MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?

[GGGG]

He went to the JS, he went to 620...is the point any less valid?

He took it out of house to make his employer look bad, which he does quite often.

If I got in trouble for harassing someone at my work in the real world and managed to get on the radio and whine about it, what do you think would happen to me? Bye bye.

Honestly regardless of politics, I don't see how anyone who loves MU can support a guy whose sole mission in life is to make MU look bad, whether its warranted or not. I'd say the same thing about a crazy liberal person badmouthing MU all over the media. Good riddance.

Dan Maguire?

Maguire is different.  He doesn't publish a blog that calls out his employer.  He mostly does his thing in scholarly journals that are consistent with his research and his philosophy.  Marquette has been extremely supportive of him because he does things the "right way" in that regard.

[GGGG]

I agree and disagree.  The action they took with the suspension, means the administration is seriously sick of the guy.  They are using this as an opportunity to fire him (in the future).  He will receive a minor reprimand (in most peoples eyes).  He will likely have a letter put on his permanent file and will be instructed that future actions will be considered a fireable offense.

He will then be able to chose whether he wants to tone down his rhetoric or risk being fire, or alternatively to look for a new job. 

For most tenure revocations they need that first warning/action officially on file (some exceptions to this).  After that it is far far easier to fire the individual.  That letter on file is extremely rare and would be considered a fairly significant reprimand, academia does not take such actions often.

Good points all around.

[brandx]

I agree and disagree.  The action they took with the suspension, means the administration is seriously sick of the guy.  They are using this as an opportunity to fire him (in the future).  He will receive a minor reprimand (in most peoples eyes).  He will likely have a letter put on his permanent file and will be instructed that future actions will be considered a fireable offense.

He will then be able to chose whether he wants to tone down his rhetoric or risk being fire, or alternatively to look for a new job. 

For most tenure revocations they need that first warning/action officially on file (some exceptions to this).  After that it is far far easier to fire the individual.  That letter on file is extremely rare and would be considered a fairly significant reprimand, academia does not take such actions often.

Then the lawsuits will start.

[rocket surgeon]

the only thing missing out of marquette's "dragnet" harassment policy is looking cross-eyed at your adversary.  if this incident were flipped, you would be hearing things more along the line of,  he's just exercising his creative juices and rights of free speech.  welcoming a dialogue of opposing viewpoints, and all the rest of the adjectives the left uses to justify their speech while stifling and even in some cases harassing their opposition into silence...phobi racist phobic racist...
here's another example of tolerance on college campus's and you can just feel the tolerance just oozing all over-

  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/campus-turns-on-muslim-conservative-who-penned-pc-satire/

[mu-rara]

the only thing missing out of marquette's "dragnet" harassment policy is looking cross-eyed at your adversary.  if this incident were flipped, you would be hearing things more along the line of,  he's just exercising his creative juices and rights of free speech.  welcoming a dialogue of opposing viewpoints, and all the rest of the adjectives the left uses to justify their speech while stifling and even in some cases harassing their opposition into silence...phobi racist phobic racist...
here's another example of tolerance on college campus's and you can just feel the tolerance just oozing all over-

  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/campus-turns-on-muslim-conservative-who-penned-pc-satire/

I have seen this before.

I have 2 gay family members.  Through them I have met their friends.  One of the friends is conservative, which brings him no limit of grief.  It's like being a conservative black or in this case a conservative Muslim.  I joked with him that he was going to lose his gay card.   He laughed, some others, not so much.

[MUfan12]

f this incident were flipped, you would be hearing things more along the line of,  he's just exercising his creative juices and rights of free speech.  welcoming a dialogue of opposing viewpoints, and all the rest of the adjectives the left uses to justify their speech while stifling and even in some cases harassing their opposition into silence...phobi racist phobic racist...
here's another example of tolerance on college campus's and you can just feel the tolerance just oozing all over-
 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/campus-turns-on-muslim-conservative-who-penned-pc-satire/

I won't go as far as you did, but in a way, you touched on my problem with MU's handling of this. There has been far more inflammatory things said and done on college campuses (even MU) that have been protected by "academic freedom."

