collapse

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?  (Read 113119 times)

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #375 on: December 22, 2014, 04:08:07 PM »

He should be reprimanded for acting unprofessionally regarding the graduate assistant.  He should have to issue a public apology for how he acted, and apologize to her personally.  If he refuses to do so, I would fire him.

I've never really understood the forced apology punishment. It's like making Marshawn Lynch get in front of reporters and say "Thanks for asking" to every question. What's gained by forcing someone to engage in insincere farce?

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #376 on: December 22, 2014, 04:08:51 PM »
Not trying to be obtuse, but what actions are you holding him accountable for and what do you think the punishment for those actions should be?

Admittedly I'm a little out of my depth, academia is not my forte and not some place I want to spend any more time than necessary  ;D

I feel like we're going in circles.

Specifically:

  • Criticising a Marquette student by name in his blog without first trying to address the issue directly with the TA or within her department leadership
  • Presenting information in said blog post that was a lie/inaccurate/misstatement/nonfactual/whatever word you'd like to use regarding the incident
  • Going on various media (talk radio, Fox News, etc.) to decry the treatment he has received since blogging about the incident, which was suspension with pay, which he likens to being treated as a terrorist.

Further, this didn't happen in a vacuum. It is just the latest in a litany of provocations by McAdams in an attempt to portray our beloved university as his oppressor.

As for the punishment, if this were any other sector besides academia, I would say he should be fired. But I know that's not how it works at a university. At the very least, I hope he gets some sort of official censure, and is put on notice that this is his final warning.

EDIT: Actually, I'm going to go with Sultan's suggestion. He should have to publicly apologize to the student, or be fired. I like that better.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2014, 04:19:27 PM by Bleuteaux »

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #377 on: December 22, 2014, 04:10:44 PM »
I've never really understood the forced apology punishment. It's like making Marshawn Lynch get in front of reporters and say "Thanks for asking" to every question. What's gained by forcing someone to engage in insincere farce?


Humility.  Furthermore, if you admit you were wrong (even if you don't mean it) you can't go around playing the martyr.  And the Lynch comparison isn't really a good one.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #378 on: December 22, 2014, 04:14:16 PM »

He should be reprimanded for acting unprofessionally regarding the graduate assistant.  He should have to issue a public apology for how he acted, and apologize to her personally.  If he refuses to do so, I would fire him.

This.

He needs to admit that he was wrong.

If he can't see that or chooses not to see that, then he can play the martyr on a blogger salary.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #379 on: December 22, 2014, 04:25:21 PM »
If McAdams is forced to hold his hat in his hands and mutter "I'm sorry," not a soul is going to believe him. A few people might say "there, now that you've admitted you were wrong you've learned your lesson," but I doubt they'd really believe it. The TA would still be leaving for UC-Boulder, the media would still be rabble rousing whatever their partisan angle is... and it would be a transparent farce.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #380 on: December 22, 2014, 04:37:35 PM »
If McAdams is forced to hold his hat in his hands and mutter "I'm sorry," not a soul is going to believe him. A few people might say "there, now that you've admitted you were wrong you've learned your lesson," but I doubt they'd really believe it. The TA would still be leaving for UC-Boulder, the media would still be rabble rousing whatever their partisan angle is... and it would be a transparent farce.

Yes, but at some point they have to get him to think twice before firing up his keyboard or running to the media. Maybe next time he won't be so quick to hit "publish".

I don't say any of this because I'm against McAdams particular political views, I say it because I feel like the guy has developed a selfish habit of looking for things to further his own personal agenda. I'm not in favor of that behavior, specifically, when it comes at the expense of MU and/or his co-workers.

brandx

  • Guest
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #381 on: December 22, 2014, 04:57:05 PM »
Yes, but at some point they have to get him to think twice before firing up his keyboard or running to the media. Maybe next time he won't be so quick to hit "publish".

