MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?

[brandx]

I will disgree with you on this Brandx.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe McAdams' intent is to hurt MU's brand, in fact, I believe he seeks to improve it as free expression does make for a better university.  Where McAdams goes wrong is the modality he chooses for his improvement and this is colored by his personal politics.

If the TA prevented a student from expressing their views on gay marriage during a discussion on gay marriage, is that a right or wrong act in your mind?  If it is a wrong act, than seeking to correct it is a right act, however the method of redress could also be wrong....as IMHO I think McAdams was

No prob. To me, it depends on whether he tried to handle this internally before putting it on his blog.

Students don't get to decide what is discussed. But if the TA initiates the discussion, then any student should be able to put their views out there. Per your example, there is a whole gamut of reasons someone may be against gay marriage from religious/moral views to bigotry or anything in between. Whether you or I - or the TA - disagrees or agrees with those views in an open discussion is not relevant.

If a student feels shut out, there are avenues to address that other than throwing bombs.

[Lennys Tap]

So lemme get this straight trying to make an environment where people who are different don't have to hear hate spewed about their life is being fascist. And it's not ok to call people who say such hateful things phobic however it is ok to call the people trying to make more people feel welcome fascists?

Saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage (at the moment that would include Pope Francis) is spewing hate and is homophobic is as intellectually dishonest as calling anti war activists anti American. Your post is an example of the "I'm right, you're evil" attitude that has polarized this country and made debate or even conversation nigh on impossible.

[Pakuni]

Here is the bud of the bud and the root of the root - the majority or consensus opinion in a culture or community comes to view the marginalizing of the minority view as something that's almost logical, almost ok. The protests from the minorities about a bigoted, unfair atmosphere are looked at as exaggerated or imagined. Things like free speech, academic freedom, etc., take on much different meaning depending on whose ox is being gored. For all but a very few politics trump principle.

That's all well and good, and no doubt there are instances where this is correct, but I'm having hard time grasping in this specific case what principle McAdams is standing for.
This ultimately comes down to one teaching assistant not acceding to the demands of one student regarding whether a specific issues should be discussed as part of a specific lesson in her classroom.
While we can agree or disagree whether gay marriage was an appropriate subject for that particular discussion, do we really want a campus environment wherein instructors must cede control of their classrooms to the whims of individual students, lest they be publicly vilified by co-workers and others?
I'm curious whether McAdams would apply the same principles to his own classroom. I suspect he wouldn't, which is why his blog and the ensuing firestorm - handled not so well by the university, as well - is such utter nonsense.
McAdams doesn't want a serious discussion of classroom dynamics and academic freedom. Nothing in his initial blog suggests that even a little. Rather it's nothing more than a rant against a teaching assistant, and an excuse to attack faculty members with whom he's clashed before and his "liberal" enemies.
If this was a legitimate question about academic freedoms, perhaps I could cut McAdams some more leeway here. But it's not, and never was.

[MUfan12]

I'm curious whether McAdams would apply the same principles to his own classroom. I suspect he wouldn't, which is why his blog and the ensuing firestorm - handled not so well by the university, as well - is such utter nonsense.
McAdams doesn't want a serious discussion of classroom dynamics and academic freedom.

Did you have McAdams as an instructor?

He allowed a ton of debate, even at the expense of moving the class along. He'd disagree with liberal students, but never shut them down. In fact, a former College Democrats chair is encouraging their alums to write the Dean to protest this.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Did you have McAdams as an instructor?

He allowed a ton of debate, even at the expense of moving the class along. He'd disagree with liberal students, but never shut them down. In fact, a former College Democrats chair is encouraging their alums to write the Dean to protest this.

Good.

At the same time, why wasn't this McAdams offering his experience moderating hot-button debates to educate a TA?  Isn't that what an educator should do?

[Pakuni]

Saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage (at the moment that would include Pope Francis) is spewing hate and is homophobic is as intellectually dishonest as calling anti war activists anti American. Your post is an example of the "I'm right, you're evil" attitude that has polarized this country and made debate or even conversation nigh on impossible.

Webster's defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (emphasis mine)

Non-rhetorical question:
Is denying a group of people a legal right based solely on their sexual orientation qualify as discrimination, or even irrational discrimination?

If so, I would think, then being against gay marriage does at least meet the dictionary definition of being homophobic.

[keefe]

This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???

"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."

I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.

While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.

**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"  

[Sir Lawrence]

**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"  

Keefe, you've never heard of an "earth mother?"

[GGGG]

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.

Do you really think your hyperbole helps your arguments?

The BEST professor I had at Marquette was Christopher Wolfe.  Professor Wolfe is extremely conservative, both in his politics and in his views of his scholarly topic - the Constitution.  Pretty much the exact opposite of me.  On top of that his classes were A LOT of work reading a ton of court cases every week, and a final exam that consisted of filling up more than one "blue book."

But I loved him.  A great professor who encouraged debate, and respected what you had to say even if you disagreed with him.  And in the end, he usually "won," not because he shouted you down or because he had the last word, but because he was so...damn...smart.

