ADAMS: The Selective Abortion of Free Speech

Way back in 2001, when a new Women’s Resource Center (WRC) was established at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington (UNCW), I was concerned that it would serve as more of a resource for feminist professors than for female students. I also suspected that the center would try to advance a “pro-choice” agenda with little tolerance for the views of pro-life advocates. Those suspicions were quickly confirmed.

When I first visited the WRC website, I noticed that they claimed a dedication to education and advocacy on a variety of issues facing women of “all backgrounds, beliefs, and orientations.” The center also claimed an interest in working with many community-based organizations and in maintaining “clear lines of communication” between the students and “any organizations involved.” Despite all that, the site gave contact information for Planned Parenthood, while Life Line, a pro-life center, was conspicuously not mentioned.

When I contacted the site’s manager with a simple request for the WRC to add Life Line’s contact information near that of Planned Parenthood, I was directed to Dr. Kathleen Berkeley. Berkeley had pushed for the establishment of the WRC and was in charge of operations until its first official director assumed her duties the following July. After a few days of deliberation and meeting with the administration, Berkeley denied my request via email stating, “The addition of Life Line Pregnancy Center would duplicate information provided by Planned Parenthood.”

Of course, there was no “non-duplication requirement” for organizations posting information on the center’s web site. For example, the site featured two community organizations offering rape crisis counseling – and no reasonable person could have objected to that kind of “duplication.” Surely, if someone built a second domestic violence shelter in town, the center wouldn’t deny a request to list it for “duplication.” Not only was this supposed “non-duplication” standard non-existent and unworkable, but it was also utterly inapplicable given that the differences between Life Line and Planned Parenthood are far greater than their similarities.

The decision to keep Life Line’s information away from students was yet another silly episode revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the university’s so-called commitment to diversity. It is no accident that when I made my request the university library had both a copy of Planned Parenthood’s response to Bernard Nathanson’s Silent Scream and a book by Kathleen Berkeley referring to the Silent Scream as “grisly sensationalism.” But, unsurprisingly, the university library did not have a copy of Silent Scream itself.

Indeed, the university appeared to prefer having students read reviews offered from one perspective – as opposed to having them actually view the original film. To do otherwise would assume the risk that students might come up with a truly diverse opinion.

Unfortunately, in the 16 years since I first wrote about all of the above mendacity we have seen even worse behavior from the leading feminists at my university. And the addition of several new offices promoting “diversity” made the situation even worse from time to time. The low point was in 2015 when the (now former) WRC director’s “wife” assumed control of the LGBTQIA Office. She actually led students in an effort to surround pro-life students on campus by forming a “human chain” that would prevent them from passing out pro-life literature on campus.

Fortunately, that sad episode ended when the police intervened and stopped the “human chain” of feminists. Shortly thereafter, the LGBTQIA Office director was investigated, which led to her resignation from her duties at the university. Better still, the WRC director was also relieved of her duties shortly after I wrote about preferential treatment the student NARAL group was getting from the WRC.

Although the worst of the behavior has passed, there is still a lack of equal representation at the WRC. If you log on to the WRC page, there is still contact information for Planned Parenthood, including a link to their website. But there is no link to Life Line Pregnancy Center. So where is their commitment to serving women of “all backgrounds, beliefs, and orientations” and in maintaining “clear lines of communication?” More importantly, where is the pro-life demand for genuine ideological diversity and inclusion?

In those 16 years since I first began writing about the chronic hypocrisy of our campus feminists, officials at UNCW have likely referred thousands of university women to Planned Parenthood. The pro-abortion position has been our official university position for at least 16 years. That is not diversity. That is ideological bigotry. Now, it is time to do something about it.

Pro-lifers should cease donating money to any university that actively promotes abortion – especially ones denying an equal voice to pro-life organizations. If your university calls asking for money, make sure they are not unfairly excluding the local Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) from the university website. If you find that they have an official Women's Center that promotes Planned Parenthood then make sure they put the local CPC contact information right next to Planned Parenthood.

In other words, demand true tolerance, diversity, and inclusion in exchange for your financial support.

It is quite literally a matter of life and death.

What's Your Reaction?