[Pakuni]

I won't go as far as you did, but in a way, you touched on my problem with MU's handling of this. There has been far more inflammatory things said and done on college campuses (even MU) that have been protected by "academic freedom."

The point you all seem to be missing is that the target of McAdams' piece wasn't a public (or university) policy, a political or public figure, or even an issue in the public discourse.
This isn't an issue of academic freedom because there was nothing "academic" about McAdams' remarks, nor was there any academic intent behind them. He didn't use his blog as a platform to further scholarship or understanding. He used it to attack a co-worker with whom he (perhaps) has different ideas about how to run a classroom, and to regurgitate some apparently long-held grudges against other faculty.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The number of fascists on this board amazes me.

Be careful, ladies. One day the tables may turn and if the university is ever run by a conservative you could find your own ideological friends on the firing squad using the exact same contrived logic that you're displaying here.

[MUfan12]

The point you all seem to be missing is that the target of McAdams' piece wasn't a public (or university) policy, a political or public figure, or even an issue in the public discourse.

While it might not be explicit policy, there's a University identity element at play here. Neither side is blameless. I just think MU overreacted by banning him from campus.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The point you all seem to be missing is that the target of McAdams' piece wasn't a public (or university) policy, a political or public figure, or even an issue in the public discourse.
This isn't an issue of academic freedom because there was nothing "academic" about McAdams' remarks, nor was there any academic intent behind them. He didn't use his blog as a platform to further scholarship or understanding. He used to attack a co-worker with whom he (perhaps) has different ideas about how to run a classroom, and to regurgitate some apparently long-held grudges against other faculty.

Exactly.

I'm in favor of a conservative voice on campus and challenging the status quo. I'm not in favor of a professor taking every opportunity publicly call out his employer and co-workers and push his own agenda.

As isolated incidents, McAdams is fine, but now he has a track record of this kinda of thing. He doesn't actually want change, he just wants to promote his viewpoint.  

If I were a co-worker, I would be afraid to engage with the guy, because if I had a disagreement with him, I could end up as blog fodder.

At this point, McAdams is not exactly an instrument of change.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I know you libs hate McAdams, just like you hate anyone you disagree with.

But the logic used by Marquette here demonstrates what an amateur hour leadership the school has had, for decades, even on completely non-political issues. That fact should not be controversial.

The school can't fill a Dean or Provost position to save its life. They just filled the A&S Dean position after seven years of bloopers and interims, and apparently the SLU comm professor - turned Marquette provost flopped.

Firing a tenured professor for - gasp - blogging about the discussion stifling nature of a Phil class is going to make the school look as dumb as ever as a potential employer. And that's not good even if you're a leftist.

[Coleman]

Again, he was attacking a student. This is not about academic freedom. Its not about politics. It is about harassment. Period.

[shiloh26]

Exactly.

I'm in favor of a conservative voice on campus and challenging the status quo. I'm not in favor of a professor taking every opportunity publicly call out his employer and co-workers and push his own agenda.

As isolated incidents, McAdams is fine, but now he has a track record of this kinda of thing. He doesn't actually want change, he just wants to promote his viewpoint.  

If I were a co-worker, I would be afraid to engage with the guy, because if I had a disagreement with him, I could end up as blog fodder.

At this point, McAdams is not exactly an instrument of change.

I would agree with this.  I had McAdams for several classes, and would consider him a fine professor, but his crusades outside of the classroom were rarely respectful.  There is absolutely a need for conservative voices on campus, especially in the College of Arts and Sciences, but he would routinely resort to personal attacks on fellow professors, and then hide behind a perceived victim status if anyone ever fought back.  I think this incident and his temporary dismissal have a lot to do with his own past actions and his almost total alienation of his colleagues.

http://marquettewire.org/2014/11/25/tribune/viewpoints/reader-submission-mcadamss-treatment-of-instructor-is-deplorable/

That is his own department head (and, if you scroll into the comments, his past department heads dating back to 2000) and quite a few other MU professors in the College of Arts & Sciences chiding his actions.  If anything, it shows that his colleagues and administration have little respect left for McAdams.  

