Update on prof McAdams

[Coleman]

That's not for him to decide. 

This. This times a million.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

This. This times a million.

He didn't decide.  She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic. 

[Coleman]

This.  This is the point many people aren't getting. 

My father called me from Nashville, all upset after hearing Mark Belling discuss the issue at length when he filled in for Rush Limbaugh (taking McAdam's position, natch).  What I said to my dad was. "If Dr. McAdams posted, 'I just read a research paper on end-of-life care written by [his granddaughter, a MU nursing student] and it was a steaming pile of worthless crap.  I certainly hope no state is stupid enough to give her a nursing license.', would you think the professor's behavior was appropriate?  Because that, at its core, is what he did to the philosophy TA."

This isn't about free speech.  It doesn't matter what the subject matter was.  It's that a professor publicly and unapologetically castigated a student.  And I say that as a person who, on the continuum of conservative to liberal, would probably be spooning Chicos.

You are an excellent example of someone who can see beyond the political talking points involved and see that McAdams' actions were wrong. Thank you.

[Coleman]

He didn't decide.  She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic. 

You're missing the point.

McAdams publicly chastised a student by name in his blog, most likely after already being told not to do this. That's what he is being fired for. Not for what she did first, or how she responded after. He is being judged by his actions alone. As it should be.

[GGGG]

He didn't decide.  She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic.  

Oh did Abbate initially make a mistake?  Most certainly.  That hardly means "she shouldn't be involved in academia."  It simply means she made a mistake.

[Sir Lawrence]

Oh did Abbate initially make a mistake?  Most certainly.  That hardly means "she shouldn't be involved in academia."  It simply means she made a mistake.

And what we will never know is how the University disciplined her.  Which I am positive it did, in some manner.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Oh did Abbate initially make a mistake?  Most certainly.  That hardly means "she shouldn't be involved in academia."  It simply means she made a mistake.

Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach.  I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.  

And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student".  This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad.  This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university.  Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.  

[Eldon]

This.  This is the point many people aren't getting. 

My father called me from Nashville, all upset after hearing Mark Belling discuss the issue at length when he filled in for Rush Limbaugh (taking McAdam's position, natch).  What I said to my dad was. "If Dr. McAdams posted, 'I just read a research paper on end-of-life care written by [his granddaughter, a MU nursing student] and it was a steaming pile of worthless crap.  I certainly hope no state is stupid enough to give her a nursing license.', would you think the professor's behavior was appropriate?  Because that, at its core, is what he did to the philosophy TA."

This isn't about free speech.  It doesn't matter what the subject matter was.  It's that a professor publicly and unapologetically castigated a student.  And I say that as a person who, on the continuum of conservative to liberal, would probably be spooning Chicos.

I wouldn't be so sure.  I personally think it's grade A doucheness to publicly criticize the class management abilities of a professor-in-training, but he attacked a fellow faculty member who just so happened to be a student.  That is his defense, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it is nevertheless defensible.  If McAdams criticized a fellow political science professor on his blog, everyone would think "oh, that's just McAdams ranting again."  But what if that political science professor were taking a statistics class at night?  Should McAdams have to pull the blog post because the professor is technically a student?  Is this an argument about what are the essential aspects of being a 'student'?  You bet.  And that is exactly the point.  It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.  

Now, if McAdams had somehow obtained a copy of a term paper that she wrote and publicly bashed it, then I would unequivocally agree with you 100%.  However, if she had made the paper public, say, on her own website, then that fundamentally changes the circumstances.  And even in the latter scenario, I don't believe that should be grounds for dismissal.  Douchebag move?  Perhaps.  But revocation of tenure?  That strikes me as reactionary.

The philosophy grad student is essentially an apprentice professor, still learning on the job.  McAdams comes along and sees her make a freshman mistake--she nipped a controversial topic in the bud without much explanation.  He takes to his blog and tells the world about it.  In his eyes, he is castigating a peer--not a student.  As McAdams sees it, if she wants to be a professor, she should be treated like one.  Analogies are never perfect, but this would be like Lebron asking a low-major DI player "oh, so you want to play basketball?  Well, suit up" and then Lebron dunks on him left and right, swatting his shots, crossing him over, etc.  Again, douchebag move, but IMO not grounds for dismissal from the university.  Note that, as Sultan pointed out, my opinion is 100% conditional upon what is publicly known.  If those facts change, my opinion may as well.

Last point.  At Marquette, in order for a grad student to fully teach a class (i.e., not a "mere" TA), that student needs to have completed all coursework and preliminary examination(s).  At that stage, she is essentially a junior researcher, likely considered a candidate rather than a student.  Note that this is not merely semantics.  In academia, this distinction actually matters (unlike, say, MBA programs where 'candidate' is used for euphonic reasons).  Again, I know all of this may sound like an argument of what the definition of 'student' is, but I think McAdams argument, namely 'I didn't criticize a student, I criticized a fellow faculty member' is not as ad hoc as it may seem.  

[warriorchick]

And what we will never know is how the University disciplined her.  Which I am positive it did, in some manner.

Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.

