Marquette: McAdams matter FAQs

[mu03eng]

I never said he was shouted down.    She said certain topics "were beyond dispute" and she would not allow them in class, even though some of the very subjects discussed in class most certainly are beyond dispute all the way up to the teachings of the church. This was told to the students who attempted to bring up differing opinions.  Basically saying if you have these views, you are out of line and cut off.  Shouted down?  No.  But sending a message that your opinions don't matter, aren't acceptable and somehow unsavory because they "were beyond dispute"...yes.

He said he was deeply offended when she would not allow his CATHOLIC points of view on the subject.   https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/31/marquette-university-professor-suspended-and-facing-termination-for-blog-that-criticized-colleague-for-allegedly-barring-criticism-of-same-sex-marriage-in-a-philosophy-class/





AFTER class, he went to her to express his dissatisfaction with that approach.

"Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions"

She responded....in the link

http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-shame-of-liberals-at-marquette/

OK, we're all entitled to opinions but not facts. Fact, he wasn't embarrassed in class, she made a dumb statement about gay rights in class and none of the students responded to it...in class, after the class he confronted her about it and she handled it poorly.

This is per McAdams original blog on the subject.

So he wasn't trying to offer a catholic opinion on a catholic subject in a catholic school. He was having a private conversation with a TA who expressed opinions that should not be held by someone that fosters open dialogue within the university setting.

[WarriorInNYC]

I never said he was shouted down.    She said certain topics "were beyond dispute" and she would not allow them in class, even though some of the very subjects discussed in class most certainly are beyond dispute all the way up to the teachings of the church. This was told to the students who attempted to bring up differing opinions.  Basically saying if you have these views, you are out of line and cut off.  Shouted down?  No.  But sending a message that your opinions don't matter, aren't acceptable and somehow unsavory because they "were beyond dispute"...yes.

He said he was deeply offended when she would not allow his CATHOLIC points of view on the subject.   https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/31/marquette-university-professor-suspended-and-facing-termination-for-blog-that-criticized-colleague-for-allegedly-barring-criticism-of-same-sex-marriage-in-a-philosophy-class/





AFTER class, he went to her to express his dissatisfaction with that approach.

"Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions"

She responded....in the link

http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-shame-of-liberals-at-marquette/

I believe the previous point was that none of that occurred during class.  Going through the link kinsella provided, and the links you provided, I am having an extremely difficult time finding anything that relates to the grad student "humiliating" the undergrad student DURING class.

Again, I believe the way she treated the undergrad after class was inappropriate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

OK, we're all entitled to opinions but not facts. Fact, he wasn't embarrassed in class, she made a dumb statement about gay rights in class and none of the students responded to it...in class, after the class he confronted her about it and she handled it poorly.

This is per McAdams original blog on the subject.

His words (the undergraduate) are different....he said he was "PERSONALLY OFFENDED".  One of the definitions of offended is "embarrassed"

[ChicosBailBonds]

I believe the previous point was that none of that occurred during class.  Going through the link kinsella provided, and the links you provided, I am having an extremely difficult time finding anything that relates to the grad student "humiliating" the undergrad student DURING class.

Again, I believe the way she treated the undergrad after class was inappropriate.

From Turley's article:

Abbate appears to have tried to avoid the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the discussion of John Rawls’s equal liberty principle under which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. She had asked for examples of violations of this principle and raised classic examples of seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. That is when one student raised the ban on gay marriage violated the principle. That would seem to be an interesting example for debate. Indeed, in my legal philosophy class, I often raise that and other controversies as good vehicles for passionate and contemporary debates. Abbate clearly did not want to trigger a broader debate and cut off the example. That caused the student to object later to being “very disappointed” and “personally offended.” The conversation after class included the suggestion of the student that he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life.”

She cut him off in class.  LATER, he told her how personally offended he was...which occurred when he was cut off.  He expressed it afterward, but the offense took place when she cut him off.

