Marquette: McAdams matter FAQs

[Mutaman]

No I think it's precious that daddy brags up her daughter on a message board and we're supposed to treat the source as unbiased.

Hey its one of the few posts where he hasn't bragged up himself. i consider it a significant step forward.

[warriorchick]

Hey its one of the few posts where he hasn't bragged up himself. i consider it a significant step forward.

Bragging up your kid is basically the same as bragging up yourself - especially if you state (as he did) that the reason your kid is so awesome is because of the way you raised her.

[forgetful]

  then why will he, as many seem to think or believe, win a lawsuit if there was "no harm, no foul"?  or do you think he does not have a case since MU fired him for "bad form" toward a student?

I don't think he will win a lawsuit. 

MU may settle with him, because it would cost more in legal fees to fight a case, but he won't win a lawsuit.

[rocket surgeon]

I don't think he will win a lawsuit. 

MU may settle with him, because it would cost more in legal fees to fight a case, but he won't win a lawsuit.

the defense was poking quite a few holes in MU's notices, memoranda, or what have you.  i realize that's what the defense does, but MU will be juggling a lot of balls here.  was taking on mcadams and then firing him the only option they had?  because this is going to cost them more than legal fees and some money to mcadams you know. 

[jsglow]

the defense was poking quite a few holes in MU's notices, memoranda, or what have you.  i realize that's what the defense does, but MU will be juggling a lot of balls here.  was taking on mcadams and then firing him the only option they had?  because this is going to cost them more than legal fees and some money to mcadams you know.

IDK, but I suspect MU had finally had enough of him and decided it was willing to pay the price.

[real chili 83]

IDK, but I suspect MU had finally had enough of him and decided it was willing to pay the price.

Exactly

[forgetful]

the defense was poking quite a few holes in MU's notices, memoranda, or what have you.  i realize that's what the defense does, but MU will be juggling a lot of balls here.  was taking on mcadams and then firing him the only option they had?  because this is going to cost them more than legal fees and some money to mcadams you know.

No, it won't.  Doing nothing would have cost them much more.  A wrongful termination case (don't think it would be successful anyway), is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation that would have followed if they didn't do something about McAdams.

[rocket surgeon]

   "is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation"

pardon my naivety, but not ever working within a school/university type environment, how does this work?  what if they would have just ignored it?  let mcadams blog away as he has for the past ?? years, maybe a cease and desist, i don't know...  but doing what they did, caused it to grow into what it is today. 

     right now, there is a lull, but wait until a court thing gets closer and/or a settlement is ATTEMPTED.  remember, mcadams really has nothing to lose.  he's in his 70's, right?  does he need the money?  the chances of there being a $$ settlement with a "stfu" probably won't be agreed upon by him.  he wants to go "whole hog"  in other words, get his "money's worth"

[muwarrior69]

   "is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation"

pardon my naivety, but not ever working within a school/university type environment, how does this work?  what if they would have just ignored it?  let mcadams blog away as he has for the past ?? years, maybe a cease and desist, i don't know...  but doing what they did, caused it to grow into what it is today. 

     right now, there is a lull, but wait until a court thing gets closer and/or a settlement is ATTEMPTED.  remember, mcadams really has nothing to lose.  he's in his 70's, right?  does he need the money?  the chances of there being a $$ settlement with a "stfu" probably won't be agreed upon by him.  he wants to go "whole hog"  in other words, get his "money's worth"

Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.

[Eldon]

Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.

That's why MU took on the suit.  I've heard rumblings that MU asked the Big East to provide the judge.

[rocket surgeon]

Any idea when that will be? Do they televise court proceedings in Wisconsin? If we don't make the NCAA next season, McAdams vs. MU just might be the most entertaining game in town.

i have no idea but if they do a pay per view and/or move it to bmo building it might defray some of MU's costs-enn'a so?

[dgies9156]

Couple of observations about the McAdams problem, after having read the majority of the posts herein, as well as receiving university communications:

1) There are two issues intermeshed as one. The first is academic freedom, or the ability to communicate unpopular or unaccepted ideas across the university community.

2) The second is the way in which a tenured professor deals with colleagues who behave in violation of the first issue -- academic freedom.

To deal with the second issue first, McAdams did something that most employers would bristle at. If I criticized my employer in a public forum or used the internet to be critical of a colleague, no matter how youthful and how right or wrong he or she might be, my back side would sitting on Wacker Drive in Chicago without as much as a hardy, "thank you for your service."  The duty of loyalty is an incumbent part of any employment and as aggravated or disheartened as Professor McAdams might have been, he violated his duty of loyalty to Marquette.

If you don't like what your company is becoming -- be it a university or a private commercial firm -- leave and find something more to your liking (incidentally, I'm not a flaming liberal by any measure).

