MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?

[keefe]

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.

 

Then you miss the point of the comparison. Though the crimes are different accountability must always be an absolute.

And it isn't about her having too many research interests....

[mu03eng]

This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc.  It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.

Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic.  The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure:  The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion.  To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought
-Student speaks to TA after class with the intent to "catch" the TA in a poor moment in an effort to bolster his "case"
Failure:  Student engaged in an adversarial way and likely in a way that was not intended to redress the issue but exacerbate it.  At a minimum he was dishonest
-Student took the issue to a higher authority at the same time he made Dr. McAdams aware of the event
Failure:  Student didn't follow the prescribed method for addressing his grievance
-Dr McAdams chose to take the issue up on his blog with or without engaging the proper channels
Failure:  McAdams was seeking to address the situation but in a way that was going to accomplish little but inflame the situation and force the university to react
-University takes action against Dr McAdams as awareness of the situation grows
Failure:  University overreacted causing the situation to become more inflamed and further complicating the matter.

Honestly, if anyone had acted like an adult at any point all the way, we don't get to where we are.

[mu03eng]

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"

I agree this should be addressed, however so should the TA....neither acted appropriately in my opinion.  And that is actually where I fault the university, it was a teachable moment for both the TA and the student.

[GGGG]

Then you miss the point of the comparison. Though the crimes are different accountability must always be an absolute.

Uh...right.  Which I acknowledged.

And it isn't about her having too many research interests....

Really???

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.

Oops.

[GGGG]

This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc.  It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.

Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic.  The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure:  The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion.  To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought

Actually she was not leading a discussion on gay marriage.  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay

"Earlier this year, Cheryl Abbate, the teaching assistant, was leading an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle, according to which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. To explore the idea, Abbate asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. When one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle, Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, she said in an email interview. The largest portion of the conversation centered on concealed weapons bans and various drug laws."

Clearly she didn't think it was a great example.  Here is where she erred:

Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”

The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”

She should have simply said, "I didn't think the example you gave was a good one given the topic at hand," and left it at that.

[Coleman]

Actually she was not leading a discussion on gay marriage.  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay

"Earlier this year, Cheryl Abbate, the teaching assistant, was leading an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle, according to which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. To explore the idea, Abbate asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. When one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle, Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, she said in an email interview. The largest portion of the conversation centered on concealed weapons bans and various drug laws."

Clearly she didn't think it was a great example.  Here is where she erred:

Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”

The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”

She should have simply said, "I didn't think the example you gave was a good one given the topic at hand," and left it at that.

+1

[Pakuni]

This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc.  It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.

Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic.  The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure:  The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion.  To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought

I'm not sure this is quite correct. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed story on this, the discussion was about "John Rawls’ equal liberty principle."
A student suggested that laws banning gay marriage violated the principle. According to the story, Abbate brushed past the suggestion and went on to discuss other possible violations.
She then was approached by another student afterwards (not the one who first raised the issue of gay marriage) because he believed she should have given the other student's suggestion more consideration. At least according to this account, Abbate never told any student opposed to gay marriage during class that he/she couldn't broach the subject, but rather told a different student after class that she didn't think it was an appropriate topic as part of that discussion.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc.  It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.

Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic.  The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure:  The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion.  To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought
-Student speaks to TA after class with the intent to "catch" the TA in a poor moment in an effort to bolster his "case"
Failure:  Student engaged in an adversarial way and likely in a way that was not intended to redress the issue but exacerbate it.  At a minimum he was dishonest
-Student took the issue to a higher authority at the same time he made Dr. McAdams aware of the event
Failure:  Student didn't follow the prescribed method for addressing his grievance
-Dr McAdams chose to take the issue up on his blog with or without engaging the proper channels
Failure:  McAdams was seeking to address the situation but in a way that was going to accomplish little but inflame the situation and force the university to react
-University takes action against Dr McAdams as awareness of the situation grows
Failure:  University overreacted causing the situation to become more inflamed and further complicating the matter.

Honestly, if anyone had acted like an adult at any point all the way, we don't get to where we are.

If this were an isolated incident, then I would agree that MU is overreacting... but it seems likely that McAdams has been walking a fine line for a while, and they felt it was necessary to get their arms around this.

MU may take some heat in the media, but they have to maintain some level of control and professionalism with their staff.

[forgetful]

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?"  

Keefe, although I have a lot of respect for your achievements, frankly this post is an embarrassment.  You are making a lot of assumptions about what occurred in the class, making bold accusatory statements not supported by the known facts and you dismiss a whole area of thought/philsoophy (ecofeminism), because you haven't heard of it/disagree with it.

Shameful.

[brandx]

I agree this should be addressed, however so should the TA....neither acted appropriately in my opinion.  And that is actually where I fault the university, it was a teachable moment for both the TA and the student.

I agree with your assessment.

[Badgerhater]

Interesting conversations all around.

The one thing that seems to be accepted by most people here is that Marquette University made a mess of what should have remained a small incident.

Unfortunately, Marquette University has been making a mess of a lot of things recently and, as a result, has been losing credibility to the point that just as the totality of McAdams' individual actions has diminished him, MU's ham-handedness has done the same for the university.

With regard to the TA, her supervisor needs to be held accountable too.  When I was a history TA back in the day, the escalation of such sidebar confrontations would not have been tolerated from the TA or the student.

[drewm88]

Interesting conversations all around.

The one thing that seems to be accepted by most people here is that Marquette University made a mess of what should have remained a small incident.

Unfortunately, Marquette University has been making a mess of a lot of things recently and, as a result, has been losing credibility to the point that just as the totality of McAdams' individual actions has diminished him, MU's ham-handedness has done the same for the university.

