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: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams  (Read 10299 times)

Ellenson Guerrero

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2016, 02:04:42 PM »
This is actually not a fact.  This is the assertion that this article is attempting to make.

It is a fact.  Whatever context you try to construct around it won't change it. 
"What we take for-granted, others pray for..." - Brent Williams 3/30/14

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2016, 02:11:24 PM »
It is a fact.  Whatever context you try to construct around it won't change it.

Can you please explain how that it is a fact?  I'm very interested.

It is a fact that McAdams was fired.  It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams.  It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.

It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on.  Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.

Ellenson Guerrero

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2016, 02:22:20 PM »
Can you please explain how that it is a fact?  I'm very interested.

It is a fact that McAdams was fired.  It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams.  It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.

It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on.  Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.

It is a fact because "but for" the comments of anonymous people on the internet, McAdams would not have been fired by Marquette.  That is indisputable. 

You can say Marquette didn't fire him because of his political beliefs (although I'm dubious).  You can say Marquette didn't fire him because other administrators disliked him (although I'm extremely dubious).  But you have to accept that the comments of unidentified third parties on the internet played a significant role in Marquette's decision to fire McAdams. 
"What we take for-granted, others pray for..." - Brent Williams 3/30/14

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2016, 02:27:40 PM »
Can you please explain how that it is a fact?  I'm very interested.

It is a fact that McAdams was fired.  It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams.  It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.

It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on.  Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.

Again... if McAdams only had two blog followers, neither of whom reacted, and the story died the second after it was published, do you honestly think that McAdams would have been fired?
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

MU Fan in Connecticut

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3436
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2016, 03:02:55 PM »
McAdams to Liberty with Dawson?

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2016, 03:16:50 PM »
McAdams to Liberty with Dawson?

What, not Iowa State?

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2016, 03:17:08 PM »
It is a fact because "but for" the comments of anonymous people on the internet, McAdams would not have been fired by Marquette.  That is indisputable. 

You can say Marquette didn't fire him because of his political beliefs (although I'm dubious).  You can say Marquette didn't fire him because other administrators disliked him (although I'm extremely dubious).  But you have to accept that the comments of unidentified third parties on the internet played a significant role in Marquette's decision to fire McAdams.

Ok.....I can hear that argument (even though, again, it would not be an actual fact).  But you and this article is alluding to that being the driving/only factor.

"When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?"

Did his audience play a factor into this, of course.  This would not have been the issue it is today if, as Benny point out, he had 2 followers.  But the reason he was fired is not because of third parties.  The third parties would not have acted a certain way had it not been for his conduct towards the student for which he had previously been warned. 

Ellenson Guerrero

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2016, 03:24:35 PM »
Ok.....I can hear that argument (even though, again, it would not be an actual fact).  But you and this article is alluding to that being the driving/only factor.

"When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?"

Did his audience play a factor into this, of course.  This would not have been the issue it is today if, as Benny point out, he had 2 followers.  But the reason he was fired is not because of third parties.  The third parties would not have acted a certain way had it not been for his conduct towards the student for which he had previously been warned.

Well that just drives to the heart of the matter, doesn't it.  Can you be held responsible for the reactions of third parties to your speech?  Marquette and you (apparently) say yes.  I say no.  The United States Supreme Court says no, unless your speech is creating an immediate threat to public safety.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 03:38:49 PM by Ellenson Guerrero »
"What we take for-granted, others pray for..." - Brent Williams 3/30/14

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2016, 03:38:18 PM »
Well that just drives to the heart of the matter, doesn't it.  Can you be held responsible for the reactions of third parties to your speech.  Marquette and you (apparently) say yes.  I say no.  The United States Supreme Court says no, unless your speech is creating an immediate threat to public safety.

Haha, ummmm I dont think you can be responsible for the reactions of third parties.  Not sure where you are getting that from my posts.

I do think you should be held responsible for your own actions though.  McAdams violated the conduct policy of his employer, was warned about it.  Then violated it again.  I think that is worthy of being fired for.

I do agree that the actions of third parties in this case helped draw attention to the matter here, and hence played a factor.

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • "Death From Above"
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2016, 03:58:03 PM »
It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.

It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on.  Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.

You are wrong.

From the MUFHC Report:

The Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct with respect to his November 9, 2014
blog post clearly and substantially failed to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes University faculties. Specifically, Dr. McAdams violated his obligation to fellow members of the Marquette community by recklessly, albeit indirectly, causing harm to Ms. Abbate through his conduct, harm
that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justifiable. Furthermore, the Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct was seriously irresponsible, and that through his conduct, Dr. McAdams’s value—that is, his fitness to fulfill his responsibilities as a professor—will probably be substantially impaired in the absence of the imposition of any penalty, given his demonstrated failure to recognize his essential obligations to fellow members of the Marquette community.


Death on call

Ellenson Guerrero

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2016, 03:59:19 PM »
Haha, ummmm I dont think you can be responsible for the reactions of third parties.  Not sure where you are getting that from my posts.

I do think you should be held responsible for your own actions though.  McAdams violated the conduct policy of his employer, was warned about it.  Then violated it again.  I think that is worthy of being fired for.