[WarriorInNYC]

From Turley's article:

Abbate appears to have tried to avoid the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the discussion of John Rawls’s equal liberty principle under which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. She had asked for examples of violations of this principle and raised classic examples of seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. That is when one student raised the ban on gay marriage violated the principle. That would seem to be an interesting example for debate. Indeed, in my legal philosophy class, I often raise that and other controversies as good vehicles for passionate and contemporary debates. Abbate clearly did not want to trigger a broader debate and cut off the example. That caused the student to object later to being “very disappointed” and “personally offended.” The conversation after class included the suggestion of the student that he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life.”

She cut him off in class.  LATER, he told her how personally offended he was...which occurred when he was cut off.  He expressed it afterward, but the offense took place when she cut him off.

Well, I would honestly say that the author here is making the assumption that the undergrad being "disappointed and personally offended" is directly related to the incident during class.  And I can see why reading the language the author here decided to use could raise some to agree with that assumption.

And adding on to the above, did this author discuss directly with the undergrad student on this?  This is the only article where I have now seen the assumption that he was embarrassed during class.  Even in McAdam's blog post that was not spelled out.

I have a hard time believing a student would be offended by cutting off the example during class.  I can completely believe him being offended by the way she acted after class.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, I would honestly say that the author here is making the assumption that the undergrad being "disappointed and personally offended" is directly related to the incident during class.  And I can see why reading the language the author here decided to use could raise some to agree with that assumption.

I have a hard time believing a student would be offended by cutting off the example during class.  I can completely believe him being offended by the way she acted after class.

I don't have a hard time believing that at all.  If one is a deeply religious person and this stuff is the core of your being, and you're told your beliefs are not worthy, are beyond dispute when you bring them up on a subject that called for such example.  Why would it be hard to imagine someone feeling to be belittled, offended, embarrassed, etc? 

In fact, that compelled him to actually talk to her after class, because he was so embarrassed and offended....that drove that interaction.

[WarriorInNYC]

I don't have a hard time believing that at all.  If one is a deeply religious person and this stuff is the core of your being, and you're told your beliefs are not worthy, are beyond dispute when you bring them up on a subject that called for such example.  Why would it be hard to imagine someone feeling to be belittled, offended, embarrassed, etc? 

In fact, that compelled him to actually talk to her after class, because he was so embarrassed and offended....that drove that interaction.

Ok, hyperbole here.  She cut him off during class.  She did not say his beliefs were not worthy or beyond dispute DURING class.  Again, as I spelled out in my previous post, I understand him being offended and embarrassed by her after-class actions.

[mayfairskatingrink]

Your proposal is fine if this were not a pattern with McAdams, but he had done similar things repeatedly all of which were getting attention anyway. I'm glad they finally took it head on. They did it in a ham handed way, but I believe they were absolutely right to address the issue firmly.

And it is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. He mentioned a grad students name in a politically charged manner, the natural conclusion is that some people on the internet would go after her. Naming her had absolutely no value to accomplishing his stated "goal" of restoring "free speech" to campus. He also didn't name the undergrad student, why is that?

I would guess because the student is clearly just a student, and not a teacher (in his mind).

[mayfairskatingrink]

So if McAdams wins this case do you think he will remain at MU and continue to be a thorn in their side or retire?

From what I understand, he wants to teach.

The only question is how long this whole process takes.  He wins in the WI Supreme Court, but it could take a while to get there.  If he loses in lower court, appeals could send the case directly to Supremes to expedite things since it's headed there anyhow.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ok, hyperbole here.  She cut him off during class.  She did not say his beliefs were not worthy or beyond dispute DURING class.  Again, as I spelled out in my previous post, I understand him being offended and embarrassed by her after-class actions.

I disagree, she did the way I read it. She said there were certain things that were beyond dispute and she would have no part of those things up for discussion. 

[Herman Cain]

glow

The problem is not Lovell's willingness to make a decision. The issue is to make the right decision consistently.

We are not talking about the mid-level Purchasing Manager here. The man is the Chief Executive of an enterprise with an international constituency. I expect him to perform accordingly.

And as we both seem to know Lovell needs to become less stubborn, obstinate, and close-minded on many things in order to mature into the seasoned decision-maker we need to lead Marquette. My only regret is that we have to suffer through his education process.


