over the guy's head, without giving the courtesy of a personal discussion about the grievance beforehand, it looks like it's only served to put the professor on the defensive and create ill-will which makes constructive dialog more difficult.

Two wrongs don't make a right last time I checked, and this is one of those situations.

It was wrong for the professor to send such an ill-considered e-mail to his students, but it's also asinine for the offended student to jump straight for the authorities without discussing the offense with the professor first.

I have to disagree with Bridget; it is not the function of the student to "explain" his problems with this letter, it should not have been written in the context of a criminology class at a public and therefore secular college.

I'd go to the people above him, and he should have the brains not to write about it to others. he should defend himself.

Well, what do you expect from the author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" on Campus.

From the Publisher's Weekly Review:

At the outset of his second jaunt across the campus, the highly opinionated professor of criminal justice at the University of North CarolinaâWilmington explains his reason for targeting feminists: I want to find out why they hate us. Unleashing salvos of sarcasm, he collects his correspondence addressed to feminist students, professors, activists and administrators, including some letters never mailed (probably for the best). Claiming that feminist scholar is an oxymoron, Adams asserts that feminists have no sense of humor, are the biggest censors on college campuses, lack the courage to act as individuals, engage in widespread academic and personal dishonesty and attempt to solve problems by changing society rather than their own behavior.

Yes, that's right. It is his SECOND book.

Oh god. I need a unicorn chaser after having read all those comments on Prof. Adams' rag. Who would have thought that the English Speaking world was still full of such pigs? I haven't met any feminists who thought they were better than men, and I went to one of the most dreaded lefty universities in the nation. I met some silly hippy feminists, but no one who hated half the population of the world, and I didn't know of any "feminazi censorship", either, unless of course the definition of censorship has changed to
As for the student, I agree with the person who stated that the student should have confronted the professor before going over his head. However, having read the comments of the sort of intimidating wankers who read this guy's books, I can only assume that he is of a similar temperament, in which case, I can understand why the student would be uncomfortable in approaching him with some constructive criticism.

As a college prof of political science, I fully agree that this guy was wholly unprofessional. I refuse to tell students, especially ones whom I haven't met before, anything about my views, because it just sets up the "other half" to suspect they're being discriminated against. Adams was asking for trouble, and indeed his action was the uncourteous one.

Two nitpicks, though. I disagree with the statement that "Contrary to popular belief, conservative professors, especially of the libertarian variety, are a dime a dozen." As one of those libertarian profs, I think libertarian and conservative profs are rather more unusual than that (although not vanishingly rare, by any means). I'm not claiming victimhood (I've only once had someone react very negatively to my views, and even his fellow liberals despise him for generally being an ass), it's just comparatively unusual for me to meet another prof whose basic political inclination isn't liberal.

Second, libertarians are not a variety of conservatism. Libertarians tend to be pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay rights, and prayer and other religious indoctrination in public schools, and anti-war. Not too conservative. Of course they also tend to be pro-gun, pro-low taxes, and pro-free markets, so they're not exactly liberal (in the contemporary sense), either. They're really a different dimension, and don't plot well on the simple left-right axis.

Sorry to be pedantic. I'm a libertarian who battles vigorously with liberals, but who absolutely despises conservatives, so it just personally bugs me to be lumped in with those a**holes.


Students entering into an academic relationship with a professor are assuming a role of inferiority. The prof is assumed to be the superior. For a student to complain to the professor directly about the professor's bad behavior would take a good deal more moxie than many people have, especially if the professor is a bombastic, intimidating ass. It is not the student, but the professor's superiors who bear the responsibility of correcting him. I say the kid did the right thing.

By John Swindle (not verified) on 01 Jun 2009 #permalink

I would just like to point out that if you scroll the comments, it inevitably turns to a debate about homosexuality. Why are right-wingers so obsessed with homosexuality? (I have my own theories on that...)

My boyfriend and I play a little game in the car: turn on Dennis Prager or Michael Medved to bet on whether they're talking about homosexuality. It's a 4 out of 5 chance. Either that or Michelle Obama's biceps, you know, the relevant issues.

Yeah...this guy thinks he's Thomas Jefferson, just a little tweak to the DofI: right to purpose? Doesn't that sort of fit in with pursuit of happiness? I'll just thank this guy's god that I go to a UC school, and don't have to deal with the likes of him (he would be laughed out of the UC first day on the job pulling his little stunts.)

Ultimately, this douchebag should stick to his field of criminology (let me guess: marijuana, medical and recreational should be illegal and punishable by prison sentence, as should doctors who offer abortions?) He should leave politics (if you can call it that) and his petty ignorant views on biology to the experts.

Professor Hanley, I don't think you were being pedantic - you made some good points.