I don't say any of this because I'm against McAdams particular political views, I say it because I feel like the guy has developed a selfish habit of looking for things to further his own personal agenda. I'm not in favor of that behavior, specifically, when it comes at the expense of MU and/or his co-workers.


Same here. He has the right to hold whatever views he likes. And has the right to blog about them. The mitigating circumstance is that he is an MU employee AND the blog is called Marquette Warrior. So it is very easy to interpret that his opinions are in some way lined up with those of the university.

If, say, his blog were entitled McAdams Mess, he should be able to opine about any subject whether related to MU or not without repercussion (short of ethics violations over naming members of the MU fraternity by name.

If any concern he has is truly about how MU conducts it affairs, he would be following proper channels rather than going rogue on his blog anyway.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #382 on: December 22, 2014, 05:16:09 PM »
If McAdams is forced to hold his hat in his hands and mutter "I'm sorry," not a soul is going to believe him. A few people might say "there, now that you've admitted you were wrong you've learned your lesson," but I doubt they'd really believe it. The TA would still be leaving for UC-Boulder, the media would still be rabble rousing whatever their partisan angle is... and it would be a transparent farce.

No he would be publicly humbled. Far from a farce. I would also make him sign an agreement that he can't bring up this incident again.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #383 on: December 22, 2014, 05:58:36 PM »
No he would be publicly humbled. Far from a farce. I would also make him sign an agreement that he can't bring up this incident again.

I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.

Even if you you made him sign some kind of prior restraint agreement to not talk about the incident, he'd wink-wink-nudge-nudge about attempts to "censor" commentary and those who express "unapproved opinions" would face attempts to "force someone to express politically correct opinions," all the while going on merrily as he always has. In no way would forcing him to go through the motions of apologizing humble him. It could actually stand to crystallize his perception that the university wants to homogenize thinking and speech to be in line with "politically correct."

(note: I do not think the university wants to do this, but that is exactly how he would spin it)

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #384 on: December 22, 2014, 06:06:52 PM »
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.

Even if you you made him sign some kind of prior restraint agreement to not talk about the incident, he'd wink-wink-nudge-nudge about attempts to "censor" commentary and those who express "unapproved opinions" would face attempts to "force someone to express politically correct opinions," all the while going on merrily as he always has. In no way would forcing him to go through the motions of apologizing humble him. It could actually stand to crystallize his perception that the university wants to homogenize thinking and speech to be in line with "politically correct."

(note: I do not think the university wants to do this, but that is exactly how he would spin it)

In both cases:

A.  He doesn't agree to it and is terminated with cause.
B.  He goes along with it and continues his actions.  That would lead to a second documented offense and his tenure can legally be revoked and him terminated.  

He can be the big man, admit that he misrepresented the case and that his actions were in direct conflict with the MU code of conduct in regards to Professor/student relationships.  He could further go on that in his zeal to promote increased academic freedom, he failed to understand the specifics of this case, that he failed to accurately report what transpired and had he realized the actual set of events then the TA should have been commended for how she handled the incident.

He could further go on that he full-heartedly believes that gay rights and gay marriage has a place in academic discussions, but that this case was never about those issues and he made an error in judgement and apologizes to MU, and more importantly Cheryl Abbate for the harm he caused.  In the future he can promise to respect the process.

Done Deal.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #385 on: December 22, 2014, 06:48:54 PM »
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.


It would be an apology made under duress, a statement no more meaningful than one made by a hostage.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2014, 11:46:26 PM by Lennys Tap »

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #386 on: December 22, 2014, 06:51:10 PM »
It would be an apology made under duress, a statement no more meaningful than one made by s hostage.


Fine.  Then I would just fire him.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #387 on: December 22, 2014, 07:37:53 PM »
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.


That would be appropriate, because he appears to be a lying sack of excrement.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #388 on: December 23, 2014, 07:46:10 AM »
That would be appropriate, because he appears to be a lying sack of excrement.