Now for the first issue. I'm reminded of my time on campus when the Jesuits were pushing us for community service in the name of social justice. Over and over, we heard calls for us to be involved in the Greater Milwaukee community. There was so much suffering around us that the Jesuits wanted us to personify the Word and go forth to assist the less fortunate.

Into that discussion entered a letter writer to the Marquette Tribune. I'll spare mentioning his name here, except for the fact that he had a "III" next to it. His eloquence described the local residents of the communities around Marquette as "human refuse" who created their own version of hell and therefore should work their own way out of it. His ultimate position, as I recall 35+ years later, was that the impoverished and suffering of our nearby neighborhood were not worthy of our assistance.

I didn't endorse Mr. III's idea, by any stretch of the imagination. I doubt seriously the Marquette Tribune would print his letters (there were more than one) today. Period. But Mr. III's letters did something critically important that was part of learning and part of the Marquette experience. He challenged us to think not just of our beliefs but of the beliefs of the people with whom we don't agree. We had heard so much about the value of human life. Now we had a challenge to it and it caused us to think.

Ultimately, I believe in what other writers spoke about -- the concept of positive moral values. As Dr. Beach use to dictate (as in "I'm dictating... it would behoove you to maybe take a note or two..."), those values will withstand the challenge of false or mistaken views. I'm afraid that as I grow older, too many of the millennials who have been educated at Marquette and elsewhere have never been challenged until they enter the work, or the real world.

That's a crying shame.

[forgetful]

   "is much cheaper than a hostile work environment case and title IX investigation"

pardon my naivety, but not ever working within a school/university type environment, how does this work?  what if they would have just ignored it?  let mcadams blog away as he has for the past ?? years, maybe a cease and desist, i don't know...  but doing what they did, caused it to grow into what it is today. 

There are two aspects here.  1) is creating a hostile environment for students.  This wasn't only a blog post, it was an attack on Abbate, a student.  All faculty are under obligation to work towards the betterment and growth of students.  In publicly attacking Abbate, and creating an atmosphere where she became the targets of threats, McAdams demonstrated gross negligence and a violation of the university code of conduct.  That created a hostile environment for a student. 

In such situations the University has an obligation to take actions to rectify the situation and create a safe environment for the students.  McAdams has done this before and was reprimanded.  If MU failed to take action here, they would be legally liable for any and all damages to Abbate for failure to provide a safe working environment.  Given the topic of discussion (gay marriage) and Abbate being a women, that would open Title IX inquiries which could put MU in violation of federal regulations.  Regardless, best case situation would be a large financial settlement for Abbate and a public black eye for Title IX inquiry. 

The second issue is related to the first, but in this case from an employee situation.  Abbate is in the unique situation of simultaneously acting as a student and employee.  So there would be a hostile workplace environment suit, where Abbate could claim that due to her fulfilling her duties to provide a safe learning environment for protected classes she was harassed (easy to prove) to the point of creating a personal threat (documented) where she felt at risk of being harmed (easy to prove). 

I've said it before, but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case.  He is well outside of the realms of professional conduct and is in clear violation of University codes of conduct.

Remember, McAdams could have kept his job if he accepted a semester suspension without pay and made a public apology.  He refused to do either.

[rocket surgeon]

There are two aspects here.  1) is creating a hostile environment for students.  This wasn't only a blog post, it was an attack on Abbate, a student.  All faculty are under obligation to work towards the betterment and growth of students.  In publicly attacking Abbate, and creating an atmosphere where she became the targets of threats, McAdams demonstrated gross negligence and a violation of the university code of conduct.  That created a hostile environment for a student. 

In such situations the University has an obligation to take actions to rectify the situation and create a safe environment for the students.  McAdams has done this before and was reprimanded.  If MU failed to take action here, they would be legally liable for any and all damages to Abbate for failure to provide a safe working environment.  Given the topic of discussion (gay marriage) and Abbate being a women, that would open Title IX inquiries which could put MU in violation of federal regulations.  Regardless, best case situation would be a large financial settlement for Abbate and a public black eye for Title IX inquiry. 

The second issue is related to the first, but in this case from an employee situation.  Abbate is in the unique situation of simultaneously acting as a student and employee.  So there would be a hostile workplace environment suit, where Abbate could claim that due to her fulfilling her duties to provide a safe learning environment for protected classes she was harassed (easy to prove) to the point of creating a personal threat (documented) where she felt at risk of being harmed (easy to prove). 

I've said it before, but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case.  He is well outside of the realms of professional conduct and is in clear violation of University codes of conduct.