[NavinRJohnson]

"I'll go with Taking PR Statements at Face Value for $2,000, Alex!"

No kidding.

Nothing to do with ideology. That's funny. Those who believe that go back and read that statement again with a skeptical eye (as you should always do), not what you want to believe it says.

Was his firing entirely based on teh subject matter? Perhaps not. Would he have been fired for the exact same actions if the subject matter were something other than gay marriages? I have serious doubts about that.

[🏀]

Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.

Or transferring out of Marquette.

[GGGG]

Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach.  I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.  

And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student".  This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad.  This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university.  Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.  

Marquette University, and pretty much every higher education institution I have been associated with, disagree with your characterization of graduate students.

[warriorchick]

I wouldn't be so sure.  I personally think it's grade A doucheness to publicly criticize the class management abilities of a professor-in-training, but he attacked a fellow faculty member who just so happened to be a student.  That is his defense, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it is nevertheless defensible.  If McAdams criticized a fellow political science professor on his blog, everyone would think "oh, that's just McAdams ranting again."  But what if that political science professor were taking a statistics class at night?  Should McAdams have to pull the blog post because the professor is technically a student?  Is this an argument about what are the essential aspects of being a 'student'?  You bet.  And that is exactly the point.  It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.  

Now, if McAdams had somehow obtained a copy of a term paper that she wrote and publicly bashed it, then I would unequivocally agree with you 100%.  However, if she had made the paper public, say, on her own website, then that fundamentally changes the circumstances.  And even in the latter scenario, I don't believe that should be grounds for dismissal.  Douchebag move?  Perhaps.  But revocation of tenure?  That strikes me as reactionary.

The philosophy grad student is essentially an apprentice professor, still learning on the job.  McAdams comes along and sees her make a freshman mistake--she nipped a controversial topic in the bud without much explanation.  He takes to his blog and tells the world about it.  In his eyes, he is castigating a peer--not a student.  As McAdams sees it, if she wants to be a professor, she should be treated like one.  Analogies are never perfect, but this would be like Lebron asking a low-major DI player "oh, so you want to play basketball?  Well, suit up" and then Lebron dunks on him left and right, swatting his shots, crossing him over, etc.  Again, douchebag move, but IMO not grounds for dismissal from the university.  Note that, as Sultan pointed out, my opinion is 100% conditional upon what is publicly known.  If those facts change, my opinion may as well.

Last point.  At Marquette, in order for a grad student to fully teach a class (i.e., not a "mere" TA), that student needs to have completed all coursework and preliminary examination(s).  At that stage, she is essentially a junior researcher, likely considered a candidate rather than a student.  Note that this is not merely semantics.  In academia, this distinction actually matters (unlike, say, MBA programs where 'candidate' is used for euphonic reasons).  Again, I know all of this may sound like an argument of what the definition of 'student' is, but I think McAdams argument, namely 'I didn't criticize a student, I criticized a fellow faculty member' is not as ad hoc as it may seem.  

All that matters is that Marquette's official policy, published well before this incident occurred, is that TAs are considered students first, and instructors second.  Therefore, if there is a conflict between the two roles in any way, the role as student is the default. If McAdams didn't know this, as a decades-long tenured professor, he should have.  My best guess is that he fired off this blog post half-cocked, and instead of apologizing or retracting his statements when he realized it was a violation of school policy, he decided to double down and play the  Academic Freedom card.

[Lennys Tap]

Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.

Total red herring.

[mu-rara]

Oh please.  Local media wouldn't give a damn about this if it were a conservative like McAdams or a professor as liberal as Nancy Snow.  I mean, how much of a "PR disaster" was it when Marquette withdrew the offer to the Liberal Arts dean?  After about a month, people moved on.  It had no real impact on donations, admissions or among the faculty.  This will be about the same.  

As someone who works in PR for a university, this really is nothing.  Belling and his ilk are easy to ignore, since they inflame quickly, but just as quickly move on.  The only way it becomes an issue is if it gets to the national media and becomes a "cause" somehow - or it causes major donors to withdraw their support.  (And it won't.  Most donors are acutely aware of how colleagues should treat one another in the workplace.)  News cycles are short.  Even a lawsuit isn't that big of a deal - everyone gets sued these days.

Sultan, doesn't it bother you that our beloved university talks out of both sides of it's *ss (oops, I meant mouth). On one hand, pulling back a job offer because of sexual orientation is OK.  On the other,  you can't have a discussion about gay marriage.  

If the university was so supportive of gay rights, how did they ever conceive of withdrawing that employment offer?

[🏀]

Sultan, doesn't it bother you that our beloved university talks out of both sides of it's *ss (oops, I meant mouth). On one hand, pulling back a job offer because of sexual orientation is OK.  On the other,  you can't have a discussion about gay marriage. 

If the university was so supportive of gay rights, how did they ever conceive of withdrawing that employment offer?

Still missing the point that this isn't about gay marriage.

[Eldon]

All that matters is that Marquette's official policy, published well before this incident occurred, is that TAs are considered students first, and instructors second.  Therefore, if there is a conflict between the two roles in any way, the role as student is the default. If McAdams didn't know this, as a decades-long tenured professor, he should have.  My best guess is that he fired off this blog post half-cocked, and instead of apologizing or retracting his statements when he realized it was a violation of school policy, he decided to double down and play the  Academic Freedom card.