I also wanted to add to the discussion by saying that the student did the right thing. Given this incident and his self-confessed "outspokenness," it leads me to think that this behavior is not an uncommon occurrence for this professor, and I highly doubt that he would be willing to permanently modify it in the future had the student confronted him. This behavior of announcing one is a Christian whose role it is to guide you to your "Divine purpose" while making inappropriate commentary on a subject (biology) he knows absolutely nothing about when his role is actually to educate students in the subject of criminology is NOT OKAY, EVER. Especially given that this is a public/secular institution.

He doesn't need to have a heart-to-heart with this one student, he needs disciplinary action, or at the very least, a friendly reminder by the University about the standards of professionalism he is expected to uphold as well as a reiteration of the powers and limitations of his (secular) post. If this guy wanted to guide people to their so-called divine purpose, he should have become a youth pastor.

James -

How about a dime per half-dozen? At any rate, I seem to know quite a few.

In everyday usage I think it's pretty common to describe libertarian as a form of conservative. The term “conservative” has become so debauched in recent years that I can understand not wanting to be associated with it. That's why I usually make a distinction between conservative and right-winger. Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck and the like should be called right-wingers, not conservatives. Conservatism has a reasoned philosophy at the base of it, albeit not one for which I have much use.

Well, gracious me. There seems to be a great deal of over-reaction going on here. "Gross professional misconduct and borderline threatening behaviour" ??! Irrelevant maybe, but I'm struggling to see where gross misconduct and threats enter into the email. Or perhaps there's just a lot more emotional baggage being carried in the USA than I am aware of from over here in the UK.

...and I didn't know of any "feminazi censorship", either, unless of course the definition of censorship has changed to

Well, to be fair, it's not uncommon for certain feminists here at ScienceBlogs (and at other places in the blogosphere and on message boards) to attempt to shut down discussion on an issue by screaming 'misogynist' at any person who dares to disagree with them on any given social or political issue. This is typically followed by a just-so story about how their views on that particular issue have been -- MUST HAVE BEEN -- brought about by their misogyny. I consider this a form of censorship since the intent is pretty obviously to get people who disagree with them to shut up.

That said, this guy is an asshole and the claim that they have 'no sense of humor' tells me that he probably didn't make an attempt at having a reasonable discussion of any kind with them. The kind of person who makes this claim is generally the sort who refuses to adjust their sense of humor by accounting for their audience and then goes to whine when people don't find something blatantly disrespectful to them funny.

On topic, I think the student was right to go over his head about this. It is theoretically possible that the man may not have meant anything by this, but it seems unlikely. Unless he was trained at Liberty University common sense dictates to me that he would have had developed some sense of how to interact with students in a professional manner and when it's okay to discuss your religious or political views (I do not see a class on criminology not involving a discussion of politics at some point or another). Part of this common sense treatment is that you don't inform your students in an intro e-mail that you're a creationist by bringing up 'Darwinism' unless you expect to be discussing this issue in class. And why would you be discussing it in a criminology class, anyway? There is ostensibly an implied threat there.

Sadly, these kind of professors are more common than one might think, I've dealt with one in the past (a history professor) who took the liberty of informing us that guilt about the ancient Native Americans in Mexico (Mayans, etc.) being killed off was essentially politically correct BS and that it was probably better in the long run due to how violent they were. (I'm paraphrasing, but this is the gist of it.) He also went on a three minute rant at some point about how liberals use big words to look smart when 'smaller words' would get across what they're trying to say. I am not fucking joking. This man was definitely a right-wing professor. To be fair, this was at a community college rather than a university. A pretty piss-poor CC at that, that man was one of the most competent professors I dealt with there.

By Thomas M. (not verified) on 02 Jun 2009 #permalink

If he'd really just offhandedly mentioned he was a Christian, and the e-mail he sent out had a different overall purpose, a legitimate purpose (e.g. let students know about textbooks they need, establish attendance rules, or some crap like that) then I wouldn't have a major problem with it. It's certainly superfluous for him to mention that, and I would definitely find it tacky... but at the same time, I wouldn't want to establish the religious equivalent of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy for universities. Simply identifying himself as a Christian is probably acceptable, as long as he doesn't then go on to babble about this "God-given potential" and other such dogmatic nonsense.

To continue the analogy to the morally bankrupt policy of would probably be fair for the military to discharge a soldier who was aggressively hitting on his squadmates even after sufficient warnings about inappropriate behavior (just as it would be appropriate to discharge a heterosexual soldier who was aggressively hitting on servicepeople of the opposite sex after repeated warnings). I think that's the key here -- this professor didn't just disclose his religious affiliation, he made "suggestive comments" to his students in a transparent attempt to "seduce" them to his "alternative lifestyle". Heh, seriously...