OTOH, I had Nancy Snow as a professor too.  I think it was her first year on the faculty.  And she was the same in every single way.  (Except obviously very liberal.)

I never had McAdams as a professor.  Frankly I don't even know if he was there.  So I have no idea if he is "good" in the same ways that I thought Wolfe and Snow were.  I do know that his blog is filled with talking point after talking point.  It isn't very scholarly.  But I do think he has the right to have it and say what he wants.

However I do think in this case he was wrong.  It isn't up to a student to determine what issue should be discussed in a class.  The classroom is the teacher's domain.  On top of it all it was a graduate student...not a professor.

I'm not sure what he did on his blog wrt this incident was "harassment," but it was clearly not scholarly in any sense of the word, and was also extremely unprofessional.

[keefe]

Keefe, you've never heard of an "earth mother?"

Ah, an Earth Mama. Here in the Northwest they are typically found driving Outbacks.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

That's all well and good, and no doubt there are instances where this is correct, but I'm having hard time grasping in this specific case what principle McAdams is standing for.
This ultimately comes down to one teaching assistant not acceding to the demands of one student regarding whether a specific issues should be discussed as part of a specific lesson in her classroom.
While we can agree or disagree whether gay marriage was an appropriate subject for that particular discussion, do we really want a campus environment wherein instructors must cede control of their classrooms to the whims of individual students, lest they be publicly vilified by co-workers and others?
I'm curious whether McAdams would apply the same principles to his own classroom. I suspect he wouldn't, which is why his blog and the ensuing firestorm - handled not so well by the university, as well - is such utter nonsense.
McAdams doesn't want a serious discussion of classroom dynamics and academic freedom. Nothing in his initial blog suggests that even a little. Rather it's nothing more than a rant against a teaching assistant, and an excuse to attack faculty members with whom he's clashed before and his "liberal" enemies.
If this was a legitimate question about academic freedoms, perhaps I could cut McAdams some more leeway here. But it's not, and never was.

Exactly. If McAdams actually wants change, then be the champion of change and work with MU and it's instructors.

Instead, he went on a rant.

[GGGG]

This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???

"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."

I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.

While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.

**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"  

Dude, she's a 20/30-some year old graduate student.  Don't compare her to someone who has the wisdom and experience of someone much older and refined.  I have said from the beginning that she will likely look back on this and realize she could have handled it better.

[GGGG]

I agree that the university can't ignore the complaint and it should follow procedure, but it should for sure let McAdams know why they are taking the action they are taking.  If it's for the blog shame on them, if it's for something further he said than shame on him for not saying that.  If they didn't tell McAdams why they are taking the action than shame on Marquette for not handling this properly.  It's not like they are unaware of McAdams propensity to take things to the interwebs.

If you read his blog, he knew full well based on earlier conversations what this was about.  He details previous interactions with the dean on this topic.

[Coleman]

This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???

"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."

I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.

While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.

**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"  

I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.

And to Sultan's point, there are many grad students who claim to have interests in a wide variety of topics. I'm pretty sure when I was getting my MA in history I listed off classical history, church history, military history, medieval history, and european history as research topics of interest. Of course, if I was a tenured 60 year old and still considered my range of expertise to be so wide, that would be another story. You sort of whittle that down as you go.

[jficke13]

I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.

And to Sultan's point, there are many grad students who claim to have interests in a wide variety of topics. I'm pretty sure when I was getting my MA in history I listed off classical history, church history, military history, medieval history, and european history as research topics of interest. Of course, if I was a tenured 60 year old and still considered my range of expertise to be so wide, that would be another story. You sort of whittle that down as you go.

Ah a Ph.D. The act of learning more and more about less and less until eventually you know everything there is to know about nothing at all. Academia is so useful.

[Lennys Tap]

Webster's defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (emphasis mine)

Non-rhetorical question:
Is denying a group of people a legal right based solely on their sexual orientation qualify as discrimination, or even irrational discrimination?

If so, I would think, then being against gay marriage does at least meet the dictionary definition of being homophobic.

That's a very good question. When I google the definition of marriage the first one that comes up is: "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or in some jurisdictions two people of the same sex) as partnership a relationship." Definitions change and evolve. My opinion is that by definition opposition to gay marriage will be able to be considered homophobic and discriminatory at some point in the future, but due to the historical definition of marriage (and even its present one) I would say not necessarily at this precise moment. That's not to say, of course, that none of those opposed to gay marriage are discriminatory or homophobic.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.

I'd disagree based on the name of the thread.  But the issue has broken down into three intertwined questions we're trying to answer at once:

1.  Did Abbate act appropriately as an instructor?
2.  Did McAdams act appropriately as a faculty member?
3.  Was the school's response to McAdams appropriate?

[GGGG]

I'd disagree based on the name of the thread.  But the issue has broken down into three intertwined questions we're trying to answer at once:

1.  Did Abbate act appropriately as an instructor?
2.  Did McAdams act appropriately as a faculty member?
3.  Was the school's response to McAdams appropriate?

Good questions. 

