Update on prof McAdams

[Eldon]

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.

Does it go against MU's policy?  Are grad instructors considered TAs?  No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious.  If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs.  The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor.  The sole instructor.  It was her syllabus, her class.  

[Coleman]

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.  

Maybe in your mind, but not in reality. Whether they have full funding or not, graduate students are students. Period.

[Eldon]

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. 

Don't mistake my frankness for disrespect, but this is false.

[Coleman]

Does it go against MU's policy?  Are grad instructors considered TAs?  No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious.  If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs.  The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor.  The sole instructor.  It was her syllabus, her class.  

Whether or not she was an instructor or a TA, she was still a student.

[Coleman]

Don't mistake my frankness for disrespect, but this is false.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. A "Teaching Assistant" (helps with the professor who is the primary teacher of the class) and and a "Graduate Instructor" (leads the class) are obviously different roles. My point was in all instances, the person still maintains the same status with the university as a STUDENT.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Does it go against MU's policy?  Are grad instructors considered TAs?  No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious.  If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs.  The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor.  The sole instructor.  It was her syllabus, her class.  

Grad students teach classes for their advising professors so technically they're TAs. I don't know what they're considered but usually teaching a class is apart of a grad students curriculum.

[jficke13]

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.

Key distinction "in the real world." Such a place is only fanciful and distant to those in academia.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Marquette has violated a number of its own policies in an attempt to befuddle and fire McAdams. It is embarrassing and dishonorable to violate the same policies that are in place to protect students and faculty. I believe it is Holtz that should be relieved of his duties.

[Eldon]

Whether or not she was an instructor or a TA, she was still a student.

That's debatable.  To teach at Marquette you need to be a PhD candidate, i.e., done with all of your coursework and preliminary examination(s).  Unless, of course, things have changed in the past 5 or so years.  

Again, this may be seen as quibbling over the definition of 'student', but McAdams can make a defensible case that she was not a student, or at least not acting as a student in her role as an instructor.  Of course, I would defer to whatever Marquette's official policy on the definition of 'student'.

[Galway Eagle]

Maybe in your mind, but not in reality. Whether they have full funding or not, graduate students are students. Period.

I agree however I have to admit that if a full time instructor were to be taking night classes to work on another degree I would consider that instructor an instructor first still able to be criticized

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Marquette has violated a number of its own policies in an attempt to befuddle and fire McAdams. It is embarrassing and dishonorable to violate the same policies that are in place to protect students and faculty. I believe it is Holtz that should be relieved of his duties.

Is that you john McAdams? Seriously, on what basis do you make your statement? This has been an ongoing problem.

[Coleman]

That's debatable.  To teach at Marquette you need to be a PhD candidate, i.e., done with all of your coursework and preliminary examination(s).  Unless, of course, things have changed in the past 5 or so years.  

Again, this may be seen as quibbling over the definition of 'student', but McAdams can make a defensible case that she was not a student, or at least not acting as a student in her role as an instructor.  Of course, I would defer to whatever Marquette's official policy on the definition of 'student'.

I'm going to take Lovell at his word that Abbate was indeed a student at the time of the incident.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Whether or not she was an instructor or a TA, she was still a student.

So when I look on my transcript, will it show which classes were taught by "students" and which were taught by faculty?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Does it go against MU's policy?  Are grad instructors considered TAs?  No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious.  If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs.  The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor.  The sole instructor.  It was her syllabus, her class.  

I'll be perfect honest, I haven't read nor have I signed MU's conduct policy. I'm no an MU employee.

But, I would bet MU is going to fall back on some sort of general language about professionalism and workplace conduct. I'm not exactly sure how MU's policy reads, so if somebody knows the specifics, feel free to share.

As an isolated incident, this might not be a big deal, but if McAdams had other complaints & warnings on file, well, then this seems pretty simple.

As far as a TA vs professor, I'm not even sure that's important (to me). While I think it's entirely reasonable for Professors to have different views on topics, and debate the merits, I don't think taking second hand information to a blog is a really a good use of that type of academic freedom.

I like the idea of a conservative professor(s) on campus, but I don't need them using MU staff to create blog fodder.

[Coleman]

So when I look on my transcript, will it show which classes were taught by "students" and which were taught by faculty?

Why should this information be on your transcript?

[jficke13]

Why should this information be on your transcript?

One would imagine courses taught by students are less valuable than those taught by professors?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Why should this information be on your transcript?