Your comment reminded me of the Pepsi Hypodermic Needle Case. I was with PepsiCo Foods International in Hong Kong when a series of hypos were being reported found in cans of Pepsi. The first report was concerning. But when reports of needles in cans started cropping up all over the US Pepsi knew it was a hoax that was pointing towards lawsuits.

Wayne Callaway made numerous decisions that were firm, determined, and correct:

1. Contacted the FBI because he knew this was a criminal matter
2. Refused to pull product becuase no one had been injured or harmed
3. Launched an expensive media campaign that showed how cans are rinsed multiple times, filled, then capped in a matter of seconds to demonstrate the physical impossibility of needles in cans
4. Worked with retailers to scan through in-store video

Despite a national outcry for Pepsi to order a massive recall Callaway refused to give in. And when investigators started unearthing video of idiots opening cans of Pepsi in the stores and actually dropping needles into the cans Pepsi had the evidence it needed to prove this was a scam.

Perhaps the most important decision Callaway made was to seek criminal charges against the people who had tried to extort money out of Pepsi.

Most CEOs would not have held firm as did Callaway. Despite overwhelming negative public reaction he refused to order a recall and invested millions in an education campaign while working with the FBI to disprove the claims. Initially, PepsiCo stock 3% of its value in the first days of the 'scandal' but ultimately more than doubled by the end of that year.

Making decisions is easy. Making the right decision consistently is what separates the leaders from the pretenders. 

Lovell demonstrated a lousy decision making process from day one. He was mesmerized by Wojo and his Power Point and the Duke name and look what that has gotten us.

Lovells primary job is to raise money for the University and when he does this it makes the job much harder and he in effect hurts the university in the long term.  I have had a number of dealings with him and am not very impressed.

We need to get our endowment over $1 Billion if we are truly going to be able to compete and be a leading institution. Lovell is showing he is not the guy to get the job done.

[mu03eng]

Lovell demonstrated a lousy decision making process from day one. He was mesmerized by Wojo and his Power Point and the Duke name and look what that has gotten us.

Lovells primary job is to raise money for the University and when he does this it makes the job much harder and he in effect hurts the university in the long term.  I have had a number of dealings with him and am not very impressed.

We need to get our endowment over $1 Billion if we are truly going to be able to compete and be a leading institution. Lovell is showing he is not the guy to get the job done.

Whatever Ners.

Two items that stand out from Lovell's time will have a huge impact, the partnership with the Bucks on the exercise program/building/research program and the partnership between biomedical engineering and MCW. That doesn't count that fundraising is up and student engagement has been great.

He ain't perfect that's for sure but it could be a whole lot worse and I think it will only get better with time

[PorkysButthole]

Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher.   I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution,  but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham.  I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place.  That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go.  The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution.  I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc  conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole!  Let him sue!   The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!

[rocket surgeon]

Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher.   I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution,  but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham.  I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place.  That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go.  The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution.  I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc  conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole!  Let him sue!   The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!

  first off, juries don't rule on A-hole-ness.  secondly, let's say mcadams is wrong.  he might be an example of the furthest right one can take the traditional MU jesuit brand.  on the other hand, lovell, has taken the MU brand and crapped on it. he is trying to look moderate while coming across as the leftie as usual university administrator who think their position is the status quo.  in other words, universities across the nation are trying to re-define the normal and tell us, these a times are a changing. well, they may be, but at some point, a line needs to be drawn. the squeaky wheels are getting all the grease, but i'm digressing

   which brings me to another question?  why did MU go off the tracks and fill the president's position with a "lay person" instead of the traditional jesuit?  this may be where many see lovell as NOT qualified.  oh, he goes to church a lot?  well if that's the qualifier, then we missed out on many others.  but, back to the point-an experienced person/leader would have handled this not with emotion and right wing/left wing flavor, but with a firm and dignified touch that may be not necessarily be universally agreed upon, but respected.