1. No.  Not because she should have allowed this debate, but because she didn't respond to the student's challenges appropriately.  BTW, the student didn't handle it appropriately.

2. No.  I wouldn't call it harassment, but it was clearly not professional.

3.  No.  They had to investigate but could have done so in a less inflammatory manner.


The whole thing is basically a clusterf*ck.

[Coleman]

I'd disagree based on the name of the thread.  But the issue has broken down into three intertwined questions we're trying to answer at once:

1.  Did Abbate act appropriately as an instructor?
2.  Did McAdams act appropriately as a faculty member?
3.  Was the school's response to McAdams appropriate?

1. No
2. No
3. TBD. If they get a complaint, they should investigate. We'll see what the outcome is. But its worth noting this isn't the first crapstorm McAdams has conjured, and that needs to be taken into consideraton.

Regarding questions 1 and 2, a TA and a tenured professor should be held to completely different standards. Abbate did not act as she should, but in my opinion it should be treated a "teachable moment." On the other hand, McAdams' conduct is way out of line and simply unprofessional for a tenured professor.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

BTW, the student didn't handle it appropriately.

I deliberately left that one out.  As someone who sat on the curb while MPD made me pour out my illegally purchased beer, students acting inappropriately is a given.

[tower912]

Do you really think your hyperbole helps your arguments?

The BEST professor I had at Marquette was Christopher Wolfe.  Professor Wolfe is extremely conservative, both in his politics and in his views of his scholarly topic - the Constitution.  Pretty much the exact opposite of me.  On top of that his classes were A LOT of work reading a ton of court cases every week, and a final exam that consisted of filling up more than one "blue book."

But I loved him.  A great professor who encouraged debate, and respected what you had to say even if you disagreed with him.  And in the end, he usually "won," not because he shouted you down or because he had the last word, but because he was so...damn...smart.

OTOH, I had Nancy Snow as a professor too.  I think it was her first year on the faculty.  And she was the same in every single way.  (Except obviously very liberal.)

I never had McAdams as a professor.  Frankly I don't even know if he was there.  So I have no idea if he is "good" in the same ways that I thought Wolfe and Snow were.  I do know that his blog is filled with talking point after talking point.  It isn't very scholarly.  But I do think he has the right to have it and say what he wants.

However I do think in this case he was wrong.  It isn't up to a student to determine what issue should be discussed in a class.  The classroom is the teacher's domain.  On top of it all it was a graduate student...not a professor.

I'm not sure what he did on his blog wrt this incident was "harassment," but it was clearly not scholarly in any sense of the word, and was also extremely unprofessional.

+1 regarding Dr. Wolfe.   I thoroughly enjoyed engaging him in argument.   He seemed to appreciate a well thought out, coherent opinion that was different from his own.   Class act all around who would invite students not going home for Thanksgiving to his house.   

[Pakuni]

I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.

And to Sultan's point, there are many grad students who claim to have interests in a wide variety of topics. I'm pretty sure when I was getting my MA in history I listed off classical history, church history, military history, medieval history, and european history as research topics of interest. Of course, if I was a tenured 60 year old and still considered my range of expertise to be so wide, that would be another story. You sort of whittle that down as you go.

Agreed.
And, to be fair to Abbate, I don't see her proclaiming herself an expert in any of those topics. She describes them as "research interests," which in academia isn't synonymous "fields of expertise."

[brandx]

BTW, the student didn't handle it appropriately.

From the original article:

"So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission."

At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”

A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.



Maybe we are discussing the wrong thing. A discussion of an entitled, spoiled brat who thought he could get recognition through a "gotcha" moment might be more appropriate. He learned his lessons well on "hit-and-run reporting"

[keefe]

Dude, she's a 20/30-some year old graduate student.  Don't compare her to someone who has the wisdom and experience of someone much older and refined.  I have said from the beginning that she will likely look back on this and realize she could have handled it better.

I would counter that age and experience is irrelevant. Lt William Calley didn't get a pass on My Lai because he was 24 years old. He was rightfully convicted because he was brutally incompetent and responsible for the crime. Unfortunately, in a deeply politically divided America, William Calley's were being given responsibility they would not otherwise have been entrusted with. While the system shared responsibility (that is another discussion) Calley was correctly held accountable.

If Cheryl Abbate is given authority she must also accept the attendant responsibility. The absence of which is defined as tyranny.

[GGGG]

I would counter that age and experience is irrelevant. Lt William Calley didn't get a pass on My Lai because he was 24 years old. He was rightfully convicted because he was brutally incompetent and responsible for the crime. Unfortunately, in a deeply politically divided America, William Calley's were being given responsibility they would not otherwise have been entrusted with. While the system shared responsibility (that is another discussion) Calley was correctly held accountable.

Yeah OK.

You lost me when you compare a graduate student who you think has too many research interests and didn't do a good job running her classroom, with a guy who was found guilty of killing 22 people in a massacre.

If Cheryl Abbate is given authority she must also accept the attendant responsibility. The absence of which is defined as tyranny.

Of course.  But having a professor in another department calling her out publicly on his blog isn't the best way to handle that.