The point is, she is giving undergraduates official grades from Marquette University which impact students' GPA, honors, academic recognitions, etc.  When she is teaching a class at Marquette University, she is an instructor, not a student.  The rest is just semantics.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So when I look on my transcript, will it show which classes were taught by "students" and which were taught by faculty?

Fine, she's a professor.

Does it really change anything?

Do we want professors publicly critiquing other professors using second hand information? It's just not a good idea.

You have a beef, take it through the proper channels.

Here's a scenario: What if I hate my professor, so I go to McAdams and give him a bunch of bologna about how my professor is stifling my conservative views. McAdams runs to the keyboard and trashes that professor.

Now, the truth will come out, but some damage has already been done, no?

McAdams conduct is unprofessional, and harmful to his employer and to his co-workers.

[Blue Horseshoe]

On January 15, McAdams posted the transcript of his attorney's letter to MU. I recommend reading it in its entirety. It provides better depth and context to the situation instead of, "He's a real mean guy. I don't like him!"

January 21, 2015

Ralph Weber
Gass, Weber and Mullins
309 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Re: Dr. John McAdams

Dear Ralph:

Although we met over a week ago, I have still not heard from you. While I am waiting, I thought it would be useful to reply to Dean Holz’ January 2 letter to Dr. McAdams. If it reflects the university’s position – and not just Dean Holz’ personal views – I am afraid that we are headed for litigation and continued controversy that I fear will profoundly damage Marquette.

The need for a response is bolstered by the article that appeared in Tuesday’s Journal Sentinel. In it, a university spokesperson says that Dr. McAdams remains banned from campus and implies that this is somehow necessary for the “safety” of students. I am normally not one given over to harsh adjectives, but this is preposterous.

In his letter, Dean Holz says, for the first time, that the allegedly improper conduct by Dr. McAdams was to identify Cheryl Abbate as the instructor who told a student that opposition to gay marriage would not be tolerated in her class. He does not claim that anything that Dr. McAdams said is false. He does not say that it was uncivil or constituted “harassment” under university rules. It was wrong, he says, because, even though Marquette made Ms. Abatte solely responsible for the class in question and placed her in a position of authority over undergraduates, she was still “only” a graduate student. As such, she apparently cannot be publicly criticized.

It is, of course, customary for persons engaged in debate or criticism to identify the person with whom they differ. Perhaps Dean Holz feels that, in this case, Dr. McAdams should not have done so. But regardless of what Dean Holz might prefer, Marquette does not retain the same level of discretion over its tenured faculty that an employer would normally have over its employees. Section 306.01 of the Faculty Statutes provides that the University may suspend the appointment of a faculty member only for cause as defined in Sections 306.02 and 306.03.

Dean Holz calls Dr. McAdams’ conduct “dishonorable and irresponsible,” presumably intending to invoke the Faculty Statutes’ description of conduct that may constitute cause for termination. There is no sense in which Dr. McAdams conduct can reasonably be called either of these things. Even were it otherwise, Marquette has made absolutely clear that what he writes may not be the basis for termination. Section 306.03 specifically states that in no case shall “cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” These Faculty Statutes are expressly incorporated into Dr. McAdams’ contract with Marquette.

Under this contract, Dr. McAdams has been promised at least the same level of protections as university professors employed by the government receive under the First Amendment. That freedom has been described by various courts in various ways. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S.234, 250 (1957), the Supreme Court said:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. … Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues,’ (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection. [citations omitted]”

Apparently Dean Holz believes that there is an exception – unstated in or to be reasonably implied from the Faculty Statutes – for speech responding to the arguments of graduate students – even when Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. But that is surely not the case. In fact, the university’s spokesperson was quoted in the media as saying otherwise. Faculty, he said, are free to “voice an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class.” Perhaps Dean Holz thinks there is some unwritten (and, as far as we know, unstated) codicil somewhere that says no one must publicly identify a graduate instructor – even if, as it was here, one is responding to a position that the instructor expressed from a position of authority.

There is no such codicil. As we pointed out in our previous letter addressed to President Lovell, Dr. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view. Punishing him for doing so violated his right to academic freedom.

Dean Holz claims that Dr. McAdams has been “asked, advised and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with [his] blog posts.” Apart from the fact that there would be no basis for doing so – particularly with respect to a person that the university has placed in charge of a class – this is simply false. Some months ago, Dean Holz told Dr. McAdams that representatives of a Palestinian student organization had felt “intimidated” during an interview by Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz’ letter dated September 24, 2014 says that he “trusts” Dr. McAdams will be “mindful” of the need to be sensitive with respect to his questions and status as a tenured faculty member. (Dr. McAdams believes that he was.) The letter says nothing about not publicizing any students’ names – much less those that the university has placed in charge of courses.