Ok, but does Marquette consider its graduate instructors as TAs?

[mu_hilltopper]

Exactly.  I have been involved in "PR disasters" a hell of a lot worse than this, and despite all the chicken littles worrying about it bleeding students or donations from the school, it simply didn't.  A few months later, everyone pretty much forgot about it, and year later we hit record enrollment.

Sultan is likely spot on, here, although a lawsuit is a wildcard.

McAdams was a cancer on MU, and the chemotherapy will not be pretty, but in the end, the patient will be just fine.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach.  I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.  

And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student".  This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad.  This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university.  Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.  

Please read his other blog posts then. This isn't an isolated incident, he has ridiculed teachers in the past for the way they teach including a professor I had personally who was one of the best I've ever had at Marquette. This guy is a nut job and the administration reacted appropriately and did not rush things. This comment is very ignorant.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Sultan, doesn't it bother you that our beloved university talks out of both sides of it's *ss (oops, I meant mouth). On one hand, pulling back a job offer because of sexual orientation is OK.  On the other,  you can't have a discussion about gay marriage.  

If the university was so supportive of gay rights, how did they ever conceive of withdrawing that employment offer?

It's not about gay marriage. AND, it's not even about having a discussion on gay marriage.

This is about a senior professor using his personal website to broadcast something he heard second hand about a TA's class.

It's unprofessional, and goes against the conduct policy.

IF McAdams really wanted to make a difference, he would have contacted the TA during regular business hours and maybe even discussed it with the department chair. That's a professional approach. If he didn't receive a satisfactory answer to his inquiries, then at that point, I'm not against airing the dirty laundry.

BUT, as it stands, McAdams caught wind of a juicy piece of liberalism, and he ran to his keyboard to tell everybody about it. Not cool. Not a good precedent to set.

[rocket surgeon]

Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.

 this along with all the other immature threats that most here have seen-no one should ever have to be treated like this.  there are kooks on every corner-short of someone really following through on any of the threats, i am just amazed at how someone could forward comments as such and sit back and feel good about them

on another note, i realize johnny didn't give cheryl much time to respond to his requests for her side of the story, but what other reason(s) would she not have at least tried to answer him?  i'm thinking either she was busy and never got the requests or she didn't feel his requests deserved merit or advice of some sort along these lines?  why i am asking?  just thinking/wondering if that would have made any difference here.  i know, what good does that do now...

[Coleman]

Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach.  I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.  

And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student".  This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad.  This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university.  Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.  

Its not crap. She is a student, with none of the rights and privileges of faculty. If you can't see the difference,  I don't know what to tell you.

[Coleman]

Ok, but does Marquette consider its graduate instructors as TAs?

A graduate instructor, graduate assistant, and teaching assistant can all be used interchangeably in academia. Abbate was a student, a graduate student, but a student nonetheless.

The distinction between undergraduate and graduate student here is basically irrelevant, I don't know why McAdams' defenders keep falling back on that point. All students, undergraduates and graduate students, are adults. All should have the same basic protections. 

[Galway Eagle]

I think the distinction of student comes when you are paying more for your education (or being scholarshipped more for it) than you are receiving from the university as payment.  As a graduate student she was paying for an opportunity to learn how to run a class that makes her a student regardless of title or how much she earns as being a TA etc.  Now if she were receiving more for payment than paying (covering eldon's argument of if a full time instructor happened to be taking a class) then that individual would be considered full faculty in my Mind.  

this along with all the other immature threats that most here have seen-no one should ever have to be treated like this.  there are kooks on every corner-short of someone really following through on any of the threats, i am just amazed at how someone could forward comments as such and sit back and feel good about them

on another note, i realize johnny didn't give cheryl much time to respond to his requests for her side of the story, but what other reason(s) would she not have at least tried to answer him?  i'm thinking either she was busy and never got the requests or she didn't feel his requests deserved merit or advice of some sort along these lines?  why i am asking?  just thinking/wondering if that would have made any difference here.  i know, what good does that do now...

I don't think anyone in their right mind that is as liberal as her would respond risking Mcadams taking little portions of full quotes and using them out of context to fuel the fire.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

this along with all the other immature threats that most here have seen-no one should ever have to be treated like this.  there are kooks on every corner-short of someone really following through on any of the threats, i am just amazed at how someone could forward comments as such and sit back and feel good about them

on another note, i realize johnny didn't give cheryl much time to respond to his requests for her side of the story, but what other reason(s) would she not have at least tried to answer him?  i'm thinking either she was busy and never got the requests or she didn't feel his requests deserved merit or advice of some sort along these lines?  why i am asking?  just thinking/wondering if that would have made any difference here.  i know, what good does that do now...

It's simple. He just has to send her an email or contact her during business hours.

OR EVEN, GASP, Walk over and see her during office hours or after class.

This is what professionals do in the real world. Every. Damn. Day. I hold McAdams to the same standard I hold myself.