Remember, McAdams could have kept his job if he accepted a semester suspension without pay and made a public apology.  He refused to do either.

your response is appreciated and respected.  i do not mean to rehash the pages and pages of debate, but as dgles kind of stated very well in his post, 

   "He challenged us to think not just of our beliefs but of the beliefs of the people with whom we don't agree. We had heard so much about the value of human life. Now we had a challenge to it and it caused us to think."

   i can see both sides of this issue as i do have my own stance and now, a better understanding of yours. however forgetful, with all due respect, this statement has some applications to your posture here-
       "but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case."
   
i guess we will just have to sit back and watch how this plays out.  this issue seems to be one of those in which there aren't going to be any winners.   

as for macadams not apologizing-men/women of principle, like it/agree with it or not, that's how they roll man

[brandx]

+1

Also, usually the people who talk the most about withholding their giving over some manufactured political outrage are the ones who give very little anyway. I'm sure MU will get by just fine without Chicos' giving.

I'm young and don't give much but I also don't act like it would be some monumental thing if I stopped.

And if we get really, really lucky, chicas will stop "contributing" to Scoop because it is MUScoop and he wants to show that he really, really means business.

Maybe this whole affair can have a wonderful outcome after all.

[brandx]

One of the things that struck me was how little McAdams is (was?) paid by Marquette. I think it was appox $77,000. This for a Harvard grad working for the same employer for almost half a century. Good Lord.

Interesting that when we talk about the "working man" and a compensation  amount is given, that is always includes benefits.

When it is a professional, only the base salary is given.

[MUsoxfan]

Interesting that when we talk about the "working man" and a compensation  amount is given, that is always includes benefits.

When it is a professional, only the base salary is given.

Excellent point

[ChicosBailBonds]

Interesting that when we talk about the "working man" and a compensation  amount is given, that is always includes benefits.

When it is a professional, only the base salary is given.

Must be a conspiracy

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't think he will win a lawsuit. 

MU may settle with him, because it would cost more in legal fees to fight a case, but he won't win a lawsuit.

I think he wins, ultimately...which may mean the appeal, not the original case.  I'm 2-0 on the Freddie Gray verdicts thus far.  I got the hot hand....roll with it. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

And if we get really, really lucky, chicas will stop "contributing" to Scoop because it is MUScoop and he wants to show that he really, really means business.

Maybe this whole affair can have a wonderful outcome after all.

[rocket surgeon]

can't get much more wonderful than this   well played to the dude who's head is filled with cbb. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

can't get much more wonderful than this   well played to the dude who's head is filled with cbb.

You likely will have to explain it to him....he isn't very smart.

[muwarrior69]

There are two aspects here.  1) is creating a hostile environment for students.  This wasn't only a blog post, it was an attack on Abbate, a student.  All faculty are under obligation to work towards the betterment and growth of students.  In publicly attacking Abbate, and creating an atmosphere where she became the targets of threats, McAdams demonstrated gross negligence and a violation of the university code of conduct.  That created a hostile environment for a student. 

In such situations the University has an obligation to take actions to rectify the situation and create a safe environment for the students.  McAdams has done this before and was reprimanded.  If MU failed to take action here, they would be legally liable for any and all damages to Abbate for failure to provide a safe working environment.  Given the topic of discussion (gay marriage) and Abbate being a women, that would open Title IX inquiries which could put MU in violation of federal regulations.  Regardless, best case situation would be a large financial settlement for Abbate and a public black eye for Title IX inquiry. 

The second issue is related to the first, but in this case from an employee situation.  Abbate is in the unique situation of simultaneously acting as a student and employee.  So there would be a hostile workplace environment suit, where Abbate could claim that due to her fulfilling her duties to provide a safe learning environment for protected classes she was harassed (easy to prove) to the point of creating a personal threat (documented) where she felt at risk of being harmed (easy to prove). 

I've said it before, but I find it appalling and frightening that anyone would ever support McAdams in this case.  He is well outside of the realms of professional conduct and is in clear violation of University codes of conduct.

Remember, McAdams could have kept his job if he accepted a semester suspension without pay and made a public apology.  He refused to do either.

What I find frightening is that no one is speaking out on behalf of the other student. I guess he is not entitled and has no rights since he is not part of any protected class where the government could withhold federal funds. The irony here is that student tried to go through proper channels and was shut down and McAdams is the one being fired for bringing that out to the public. I guess safe environments only exist for student teachers and not plain students. From where I sit no apology needed.

[GGGG]

What I find frightening is that no one is speaking out on behalf of the other student. I guess he is not entitled and has no rights since he is not part of any protected class where the government could withhold federal funds.

That is silly and wrong.

The irony here is that student tried to go through proper channels and was shut down and McAdams is the one being fired for bringing that out to the public. I guess safe environments only exist for student teachers and not plain students. From where I sit no apology needed.

Did Abbatte mention the student's name in a blog?  Did anyone mention his name anywhere?  You are creating a false equivalency. 

[muwarrior69]

That is silly and wrong.


Did Abbatte mention the student's name in a blog?  Did anyone mention his name anywhere?  You are creating a false equivalency.

That is my whole point. Abate, the Philosophy Department and the University wanted it kept quiet and his view silenced so why would they mention his name. McAdams pointed to her Web site and did not initially mention her name.