Dean Holz complains that Ms. Abbatte received nasty e-mails from unknown persons after her views were exposed. That is regrettable just as it is regrettable that Dr. McAdams and many others receive hostile – and often anonymous - criticisms in response to the positions that they take. But there is also no “heckler’s veto” exception to the university’s guarantee of academic freedom. Dr. McAdams has blogged on matters related to the university for many years, often sharply criticizing persons with whom he disagrees. None of these persons were ever subject to threatening e-mails. If this was the first time, the responses were “forseeable” only in the sense that, human nature being what it is, one’s views will sometimes elicit uncivil responses. Certainly Ms. Abbatte, if she wishes a career engaged in public and academic discourse over matters of ethics, is going to have to get used to this. Judging from her personal website, she is certainly capable of fending for herself.

But whatever the provenance of these nasty comments or the reasonableness of the university’s response, academic freedom is not limited by the responses it provokes. One would hope, in light of recent events in France, that the university does not believe that freedom of expression must be restricted less it provoke illiberal extremists.

During our conversation, you took some time to “defend” Ms. Abbatte’s comments, claiming that she offered to allow students to address the issue of same sex marriage in a subsequent class and denying (without explanation) that she meant what she quite clearly said. At no time did she qualify her remarks to the student by indicating, for example, that one could not oppose same sex marriage under Rawls’ equal liberty principle or that only certain types of arguments against same sex marriage are homophobic and offensive. You were critical of the undergraduate student to whom she expressed the views in question. We could debate these points but they don’t matter. Dr. McAdams’ academic freedom is not qualified by whether or not he was “right” or by what we think of the conduct of others.

Finally, as to the comments reported in yesterday’s newspaper, spokesperson Dorrington is reported to have said that, in banning Dr. McAdams from campus, the “safety of our students and campus community is our top priority.” He adds that the university will not tolerate “abuse” or “harassment” of students. Tell me, is it the university’s position that disagreement with someone constitutes endangering their “safety? Is it the university’s position that criticism is tantamount to “abuse” and “harassment?” These would be extraordinary positions and hard to reconcile with Mr. Dorrington’s concession that “a professor would not be subject to a review of this nature simply for voicing an opinion.”

Is it the university’s position that Dr. McAdams has done something other than voice an opinion? If so, we have not heard it say so. That leads us to yet another topic – the procedural irregularity of what is being done to Dr. McAdams. It says it has not suspended him (that would require compliance with the provisions of section 307 of the Faculty Statutes), so what, exactly is it doing and where is the authority for doing it?

In addition to the substantive problems with the university’s actions, it has failed to provide Dr. McAdams with the procedural protections that his contract requires. It has suspended him in violation of the Faculty Statutes and in breach of his contract. The University has publicly suggested that Dr. McAdams has engaged in an expression of “hate or abuse.” Spokesperson Dorrington has implied that his presence on campus would endanger students and this conduct somehow constitutes “abuse” and “harassment.” These statements are false and defamatory, and have aggravated the injury to Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz now says that Dr. McAdams has engaged in conduct that is dishonorable and irresponsible. If Dean Holz has repeated those words to any third party it would be a further act of defamation.

Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university. He respects the right of Dean Holz and Ms. Abbatte and anyone else to disagree with him and criticize his views. But I can assure that, if the university wants a national controversy over this, it shall have it. If it wants to make itself a poster child for overweening political correctness and Dr. McAdams a martyr to the cause of free expression, it need only continue on its current course.

We have already submitted a formal objection on behalf of Dr. McAdams. Dr. McAdams expects the University to reverse Dean Holz’ actions to date, to formally reinstate Dr. McAdams and reserves his right to proceed against the University if it does not do so promptly.

Very truly yours.

Richard Esenberg
President and General Counsel

We’ll have some further comments later. At the moment, Esenberg’s letter stands as a cogent rebuke to Marquette.

[Coleman]

On January 15, McAdams posted the transcript of his attorney's letter to MU. I recommend reading it in its entirety. It provides better depth and context to the situation instead of, "He's a real mean guy. I don't like him!"