Edit: just to note that his past and current department heads who signed onto this letter, Dr. Barrington, Dr. Friman and Dr. McCormick (never had a class with Dr. Swank) are all far from flaming liberals.  This goes well beyond some perceived liberal attack on conservative views.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I know you libs hate McAdams, just like you hate anyone you disagree with.

But the logic used by Marquette here demonstrates what an amateur hour leadership the school has had, for decades, even on completely non-political issues. That fact should not be controversial.

The school can't fill a Dean or Provost position to save its life. They just filled the A&S Dean position after seven years of bloopers and interims, and apparently the SLU comm professor - turned Marquette provost flopped.

Firing a tenured professor for - gasp - blogging about the discussion stifling nature of a Phil class is going to make the school look as dumb as ever as a potential employer. And that's not good even if you're a leftist.

This isn't about politics for me. I LIKE having a conservative professor on campus. It's good for MU.

But, having the guy potentially use ANYTHING/EVERYTHING as blog fodder isn't a good idea.

What if I took his class and got into a debate with him. Is he going to out me as a flaming liberal on his blog? (I'm not, BTW).

What if another professor has a professional disagreement with him, is that okay for him to take to his blog?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

What if another professor has a professional disagreement with him, is that okay for him to take to his blog?

Jesus Christ. It's a f@cking college campus. Yes it's okay to take professional disagreements wherever the f@ck he wants. If you want a debate free campus try North Korea or Cuba.

[mu03eng]

Honestly, I think everyone is making far to big a deal of this...on both sides.  In our rush to be the most righteous defender of our American ideals, we have conflated what McAdams did to either some sort of rabid attack that could scar a person for life or a muzzling of creative thought absolute oppression of free speech.  There is nothing nearly so nefarious in anything that has gone on.

I will neither die on the hill McAdams wants to defend nor die attacking that hill with McAdams' detractors.  There is nothing to be gained by turning this into a who was oppressed debate.

I will criticize all involved because it didn't need to come to any of this.  The TA could and should have allowed the debate, that is what a university is for.  The student could and should have taken their complaint through the proper channels.  McAdams shouldn't have turned into some sort of nazi oppression of thought.  Most importantly, the university should not have escalated this.  Had they ignored McAdams blog(in the public eye) and discussed with him their disappoint as well as with the TA the appropriate way to handle the situation this could have been resolved without the public being aware.

Banning McAdams and suspending him did nothing but make talk radio aware of it and gave McAdams his martyr opportunity.  Poor showing by the university in a personnel and "crisis" management but lets not make this incident anything more than that.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Jesus Christ. It's a f@cking college campus. Yes it's okay to take professional disagreements wherever the f@ck he wants. If you want a debate free campus try North Korea or Cuba.

Well, then that's where we fundamentally disagree.

I understand college campuses need to be free places for debate and exchange of ideas, and that's exactly why I DON'T want a professor taking those debates to his own personal blog.

It would likely stifle the open exchange of ideas because some people just wouldn't want the hassle of their name/likeness being used as part of his blog where they can't exactly defend themselves/viewpoint.

[warriorchick]

Honestly, I think everyone is making far to big a deal of this...on both sides.  In our rush to be the most righteous defender of our American ideals, we have conflated what McAdams did to either some sort of rabid attack that could scar a person for life or a muzzling of creative thought absolute oppression of free speech.  There is nothing nearly so nefarious in anything that has gone on.

I will neither die on the hill McAdams wants to defend nor die attacking that hill with McAdams' detractors.  There is nothing to be gained by turning this into a who was oppressed debate.