I do agree that the actions of third parties in this case helped draw attention to the matter here, and hence played a factor.

Your defense of Marquette's position is what makes me think that.  From Marquette's statement on McAdams' complaint:

"Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the attention that Dr. McAdams and his legal team continue to focus on our former graduate student. He continues to call her out by name in his blog, and even recently went out of his way to name the university where she is continuing her studies today. These actions have exposed her to additional harassment, more than a year after she left Marquette."

Demonstrates that Marquette is punishing McAdams for "exposing" Abbate to third party criticism. 
"What we take for-granted, others pray for..." - Brent Williams 3/30/14

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2016, 04:04:54 PM »
Your defense of Marquette's position is what makes me think that.  From Marquette's statement on McAdams' complaint:

"Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the attention that Dr. McAdams and his legal team continue to focus on our former graduate student. He continues to call her out by name in his blog, and even recently went out of his way to name the university where she is continuing her studies today. These actions have exposed her to additional harassment, more than a year after she left Marquette."

Demonstrates that Marquette is punishing McAdams for "exposing" Abbate to third party criticism.

Well, it demonstrates that his actions had the consequence of exposing her, yes.  It definitely does not demonstrate that is the reason why they are punishing him.

Ellenson Guerrero

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2016, 04:07:16 PM »
Well, it demonstrates that his actions had the consequence of exposing her, yes.  It definitely does not demonstrate that is the reason why they are punishing him.

You must win a lot of jury trials with arguments like these...
"What we take for-granted, others pray for..." - Brent Williams 3/30/14

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2016, 04:08:03 PM »
You are wrong.

From the MUFHC Report:

The Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct with respect to his November 9, 2014
blog post clearly and substantially failed to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes University faculties. Specifically, Dr. McAdams violated his obligation to fellow members of the Marquette community by recklessly, albeit indirectly, causing harm to Ms. Abbate through his conduct, harm
that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justifiable. Furthermore, the Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct was seriously irresponsible, and that through his conduct, Dr. McAdams’s value—that is, his fitness to fulfill his responsibilities as a professor—will probably be substantially impaired in the absence of the imposition of any penalty, given his demonstrated failure to recognize his essential obligations to fellow members of the Marquette community.


I'm assuming you are stating that I'm wrong in regards to the bolded part below?

Can you please explain how that it is a fact?  I'm very interested.

It is a fact that McAdams was fired.  It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams.  It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.

It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on.  Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.

Because the rest of your quote there supports that he was not punished due to the actions of others.  That is not brought up once in there.

In regards to the bolded part above, I will bring up Sultan's earlier post on this:

From Marquette's letter (I bolded a sentence.):

"You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts. In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name. In March 2011, you published blog posts regarding a student who was helping to organize a campus performance of The Vagina Monologues. Again, the harmful consequences of your unilateral naming of students were pointed out. You acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern, but given your naming of Ms. Abbate that acknowledgment from 2011 appears to be without meaning or effect. (p.14)"

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2016, 04:11:11 PM »
You must win a lot of jury trials with arguments like these...

If I violated my employer's code of conduct by publicly criticizing my boss on Facebook, and my boss then endured a bunch of hate and threats from my Facebook friends, which then brought attention to my post.  And then I was subsequently fired....  Would I have been fired because of the hate and threats that others sent?  Or would I have been fired for violating my employer's code of conduct and publicly criticizing my boss? 

I'm quite positive it would be the latter.

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • "Death From Above"
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2016, 04:13:38 PM »

I'm not trying to be difficult here.

But the report was generated via the procedures in place.  The faculty committee made a recommendation.  Lovell accepted it with the condition of an apology.

You can argue that their procedure is faulty.  You can argue that the procedure had a bad outcome.  You cannot argue that they didn't follow their procedure.

Stop being obtuse.

You are correct, and we agree, that the MUFHC report was generated in accordance with established university procedures.

Everything prior to that was not. The MUFHC report lists multiple specifics of how Marquette administrators acted in a seemingly cavalier manner, with complete disregard for expected processes, in handling McAdams over decades. The report notes how nothing was ever documented about McAdams' behavior for decades. The report further states that Marquette administrators punished McAdams in this case in ways that are counter to established disciplinary procedures.

The report goes on to point out how administrators not just ignored "JD" but actively worked against him. (This is perhaps the most galling admission in the report.) But as faculty and staff sought to persecute the undergrad, JD, they did nothing to correct the inappropriate behaviors exhibited to Abbate.

The report is an indictment of Marquette's administrators.   


Death on call

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2016, 04:32:12 PM »
The report says a lot of things.  Including (bolded were added):

"Dr. McAdams has a considerable amount of academic freedom to express whatever opinions he wishes on his blog, no matter how offensive some find them, and he has exercised that freedom without formal sanction from the University administration for ten years and three thousand blog posts. But academic freedom has its limits, limits that are slightly more pronounced in the case of extramural statements, and Dr. McAdams’s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified. The Committee concludes that our determination that discretionary cause exists to a level sufficient to justify a penalty of suspension will not “impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”


So does the report point out some problems at some of the administrative levels at the university?  Yes.  And I have acknowledged as such.