January 21, 2015

Ralph Weber
Gass, Weber and Mullins
309 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Re: Dr. John McAdams

Dear Ralph:

Although we met over a week ago, I have still not heard from you. While I am waiting, I thought it would be useful to reply to Dean Holz’ January 2 letter to Dr. McAdams. If it reflects the university’s position – and not just Dean Holz’ personal views – I am afraid that we are headed for litigation and continued controversy that I fear will profoundly damage Marquette.

The need for a response is bolstered by the article that appeared in Tuesday’s Journal Sentinel. In it, a university spokesperson says that Dr. McAdams remains banned from campus and implies that this is somehow necessary for the “safety” of students. I am normally not one given over to harsh adjectives, but this is preposterous.

In his letter, Dean Holz says, for the first time, that the allegedly improper conduct by Dr. McAdams was to identify Cheryl Abbate as the instructor who told a student that opposition to gay marriage would not be tolerated in her class. He does not claim that anything that Dr. McAdams said is false. He does not say that it was uncivil or constituted “harassment” under university rules. It was wrong, he says, because, even though Marquette made Ms. Abatte solely responsible for the class in question and placed her in a position of authority over undergraduates, she was still “only” a graduate student. As such, she apparently cannot be publicly criticized.

It is, of course, customary for persons engaged in debate or criticism to identify the person with whom they differ. Perhaps Dean Holz feels that, in this case, Dr. McAdams should not have done so. But regardless of what Dean Holz might prefer, Marquette does not retain the same level of discretion over its tenured faculty that an employer would normally have over its employees. Section 306.01 of the Faculty Statutes provides that the University may suspend the appointment of a faculty member only for cause as defined in Sections 306.02 and 306.03.

Dean Holz calls Dr. McAdams’ conduct “dishonorable and irresponsible,” presumably intending to invoke the Faculty Statutes’ description of conduct that may constitute cause for termination. There is no sense in which Dr. McAdams conduct can reasonably be called either of these things. Even were it otherwise, Marquette has made absolutely clear that what he writes may not be the basis for termination. Section 306.03 specifically states that in no case shall “cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” These Faculty Statutes are expressly incorporated into Dr. McAdams’ contract with Marquette.

Under this contract, Dr. McAdams has been promised at least the same level of protections as university professors employed by the government receive under the First Amendment. That freedom has been described by various courts in various ways. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S.234, 250 (1957), the Supreme Court said:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. … Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues,’ (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection. [citations omitted]”

Apparently Dean Holz believes that there is an exception – unstated in or to be reasonably implied from the Faculty Statutes – for speech responding to the arguments of graduate students – even when Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. But that is surely not the case. In fact, the university’s spokesperson was quoted in the media as saying otherwise. Faculty, he said, are free to “voice an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class.” Perhaps Dean Holz thinks there is some unwritten (and, as far as we know, unstated) codicil somewhere that says no one must publicly identify a graduate instructor – even if, as it was here, one is responding to a position that the instructor expressed from a position of authority.

There is no such codicil. As we pointed out in our previous letter addressed to President Lovell, Dr. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view. Punishing him for doing so violated his right to academic freedom.

Dean Holz claims that Dr. McAdams has been “asked, advised and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with [his] blog posts.” Apart from the fact that there would be no basis for doing so – particularly with respect to a person that the university has placed in charge of a class – this is simply false. Some months ago, Dean Holz told Dr. McAdams that representatives of a Palestinian student organization had felt “intimidated” during an interview by Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz’ letter dated September 24, 2014 says that he “trusts” Dr. McAdams will be “mindful” of the need to be sensitive with respect to his questions and status as a tenured faculty member. (Dr. McAdams believes that he was.) The letter says nothing about not publicizing any students’ names – much less those that the university has placed in charge of courses.

Dean Holz complains that Ms. Abbatte received nasty e-mails from unknown persons after her views were exposed. That is regrettable just as it is regrettable that Dr. McAdams and many others receive hostile – and often anonymous - criticisms in response to the positions that they take. But there is also no “heckler’s veto” exception to the university’s guarantee of academic freedom. Dr. McAdams has blogged on matters related to the university for many years, often sharply criticizing persons with whom he disagrees. None of these persons were ever subject to threatening e-mails. If this was the first time, the responses were “forseeable” only in the sense that, human nature being what it is, one’s views will sometimes elicit uncivil responses. Certainly Ms. Abbatte, if she wishes a career engaged in public and academic discourse over matters of ethics, is going to have to get used to this. Judging from her personal website, she is certainly capable of fending for herself.