 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

  which brings me to another question?  why did MU go off the tracks and fill the president's position with a "lay person" instead of the traditional jesuit? 
 

This part has been a long time coming.  In my opinion the lack of qualified candidates was the driver.  Oh that and they tried but it was a disaster (Pilarz).

[mayfairskatingrink]

Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher.   I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution,  but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham.  I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place.  That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go.  The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution.  I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc  conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole!  Let him sue!   The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!

The  only people resembling a "jury" that matters are the seven WI Supreme Court Justices, and there are five of them ready to stomp all over MU.  This is a fight MU will lose and lose badly.

[jsglow]

Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher.  I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution,  but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham.  I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place.  That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go.  The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution.  I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc  conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole!  Let him sue!   The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!

I find this part interesting.  While certain folks on here think that MU has strayed light years from the true Catholic faith, your view seems to be that it's far more dogmatic than other Jesuit institutions.

Personally, I think that while much at MU has changed over the last 40 years, the Jesuit philosophy of subtle 'treat your neighbor with dignity and respect' culture is very similar to when I was there.  In fact, I think MU does a better job of making sure kids are touched by that these days through service work, etc.  Still, it's an environment where I believe both Catholics and non-Catholics (heck, maybe even non-Christians) can be comfortable and thrive.

As to the lay president thing, that's an easy answer.  There are literally scores of non priests qualified to be President of a large university.  If there were more than a handful of Jesuits I'd be surprised.  Wave of the future folks.  Unfortunately the BOT figured that out 2-3 years too late and our 'rebuild' was extended. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Initially I was with McAdams on this despite being an agnostic who's view on religion is only a millimeter to right of comedian Bill Maher.   I accept the fact that MU is a Catholic and Jesuit institution,  but that had absolutely nothing to do with why I matriculated there and as an alum, I've always resented the fact that MU swims in its religious identity to a much greater degree than other Jesuit schools such as BC, Georgetown, and Fordham.  I feel very strongly that MU's parochial midwestern attitude about preserving Catholic identity at all costs even to the detriment of its advancement, is keeping it from greatness and that was true long before Mike Lovell started running the place.  That said, after following this story closely for over 2 years, I've done a complete 180 and have come to the conclusion that McAdams needs to go.  The guy is a menace and the longer he's allowed to continue this BS the more damage he will do to our institution.  I wish Lovell would just fire him and say publically that he did so, not because of his un pc  conservative viewpoints or his abusive behavior towards a graduate student instructor, but because he's a total effin a hole!  Let him sue!   The jury will realize that the guy is an a hole of the first order and won't be sympathetic to his cause!

Did you matriculate from any of the other 20 Jesuits universities in the US to make that comparison about whom is sticking more to their Catholic anchors than another?  I'm curious how you came up with the claim you made, or are you really just comparing it to BC and G'Town.  Do you even know where Creighton, Wheeling, SLU, Gonzaga, etc, stand in terms of Catholicism?   I'm simply asking. 

I think your last two sentences are funny, I suspect wrong when all is said and done assuming it goes to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

[Coleman]

I find this part interesting.  While certain folks on here think that MU has strayed light years from the true Catholic faith, your view seems to be that it's far more dogmatic than other Jesuit institutions.

Personally, I think that while much at MU has changed over the last 40 years, the Jesuit philosophy of subtle 'treat your neighbor with dignity and respect' culture is very similar to when I was there.  In fact, I think MU does a better job of making sure kids are touched by that these days through service work, etc.  Still, it's an environment where I believe both Catholics and non-Catholics (heck, maybe even non-Christians) can be comfortable and thrive.

As to the lay president thing, that's an easy answer.  There are literally scores of non priests qualified to be President of a large university.  If there were more than a handful of Jesuits I'd be surprised.  Wave of the future folks.  Unfortunately the BOT figured that out 2-3 years too late and our 'rebuild' was extended.

With you all the way glow.

Being an authentic Catholic university is much more than fighting false culture wars. MU is as Catholic as they come.

[mayfairskatingrink]

With you all the way glow.

Being an authentic Catholic university is much more than fighting false culture wars. MU is as Catholic as they come.