With regard to the TA, her supervisor needs to be held accountable too.  When I was a history TA back in the day, the escalation of such sidebar confrontations would not have been tolerated from the TA or the student.

I'm not sure the bolded part is as widely accepted as you say. I don't know the details of their policies in this arena, and I don't know the full behind-the-scenes story of the process. Without that, I'm not ready to assert that MU made a mess of it. Sometimes responses are required even if they stir up (bad?) press.

[mu03eng]

I'm not sure this is quite correct. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed story on this, the discussion was about "John Rawls’ equal liberty principle."
A student suggested that laws banning gay marriage violated the principle. According to the story, Abbate brushed past the suggestion and went on to discuss other possible violations.
She then was approached by another student afterwards (not the one who first raised the issue of gay marriage) because he believed she should have given the other student's suggestion more consideration. At least according to this account, Abbate never told any student opposed to gay marriage during class that he/she couldn't broach the subject, but rather told a different student after class that she didn't think it was an appropriate topic as part of that discussion.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay

You are correct that the debate was not about gay marriage, but where you are incorrect is that when that topic came up the TA chose to place a value judgement on a person's opinion of gay marriage.  If she had simply said that is a poor example let's moved on, you and I would be in complete agreement.  However, by at a minimum, implying that opposition to gay marriage is offensive without providing an opportunity to rebut that implication is where she erred.

[GGGG]

I'm not sure the bolded part is as widely accepted as you say. I don't know the details of their policies in this arena, and I don't know the full behind-the-scenes story of the process. Without that, I'm not ready to assert that MU made a mess of it. Sometimes responses are required even if they stir up (bad?) press.

Yeah, I mean part of the entire "stay off campus" thing might be standard procedure where a staff member is accused of harassing a student.  That being said, Marquette might want to say something, not about the complaint itself, but the procedures in place to address it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yeah, I mean part of the entire "stay off campus" thing might be standard procedure where a staff member is accused of harassing a student.  That being said, Marquette might want to say something, not about the complaint itself, but the procedures in place to address it.

The problem is, no matter what they say, McAdams is going to play the victim. MU could be doing this EXACTLY by the book, and he'd still paint them into a corner.

Now, I don't say this because I think MU is infallible or without culpability, but their options aren't exactly good.

Hopefully, McAdams takes his medicine and calms down a little bit, and then all goes away over time.

[Pakuni]

However, by at a minimum, implying that opposition to gay marriage is offensive without providing an opportunity to rebut that implication is where she erred.

But as far as I can tell - and I could be misinformed here -  her statements about opposition to gay marriage being offensive came outside the classroom, in a one-on-one discussion with a student, not during class.
And given that setting (a private discussion), I'm not sure why she would be required to provide him an opportunity to rebut that implication.
I think it's fair to debate as to whether or not she should have brushed off the student who raised the issue during class, and whether she's right about it being an inappropriate example for that class discussion, but I think that's separate from their private conversation.

[mu03eng]

But as far as I can tell - and I could be misinformed here -  her statements about opposition to gay marriage being offensive came outside the classroom, in a one-on-one discussion with a student, not during class.
And given that setting (a private discussion), I'm not sure why she would be required to provide him an opportunity to rebut that implication.
I think we can all make judgments as to whether or not she should have brushed off the student who raised the issue during class, and whether she's right about it being an inappropriate example for that class discussion, but I think that's separate from their private conversation.

I read the facts to be her statement about the offensive nature of the position being in the class in front of everyone.  If that's not the case I would whole heartily agree with you.  If her comment were made one on one, that is her opinion and she is entitled to have it and express it.

[Aughnanure]

People just need to get over the reality that is gay marriage. It's done.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

Ok you're right just as saying black people shouldn't have the right to vote isn't racist.  Either way you're taking away a right someone has. 

Anyways whoever the poster was that posted the dictionary definition to you already said what I was going to.

[Badgerhater]

The problem is, no matter what they say, McAdams is going to play the victim. MU could be doing this EXACTLY by the book, and he'd still paint them into a corner.

Now, I don't say this because I think MU is infallible or without culpability, but their options aren't exactly good.

Which directly ties to the main part of my post.   MU's long list of screw ups has limited its credibility and it makes it harder to give the university the benefit of the doubt when it, may in fact, have done the correct thing.

[Lennys Tap]

Ok you're right just as saying black people shouldn't have the right to vote isn't racist.  Either way you're taking away a right someone has. 

Anyways whoever the poster was that posted the dictionary definition to you already said what I was going to.

While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Which directly ties to the main part of my post.   MU's long list of screw ups has limited its credibility and it makes it harder to give the university the benefit of the doubt when it, may in fact, have done the correct thing.

Fair, but for me personally, I don't have a long list of MU screw-ups that immediately come to mind.

BUT, I don't follow a lot of the decisions closely, so I have to plead ignorance.

[Pakuni]

The good news is that it's just a matter of time before this whole gay marriage debate goes away.
Pat Robertson says all the gays will die out eventually since they don't reproduce.
It's science.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/what-pat-robertson-predicts-gays-will-go-extinct-because-they-dont-reproduce/

[mu03eng]

While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.

Depends on if you are talking about secular or religious marriage.  Religious marriage will likely never be gender-identification neutral.  Secular marriage is largely redefined as gender identification independent.  This distinction is also part of the issue at MU I believe.

[Galway Eagle]

While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.

What mu03eng said. But farther than that have you ever actually taken a step back and thought what the bible defines and/or suggests marriage should be and when it should happen? Here are some examples: a woman's rapist, her son, a mans sister or in one instance a bunch of salt (since divorce wasn't legal and God turned one guys wife into salt).  So yes it's defined by the Union of a man and at least one woman in the bible but let's not act like that's exactly the moral end all be all.