But whatever the provenance of these nasty comments or the reasonableness of the university’s response, academic freedom is not limited by the responses it provokes. One would hope, in light of recent events in France, that the university does not believe that freedom of expression must be restricted less it provoke illiberal extremists.

During our conversation, you took some time to “defend” Ms. Abbatte’s comments, claiming that she offered to allow students to address the issue of same sex marriage in a subsequent class and denying (without explanation) that she meant what she quite clearly said. At no time did she qualify her remarks to the student by indicating, for example, that one could not oppose same sex marriage under Rawls’ equal liberty principle or that only certain types of arguments against same sex marriage are homophobic and offensive. You were critical of the undergraduate student to whom she expressed the views in question. We could debate these points but they don’t matter. Dr. McAdams’ academic freedom is not qualified by whether or not he was “right” or by what we think of the conduct of others.

Finally, as to the comments reported in yesterday’s newspaper, spokesperson Dorrington is reported to have said that, in banning Dr. McAdams from campus, the “safety of our students and campus community is our top priority.” He adds that the university will not tolerate “abuse” or “harassment” of students. Tell me, is it the university’s position that disagreement with someone constitutes endangering their “safety? Is it the university’s position that criticism is tantamount to “abuse” and “harassment?” These would be extraordinary positions and hard to reconcile with Mr. Dorrington’s concession that “a professor would not be subject to a review of this nature simply for voicing an opinion.”

Is it the university’s position that Dr. McAdams has done something other than voice an opinion? If so, we have not heard it say so. That leads us to yet another topic – the procedural irregularity of what is being done to Dr. McAdams. It says it has not suspended him (that would require compliance with the provisions of section 307 of the Faculty Statutes), so what, exactly is it doing and where is the authority for doing it?

In addition to the substantive problems with the university’s actions, it has failed to provide Dr. McAdams with the procedural protections that his contract requires. It has suspended him in violation of the Faculty Statutes and in breach of his contract. The University has publicly suggested that Dr. McAdams has engaged in an expression of “hate or abuse.” Spokesperson Dorrington has implied that his presence on campus would endanger students and this conduct somehow constitutes “abuse” and “harassment.” These statements are false and defamatory, and have aggravated the injury to Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz now says that Dr. McAdams has engaged in conduct that is dishonorable and irresponsible. If Dean Holz has repeated those words to any third party it would be a further act of defamation.

Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university. He respects the right of Dean Holz and Ms. Abbatte and anyone else to disagree with him and criticize his views. But I can assure that, if the university wants a national controversy over this, it shall have it. If it wants to make itself a poster child for overweening political correctness and Dr. McAdams a martyr to the cause of free expression, it need only continue on its current course.

We have already submitted a formal objection on behalf of Dr. McAdams. Dr. McAdams expects the University to reverse Dean Holz’ actions to date, to formally reinstate Dr. McAdams and reserves his right to proceed against the University if it does not do so promptly.

Very truly yours.

Richard Esenberg
President and General Counsel

We’ll have some further comments later. At the moment, Esenberg’s letter stands as a cogent rebuke to Marquette.

This is just his lawyer spinning it. Nothing new here.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I ran this situation by my parents who are tenured teachers, not professors mind you but they have both been educators for over 25 years now. The compared it to having a student teacher and that McAdams is compete in the wrong. These are two people who are protected by tenure and like those protections but they said that in this situation, he has no right to be protected by the actions that he did.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

This is just his lawyer spinning it. Nothing new here.

This +1000. That's what he's paid to do.

[warriorchick]

This is just his lawyer spinning it. Nothing new here.

Summary:

"Yeah, my client broke the rules, even after repeated warnings, but he thinks those rules suck, so he shouldn't have to abide by them."

[Blue Horseshoe]

Summary:

"Yeah, my client broke the rules, even after repeated warnings, but he thinks those rules suck, so he shouldn't have to abide by them."

Summary:
"Marquette is in violation of its own rules. Not only has Marquette failed to produce evidence to the contrary, it will continue to diminish the rights of its students and faculty."

[mikekinsellaMVP]

The philosophy grad student is essentially an apprentice professor, still learning on the job.

Thank you for using this word.  I think it's the best description for the middle ground in the murky "Is she a student/Is she a professor?" debate.

That being the case, I chalenge you to find another professional apprenticeship - medical residency, engineer-in-training, etc. - where it is perfectly acceptable to publicly berate an apprentice for a "freshman mistake."  What do you think the students in our nursing program would do if their instructors decided to make their clinical mistakes public domain?