Admittedly playing devils advocate, other than the link provided in the thread do we have any other sources of the TA's version of events?  The only source I've seen is the link to the blog which is written by an anonymous 3rd party associated with the TA which seems pretty thin to accept at 100% face value and justify the firing of a tenured professor.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Archies Bat

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 651
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #389 on: December 23, 2014, 08:12:29 AM »
Admittedly playing devils advocate, other than the link provided in the thread do we have any other sources of the TA's version of events?  The only source I've seen is the link to the blog which is written by an anonymous 3rd party associated with the TA which seems pretty thin to accept at 100% face value and justify the firing of a tenured professor.

Does this really matter as it relates to McAdams?

He publicly named a student in a blog, leading to her harassment by others, and ultimately leading to the student leaving.

If any senior person working for me did this to an intern or junior employee, no matter what originally occurred, they would be subject to discipline.  Not only is it improper, it resulted in a wasted investment of time and resources in the student/TA/intern/junior employee.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #390 on: December 23, 2014, 08:32:29 AM »
[...]  Not only is it improper, it resulted in a wasted investment of time and resources in the student/TA/intern/junior employee.

Do universities really invest in TAs for their own benefit? I thought we just credentialed them and then turned them loose on a job market saturated by tenure-track candidates so they could ultimately be adjuncts somewhere?

shiloh26

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #391 on: December 23, 2014, 08:41:15 AM »
Do universities really invest in TAs for their own benefit? I thought we just credentialed them and then turned them loose on a job market saturated by tenure-track candidates so they could ultimately be adjuncts somewhere?

It's certainly to MU's benefit to have well-qualified graduate students applying to and staying at MU.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #392 on: December 23, 2014, 08:43:27 AM »
It's certainly to MU's benefit to have well-qualified graduate students applying to and staying at MU.


Not to mention, they are cheaper than professors when it comes to teaching entry level classes.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #393 on: December 23, 2014, 09:23:54 AM »
Does this really matter as it relates to McAdams?

He publicly named a student in a blog, leading to her harassment by others, and ultimately leading to the student leaving.

If any senior person working for me did this to an intern or junior employee, no matter what originally occurred, they would be subject to discipline.  Not only is it improper, it resulted in a wasted investment of time and resources in the student/TA/intern/junior employee.

Sure it does.  If my employee used bad judgement that is a different thing than being an out right liar
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #394 on: December 23, 2014, 09:30:41 AM »
Admittedly playing devils advocate, other than the link provided in the thread do we have any other sources of the TA's version of events?  The only source I've seen is the link to the blog which is written by an anonymous 3rd party associated with the TA which seems pretty thin to accept at 100% face value and justify the firing of a tenured professor.

For me, it doesn't really matter if McAdams was accurate in his statements or not.

I don't want members of my staff running to their keyboard every time they hear about something they don't like.

AND, if MU let's this slide, how far do we go? What if a liberal student engages in a debate with McAdams in class. Is it okay for McAdams to then name and rip the student on his blog? Where are we going to draw the line?

If McAdams wants to complain to his wife/boyfriend/dog about his day at work, that's one thing. As soon as he starts publishing it, well, that's another issue all together.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #395 on: December 23, 2014, 09:32:33 AM »
Sure it does.  If my employee used bad judgement that is a different thing than being an out right liar

You're right, I was incorrect.

If he flat out lied, then McAdams should be terminated immediately. You can't have tenured professors lying about stuff that's happening at MU.

If he just told his side of the story, then he should be forced to apologize.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #396 on: December 23, 2014, 10:11:02 AM »
If McAdams wants to complain to his wife/boyfriend/dog about his day at work, that's one thing. As soon as he starts publishing it, well, that's another issue all together.

Excellent point.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #397 on: December 23, 2014, 10:38:03 AM »
For me, it doesn't really matter if McAdams was accurate in his statements or not.

I don't want members of my staff running to their keyboard every time they hear about something they don't like.