More than that, yes.  But MU is not being fully Catholic if it doesn't fight the culture wars at all (or is on the other side).

[GGGG]

Who says that Marquette is "fully Catholic" in that respect?

I am a non-Catholic that went there 30 years ago, took 7 or 8 theology and philosophy courses, and never recall any sort of culture war fight where Catholic dogma was emphasized over anything else.  And those fights existed back then without the label.

I thought that by and large the Jesuits I had for professors were excellent.  They did a great job encouraging debate and intellectual rigor.  They didn't view their job as fighting culture wars, but developing young adults who are able to use their God given abilities.

And this is where IMO Abatte failed.  She didn't meet this standard, NOT by shutting down the debate in the classroom, but by refusing to acknowledge it afterwards.

None of this excuses McAdams' actions however.  He's wrapping himself in the "Catholic identity" nonsense because it gives him another angle to endear himself to the people who ALWAYS see themselves as victims.  (Many in this subject.)

[jsglow]

Well written Sultan.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Who says that Marquette is "fully Catholic" in that respect?

I am a non-Catholic that went there 30 years ago, took 7 or 8 theology and philosophy courses, and never recall any sort of culture war fight where Catholic dogma was emphasized over anything else.  And those fights existed back then without the label.

I thought that by and large the Jesuits I had for professors were excellent.  They did a great job encouraging debate and intellectual rigor.  They didn't view their job as fighting culture wars, but developing young adults who are able to use their God given abilities.

And this is where IMO Abatte failed.  She didn't meet this standard, NOT by shutting down the debate in the classroom, but by refusing to acknowledge it afterwards.

None of this excuses McAdams' actions however.  He's wrapping himself in the "Catholic identity" nonsense because it gives him another angle to endear himself to the people who ALWAYS see themselves as victims.  (Many in this subject.)

Most of the Jesuits I had for profs were great.   It wasn't the profs that had me concerned, it was and still is the administration.

You took 7 or 8 theology classes?  Minored in Theology?


My complaints back then that continue today are that MU would go outside of Catholic teachings to allow Man Mcguire and others to espouse non Catholic teachings in the name of academic freedom.  Ok.  Fine.   Yet when people have principled beliefs grounded in Catholic teachings, all too often they are shut down.  That's a huge WTF for many of us, even those that only took three theology classes (the required amount) and two of mine were Islam and Hinduism.   

[GGGG]

Most of the Jesuits I had for profs were great.   It wasn't the profs that had me concerned, it was and still is the administration.

You took 7 or 8 theology classes?  Minored in Theology?


My complaints back then that continue today are that MU would go outside of Catholic teachings to allow Man Mcguire and others to espouse non Catholic teachings in the name of academic freedom.  Ok.  Fine.   Yet when people have principled beliefs grounded in Catholic teachings, all too often they are shut down.  That's a huge WTF for many of us, even those that only took three theology classes (the required amount) and two of mine were Islam and Hinduism.   

I said 7 or 8 Theology and Philosophy classes.  Now that I think about it, it was 7.

Intro to Theology - taught by a Lutheran
Islam - A very old Fr. Lambeck.  Boring as hell.
Eastern Christianity - Fr. Alexander Golitzin.  (I loved the guy but he could largely not connect with the students.)

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_(Golitzin)_of_Dallas,_the_South_and_the_Bulgarian_Diocese

Phil 050 - some guy with a Polish name who I think went on to become a Dean or Provost at St. Thomas
Theory of Ethics - Nancy Snow!!!
Philosophy of Art - some weird dude with long hair
Contemporary Ethical Issues - some normal professor guy who made no impression on me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry, you are correct...didn't read the philosophy part.  Yes, we all took 3 Theo and 4 Phil if we were in A&S.

I enjoyed Islam with Father Lambeck.

Father Naus taught Oriental Philosophy (bet they changed the name of that course now....heeyna?) that I enjoyed.

I was the first student in MU history to earn the East Asian Studies minor, so I had to some interesting Phil and Theo courses that weren't typical of what many other students took.