By James Sweet (not verified) on 02 Jun 2009 #permalink

Sorry to be pedantic. I'm a libertarian who battles vigorously with liberals, but who absolutely despises conservatives, so it just personally bugs me to be lumped in with those a**holes.

I think I speak for many conservatives when I say that we despise you back, professor Hankey.

By Robert O'Brien (not verified) on 02 Jun 2009 #permalink

...I go to a UC school, and don't have to deal with the likes of him (he would be laughed out of the UC first day on the job pulling his little stunts.)

Don't pretend that you speak for all UC students, you pretentious dunce.

By Robert O'Brien (not verified) on 02 Jun 2009 #permalink

I generally think trying to resolve issues directly is better than going over the offender's head. But individual cases are unique, the student has more information than any of us bystanders, and so I won't judge what he did.

As to what the professor did: I've said this about both judges and teachers before, and I'll say it again. If you can't even talk the secular talk, how can those in your charge possibly expect you to walk the secular walk? Controlling one's speech is a lot easier than controlling one's biases. If you're unwilling or unable to control your religious speech, then the students (and plaintiffs) are completely justified in suspecting you can't control your religious biases.

I think it is naive to expect the student to approach the professor about this issue. By approaching the professor first, the only thing that the student would gain would be a guarantee that the professor would know exactly who he/she was and regardless of the outcome of that conversation, it would almost impossible for the professor to not treat that student differently than the other students in the class. By going over the professor's head, the student insures his/her anonymity and fair treatment in the classroom (as long as the administrators are able to maintaint the student's anonymity).

Any professor stupid enough to send out an email like that would be incapable of treating a student fairly who complained. Typical religious wacko, they can't keep their beliefs to themselves. No doubt thinks he's doing everyone a big favor by bringing out the religious bs.

Couple of comments.

While there certainly are colleges and universities where liberals predominate, even the wacky, left-wing variety, there are also schools where conservatives dominate. I work at one.
Fortunately, the conservatives here are a bit more pragmatic and reality-based, more of the 'cut taxes and leave me alone' conservative than the 'let's outlaw abortion and gays and force everyone to be christian' variety.
Some of my colleagues are quite religious, and are not afraid to say so. However, I am unaware of any instance in which any of them have used the classroom to proselytize. The ones I know are a bit more professional than that.

I would also say that it was quite inappropriate, not to mention irrelevant, that a criminology prof would feel a need to mention anything about another field of study in a 'welcome to class' email. How ridiculous and absrud.

My 'welcome to class' emails have links to the class website and information about study habits, which books to use, etc. I wouldn't dream of broadcasting my religious or political views to my students. In fact, I am usually a bit uncomfortable discussing anything like that even when asked (which has only happened 2 or 3 times in my 10 years of teaching).

But, that is the right-wing religious nut for you. They seem to feel compelled to inflict their perverse views on all around them, and cry discrimination when someone bites back.

Robert O'Brien said:

"Don't pretend that you speak for all UC students, you pretentious dunce."

I don't speak for all UC students. I said: I go to a UC school. The fact that you are resorting to personal attacks saying I am pretentious speaks for your insecurity.

My observance of the student body is that there are many more students that would be objecting to this type of behavior. It wouldn't be tolerated.

Similar but less ogregious was my son's 6'th grade math teacher explaining to them that things were different 6000 years ago when men where naturally about 10 feet tall.

Don't ask me how she worked this into a math class, I haven't got a clue.

Re James Hanley

Prof. Hanley should be quite proud of joining Ed Brayton on the list of folks who asshole Robert O'Brien despises.

There are quite a few conservative professors out there. I've known a few. They're not as common as liberal professors, but it's not like they don't exist. In some departments the conservatives will actually outnumber the liberals.

I think part of the problem is that colloquially "liberal" is often used to mean "non-idiotic". Jason is right that it's exceedingly rare to find right wing nuts who listen to Rush Limbaugh and teach at the university level. There's a big difference between scholarly conservatism and the ignorant right wing demagoguery that passes for political analysis at places like Fox News. If we use Fox News as the standard for conservatism, then no, there are not very many conservative professors at all. It would be very difficult for someone that stupid to get a phd and a tenured position at a respectable school.

I don't speak for all UC students. I said: I go to a UC school.

You also wrote:

"he would be laughed out of the UC first day on the job pulling his little stunts."

Not only am I at a UC but I am much higher on the totem pole than you and I would not laugh at his statement.

The fact that you are resorting to personal attacks saying I am pretentious speaks for your insecurity.

No, it speaks to my inability to suffer fools gladly, especially one with her lips fused to PZ's arse.