But the report also says that McAdams has had plenty of leeway in terms of exercising his academic freedom, and that HIS ACTIONS were reckless.  He isn't being punished for actions other did. 

So if you are going to use the report to support what you argue, you can't simply ignore what it also says later on.

Ellenson Guerrero

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2016, 04:42:38 PM »
The report says a lot of things.  Including (bolded were added):

"Dr. McAdams has a considerable amount of academic freedom to express whatever opinions he wishes on his blog, no matter how offensive some find them, and he has exercised that freedom without formal sanction from the University administration for ten years and three thousand blog posts. But academic freedom has its limits, limits that are slightly more pronounced in the case of extramural statements, and Dr. McAdams’s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified. The Committee concludes that our determination that discretionary cause exists to a level sufficient to justify a penalty of suspension will not “impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”


So does the report point out some problems at some of the administrative levels at the university?  Yes.  And I have acknowledged as such.

But the report also says that McAdams has had plenty of leeway in terms of exercising his academic freedom, and that HIS ACTIONS were reckless.  He isn't being punished for actions other did. 

So if you are going to use the report to support what you argue, you can't simply ignore what it also says later on.

Your quoted language is the whole point: Marquette's position is that McAdams' actions were "reckless" because they "indirectly" caused Abbate harm.  Saying McAdams "indirectly" caused Abbate harm is the equivalent of holding him responsible for third parties' actions.
"What we take for-granted, others pray for..." - Brent Williams 3/30/14

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2016, 04:45:22 PM »
Providing more context would not have changed the underlying principles discussed by the piece and I don't believe the editors "distorted the truth" by focusing on the nuts and bolts.  No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing.  That is the critical element that makes this a "freedom of expression" issue.

When did the world flip and liberals become the ones unable to countenance free speech?

What do you mean when did they flip?  That has always been the case with them.  Free speech is not one of their strong suits.  Stifling it has been for generations.

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • "Death From Above"
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2016, 05:47:52 PM »
If I violated my employer's code of conduct by publicly criticizing my boss on Facebook, and my boss then endured a bunch of hate and threats from my Facebook friends, which then brought attention to my post.  And then I was subsequently fired....  Would I have been fired because of the hate and threats that others sent?  Or would I have been fired for violating my employer's code of conduct and publicly criticizing my boss? 

I'm quite positive it would be the latter.

I have pointed out here that a world leading corporation will never fire someone for writing something on their own time if it does not disclose trade secrets, misuses corporate assets, or causes material harm to the enterprise.

This is not to say one will not be dismissed by the corporation. They will use other means.


Death on call

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
  • NA of course
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2016, 09:56:45 PM »
i sense there are some here who feel like MU is the victim of poor journalism and thus feeling victimized themselves by trying to defend MU from getting their arse kicked on a national forum.  if i remember correctly, someone here initially poo-poo'd the national exposure saying it much to do about nothing and that it would all just blow over...hmmm

as for the complaints about how the WSJ didn't tell the whole story, from the defenders of MU"s point of view, one thought-welcome to our world
don't...don't don't don't don't

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #46 on: May 06, 2016, 11:15:13 PM »
The key issue is that once again Marquette is cast in an extremely negative light on a very public stage. The specifics are lost on people. The reality is that a foundational publication which shapes the intellectual optics of the world has cast Marquette in a terrible light.

This whole matter could have been avoided but wasn't. A group of bullies abused their authority and attacked a colleague because they didn't like him.

Waiting for Mike Lovell to tweet a blistering retort.

Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case.  Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU. 

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2016, 11:22:52 PM »
Your defense of Marquette's position is what makes me think that.  From Marquette's statement on McAdams' complaint:

"Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the attention that Dr. McAdams and his legal team continue to focus on our former graduate student. He continues to call her out by name in his blog, and even recently went out of his way to name the university where she is continuing her studies today. These actions have exposed her to additional harassment, more than a year after she left Marquette."

Demonstrates that Marquette is punishing McAdams for "exposing" Abbate to third party criticism.

The bolded is really key.  The problem is that he was reprimanded and official violations of code placed on his record previously for things like this.  He continued to do it, and even after subsequent reprimands, continued to push the issue. 

Had he came out and apologized and said he regrets posting the information on his blog and indirectly causing the student harm, MU would likely have backed off.

Instead, he pushed the issue further.  If they didn't act, and he did something like this again and the future and instead of just online threats, someone was actually injured, MU would have been liable for the attack due to not following their code of conduct.

MU did the right thing...period.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #48 on: May 07, 2016, 12:09:17 AM »


MU did the right thing...period.

MU did the right thing...comma, in your opinion. Period.

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
  • NA of course
Re: The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams
« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2016, 05:21:39 AM »
Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case.  Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.

how do you know this?  the full repercussions have yet to be felt or seen.  this is akin to boiling the frog...by the time it get's too hot for the frog to realize it's too hot, he's cooked.  BUT, not to worry; MU has a bottomless pit of money it can spend on these pesky legal things-'eyn'er?  they still have mrs fill-in-the blank's endowment to tap 
don't...don't don't don't don't