Ignoring the fact that McAdams named the student, do you not agree that his original entry was a legitimate topic for debate (whether you agree with his position or not)?

I'm not saying I agree with McAdams (I tend to agree more with the TAs position, personally), but I saw nothing inflammatory or derogatory about that original entry, and I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion because obviously, it is an issue that is much more significant than some of us may realize.

[The fact that we've been able to keep things civil for 16 pages without Rocky shutting us down is some sort of indication that the controversy at the heart of this matter (should gay marriage be debated in a classroom setting at a Jesuit university) is legitimate enough that people aren't resorting to hyperbole, histrionics and personal attacks over how a matter related to that controversy was handled.  Beyond that, I think we may have just disproved Godwin's law.]

In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.

Here's a question that I'm too lazy to research... McAdams is in a different department, right?  How did he find out what the TA's name was?
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

reinko

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #398 on: December 23, 2014, 10:44:30 AM »
Ignoring the fact that McAdams named the student, do you not agree that his original entry was a legitimate topic for debate (whether you agree with his position or not)?

I'm not saying I agree with McAdams (I tend to agree more with the TAs position, personally), but I saw nothing inflammatory or derogatory about that original entry, and I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion because obviously, it is an issue that is much more significant than some of us may realize.

[The fact that we've been able to keep things civil for 16 pages without Rocky shutting us down is some sort of indication that the controversy at the heart of this matter (should gay marriage be debated in a classroom setting at a Jesuit university) is legitimate enough that people aren't resorting to hyperbole, histrionics and personal attacks over how a matter related to that controversy was handled.  Beyond that, I think we may have just disproved Godwin's law.]

In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.

Here's a question that I'm too lazy to research... McAdams is in a different department, right?  How did he find out what the TA's name was?

My best guess,  the student ran to him and told them their side of the story.   Another good question,  McAdams,  respected the student privacy by not naming names,  but no problem with the TA?

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: MU CINO (Catholic in name only)?
« Reply #399 on: December 23, 2014, 11:01:18 AM »
Ignoring the fact that McAdams named the student, do you not agree that his original entry was a legitimate topic for debate (whether you agree with his position or not)?

I'm not saying I agree with McAdams (I tend to agree more with the TAs position, personally), but I saw nothing inflammatory or derogatory about that original entry, and I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion because obviously, it is an issue that is much more significant than some of us may realize.

[The fact that we've been able to keep things civil for 16 pages without Rocky shutting us down is some sort of indication that the controversy at the heart of this matter (should gay marriage be debated in a classroom setting at a Jesuit university) is legitimate enough that people aren't resorting to hyperbole, histrionics and personal attacks over how a matter related to that controversy was handled.  Beyond that, I think we may have just disproved Godwin's law.]

In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.

Here's a question that I'm too lazy to research... McAdams is in a different department, right?  How did he find out what the TA's name was?

I believe the student went to McAdams and told him what happened.

Do I think it's okay for McAdams to blog on these topics:

#1 In general, I'm fine with McAdams challenging the status quo without repercussions from MU. I think he's wrong on some stuff, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to do it.

#2 I'm not okay with him airing private conversations unless there is a really compelling reason. Even if I agree with McAdams on this topic, his tactics are all wrong. He should have gone through the proper channels and attempted to get resolution.

If he is rebuffed and doesn't get satisfaction using the standard channels, THEN, I think he has a compelling reason to blog about his experience with MU in this matter. "I went to the head of the department, I met with this person, I did this... etc. etc. etc and I didn't receive a legitimate answer." Now THAT is the type of thing where going public might be necessary to enact change.

This entire situation didn't need to go public. It just needed to be discussed with the proper personnel at MU. McAdams just wasted a lot of his own time and energy, as well as countless other people, all because he didn't want to do the leg work of going through the process. He wanted to jump on his keyboard and start boasting about liberals and conservatives.

 

feedback