By Robert O'Brien (not verified) on 03 Jun 2009 #permalink

I think part of the problem is that colloquially "liberal" is often used to mean "non-idiotic".

Among the intellectually inbred, perhaps.

By Robert O'Brien (not verified) on 03 Jun 2009 #permalink

Re Elyse

Mr./Ms. Elyse should be honored to be dissed by a pompous jackass like Mr. O'Brien who has been banned at both Ed Braytons and PZ Myers blogs. If Mr. O'Brien is on the faculty of any UC campus, it only shows how the standards of the once distinguished university system have deteriorated.

I think it's refreshing to have someone who thinks for himself in higher education. If I were a dean, I'd hire this professor on the spot. He sounds like he cares about his students enough to try and get them to think for themselves instead of following the Darwinian crowd. Daniel Webster said: "Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." I'd like to see more of my students actually thinking about being good, moral, and upstanding citizens, instead of being selfish and arrogant children. Today's students are often biblically illiterate. As a teacher, I like to bring in texts from Martin Luther King, Jr. Many of my students don't even know what King's biblical references mean. But if you, as a teacher, try to educate your students so they can understand what Martin Luther King, Jr. is actually talking about, the next thing you know, you could be fired because you explained what King means when he says we should build on the solid rock instead of the sand. This perpetuates ignorance, not education.

Re Robert O'Brien

Maybe I have missed something here but I was under the impression that Mr. O'Brien was a statistician. I assume then that he teaches statistics at whatever college he lectures at and I fail to see what the hell statistics have to do with religion or Martin Luther King. If I was a dean at that college and heard that a statistics lecturer was engaging in religious activities in the classroom, I would see that his ass was fired ASAP.

Opps, my apologies to Mr. O'Brien. I thought that he authored the comment at #33 that was actually authored by Ms. April. Mea Culpa.

Re April

Ms. April says she is a teacher. I am curious as to what courses she teaches and at what level (e.g. high school, college, etc.). Her comments on Darwinists shows that she is entirely ignorant of evolutionary biology and hopefully is not teaching a biology course, which she is obviously totally incompetent to do. If she is teaching at a state school, her comments indicate an attempt at proselytizing which is entirely inappropriate in such a venue.

Re April

Ms. April is laboring under a misapprehension. Mr. Adams is supposed to be teaching a course in criminology which has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, of which he is obviously entirely ignorant. Mr. Adams has no more business lecturing on evolution then he does on quantum mechanics, another subject about which, I am sure, he is totally ignorant. I would also point out that the university at which he teaches is a state school so that his attempts at proselytizing are entirely out of bounds. His lectures should be confined to criminology and eschew discussions of religion and evolution.

Such vitriol! Was Mr O'Brien weaned on a pickle? What could make a person so sour? Is it fair to say that I have doubts about April's perspicacity and veracity? And what calumny will fall upon me for voicing these misgivings?

By John Swindle (not verified) on 03 Jun 2009 #permalink

Similar but less ogregious was my son's 6'th grade math teacher explaining to them that things were different 6000 years ago when men where naturally about 10 feet tall.

Don't ask me how she worked this into a math class, I haven't got a clue.


Actually many animals were bigger back then becuase the oxygen level was greater. People lived hundreds of years becuase the radiation from the Sun was nearly nothing due to the canopy covering the earth.

There were giants then, but ony becuase fallen angels bred with women and made a new race which was destroyed by the flood.

By Right Winger (not verified) on 03 Jun 2009 #permalink

Re Right Winger

I am assuming that Mr. Wingers' comment was a snark as nobody could be that idiotic.

How else would you explain PYGMIES + DWARVES???

Libertarians tend to be pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay rights, ...

That would explain why the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr for their presidential candidate in 2008, with his fine history of anti-choice, anti-gay, and rabid drug war insanity legislation.

I have to disagree with the people/person who say that the student should have directly confronted the professor. I, at least, have never been comfortable with directly confronting a professor on a topic where I think they were both wrong and out of line: they tend to be the professors from which you'd expect a kneejerk response. These are people in control of your grades and this particular criminology professor has already shown himself to be browbeating and quick to be defensive.

By Shirakawasuna (not verified) on 07 Jun 2009 #permalink

SLC,no 36 comments
Don't be too proud of your Quantum physics or biology evolution stuffs.Those are chicken feed subjects to God.

-Don't be too proud of your Quantum physics or biology evolution stuffs.Those are chicken feed subjects to God.-

Yes, mighty Thor will crush your silly quantums.

By Richard Eis (not verified) on 29 Jun 2009 #permalink

What does Darwin, evolution and Christianity have to do with any aspect of criminology?

You aren't aware that an extremely common claim by conservative Christians is that humans will inevitably be lawless and morally reprehensible unless they embrace conservative Christianity?