I will criticize all involved because it didn't need to come to any of this.  The TA could and should have allowed the debate, that is what a university is for.  The student could and should have taken their complaint through the proper channels.  McAdams shouldn't have turned into some sort of nazi oppression of thought.  Most importantly, the university should not have escalated this.  Had they ignored McAdams blog(in the public eye) and discussed with him their disappoint as well as with the TA the appropriate way to handle the situation this could have been resolved without the public being aware.

Banning McAdams and suspending him did nothing but make talk radio aware of it and gave McAdams his martyr opportunity.  Poor showing by the university in a personnel and "crisis" management but lets not make this incident anything more than that.

I agree with everything here, but if the TA filed a complaint, the University can't just ignore it. They have to follow the established channels.

McAdams himself says that he is only assuming that it is his blog that spurred Marquette's actions.  The only ones who know for sure are the Marquette officials who are in charge of handling harassment complaints, and perhaps that complainant herself.  For all we know, the TA may  have asserted that McAdams said or did something else that is the basis for this action.   

[Coleman]

Well, then that's where we fundamentally disagree.

I understand college campuses need to be free places for debate and exchange of ideas, and that's exactly why I DON'T want a professor taking those debates to his own personal blog.

It would likely stifle the open exchange of ideas because some people just wouldn't want the hassle of their name/likeness being used as part of his blog where they can't exactly defend themselves/viewpoint.

+1

A university is supposed to be a safe environment for a free-exchange of ideas. In that sense, the TA did fall short of this ideal. Whether there were was a legitimate justification for the stifling of that exchange of ideas can be debated. The way for that debate to be done is respectfully, within the university environment. The arena should not be a blog attacking the TA. It should not be AM radio 620. And when the TA files a complaint, the university has to investigate.

Finally, going the ad hominem route and  calling people you disagree with fascists doesn't do much to show anyone here that you are some champion of free expression or an exchange of ideas.

[Mods, Delete me please. 8/26/2020]

It would likely stifle the open exchange of ideas because some people just wouldn't want the hassle of their name/likeness being used as part of his blog where they can't exactly defend themselves/viewpoint.

Holy Balls, Yossarian.   Do you not understand that the McAdams' blog exists entirely because those opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS????   You want him to shut down the open-debate-is-not-allowed-on-campus blog in order to promote open debate on a campus that stifles open debate?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

+1

A university is supposed to be a safe environment for a free-exchange of ideas. In that sense, the TA did fall short of this ideal. Whether there were was a legitimate justification for the stifling of that exchange of ideas can be debated. The way for that debate to be done is respectfully, within the university environment. The arena should not be a blog attacking the TA. It should not be AM radio 620. And when the TA files a complaint, the university has to investigate.

Finally, going the ad hominem route and  calling people you disagree with fascists doesn't do much to show anyone here that you are some champion of free expression or an exchange of ideas.

Stopping debate that you're afraid of and wiping out the employment of the people you hate does make you a fascist.

[brandx]

Holy Balls, Yossarian.   Do you not understand that the McAdams' blog exists entirely because those opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS????   You want him to shut down the open-debate-is-not-allowed-on-campus blog in order to promote open debate on a campus that stifles open debate?

Really??

So now it has gone from one teachers-aide not allowing one discussion to "opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS"?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I fully embrace your right to be an a$$hole and a fascist, by the way. The same right you won't afford anyone you disagree with.

[Pakuni]

Stopping debate that you're afraid of and wiping out the employment of the people you hate does make you a fascist.

[brandx]

Stopping debate that you're afraid of and wiping out the employment of the people you hate does make you a fascist.

Really?

Now the univerisity is stopping debate and wiping out employment? The MU heirarchy is fascist. They are haters?

Get a grip on reality, dude. And if you believe this drivel you wrote, go to your job and do what McAdams did. Then you will be able to start your own blog about how the fascist haters at your company fired you unfairly.