Update on prof McAdams

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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."

Except every student agrees with this decision. Even a lot of the hard core right wingers I know...I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.

[Pakuni]

"Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university"

Can't imagine he was able to write this with a straight face.
Whatever you think of the guy and his positions, McAdams has largely built his reputation/following largely upon seeking conflict with the university.

[jsglow]

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.

Thanks for posting Blue.  As others have said, the sole purpose of the letter is to serve as an advocacy of Dr. McAdams position.  It's important for folks to know that counsel's job is to set the stage regardless of the merits of his arguments.  From a tactical standpoint, I'd refrain from other public comments if I were Marquette.  No doubt they are similarly ably represented by outside counsel and probably have been on this matter since the situation developed late last fall.

[warriorchick]

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?

+1 Excellent analogy.

[NavinRJohnson]

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

Absolutely correct (yet at the same time comical and absurd that some feel Lovell's statement should be taken at face value. He's paid to do the same thing.).

[keefe]

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.

To this day, people in Seattle associate Marquette University with Jodi O'Brien. But neither shrillness nor duration of public discourse should be the gauge or barometer of the inherent stupidity or unfairness of a bad decision. Marquette shamed itself on the national stage with Jodi O'Brien. The McAdams situation reinforces that reputation for profound imprudence and ineptitude.

[ChicosBailBonds]

F uck Marquette. This is shameful and embarassing

Damn right it is.


Academic freedom is ok....as long as you are talking about what they want you to talk about.  The double standards continue.

I remember this from the Washington Post a number of years ago.


Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."

[jsglow]

I will say this.  No doubt MU has exhaustively looked at the issues associated with 1) academic freedom, 2) employee harassment and intimidation and the rules governing it, 3) the status of Abbatte as a 'student', etc. via hundreds of man hours through its own outside counsel and has decided to proceed as it did.  Ultimately it'll be for the courts to decide.

[keefe]

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."

I take it you were never in Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT.) Public humiliation is an effective motivator. There is a reason the washout rate for UPT exceeds 60%. Not everybody has the right stuff to be given the keys to an F16 Viper.

Maybe Cheryl Abbate should never be given responsibility over students. Her behavior as regards academic freedom and intellectual integrity was found wanting.

[rocket surgeon]

Is there a bottom line here?  I think it all depends on who presents the best argument.  Was Cheryl abate an instructor or a student?  Freedom of speech or not?  Did mccadams conduct put marquette's safety at risk?  What I am seeing here mostly is if one likes mccadams, he's cool, if not, get out!  There are going to be a lot of precedent setting issues being established here.  Either way, mccadams is damaged goods to Marquette.  "Guilty as sin, free as a bird"?  Only works for Some

[Blue Horseshoe]

Thanks for posting Blue.  As others have said, the sole purpose of the letter is to serve as an advocacy of Dr. McAdams position.  It's important for folks to know that counsel's job is to set the stage regardless of the merits of his arguments.  From a tactical standpoint, I'd refrain from other public comments if I were Marquette.  No doubt they are similarly ably represented by outside counsel and probably have been on this matter since the situation developed late last fall.

Let me be clear, this is not a left vs right political argument. Blanket statements such as, "every student agrees with this decision" are false and show a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

Marquette has failed to address this publicly because it is in the wrong. The university will hide behind "details of personnel matters" in an attempt to shield itself from criticism.

Holz's letter to McAdams on January 30th addressed some of the issues and went into detail about Marquette's perspective. Holz cites a 1994 statement by the American Association of University Professors. Unfortunately for Holz, a post by John Wilson on Academe, the blog of the AAUP, said that Holz is incorrect on the association's position. "This is a complete distortion of the AAUP’s statements," Wilson wrote. "Tolerance requires that a university not fire professors for their expression. Marquette is perfectly free to condemn McAdams for an alleged breach of civility, but not to punish him. And although some faculty might legitimately fear being criticized by McAdams, no one has a right to be free from criticism, or to punish McAdams for their own decision to self-censor."

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I will say this.  No doubt MU has exhaustively looked at the issues associated with 1) academic freedom, 2) employee harassment and intimidation and the rules governing it, 3) the status of Abbatte as a 'student', etc. via hundreds of man hours through its own outside counsel and has decided to proceed as it did.  Ultimately it'll be for the courts to decide.

If this termination was on the advice of outside counsel, MU should look for new lawyers.  The response should have been to issue a public reprimand, add a code provision on publication of names of undergraduates, graduate students and graduate instructors names, and move on: no lawsuits, no major PR blowback, and you appease critics of McAdams.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today.  I wasn't going to go, but will now.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Did you not read Lovell's statement I posted? Nothing to do with ideology. It's about respect and accountability in the workplace, something McAdams has lacked for apparently decades.

Oh please.

It's more like people don't feel respected when someone has a different viewpoint and publicly states it.....suddenly they are not respected and something must be done.

Some people would find your avatar offensive and disrespectful...I think it's funny....great SNL skit, but someone somewhere is going to be offended or feel disrespected.

[keefe]

Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today.  I wasn't going to go, but will now.

I give you my proxy.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today.  I wasn't going to go, but will now.

I hope that he is pressed on the issue. It is important that he understand the gravity of such a poor decision by the university.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not convinced any professor should have blanket immunity from dismissal for all but the most grievous of offenses. In other words: I'm skeptical of tenure as an employment system.

(yes I'm aware that unless ALL universities ended the practice NO universities will from an arms race perspective)

Totally agree.  Tenure is BS.  That's part of my concern here.  Who is protected, who isn't will always have political undertones, ESPECIALLY when you see the makeup of academia.  Which is what is ultimately so ironic....political diversity is nowhere to be found at institutions that do nothing but scream about....diversity.

[jsglow]

If this termination was on the advice of outside counsel, MU should look for new lawyers.  The response should have been to issue a public reprimand, add a code provision on publication of names of undergraduates, graduate students and graduate instructors names, and move on: no lawsuits, no major PR blowback, and you appease critics of McAdams.

Sometimes the easy way out isn't the answer.  I'm not in any way suggesting your strategy isn't meritorious.  I'm simply saying that MU has absolutely studied the case with outside counsel and believes in the position they've taken.

[MUfan12]

I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.

So you want to silence someone because they have a viewpoint that you don't agree with?

How's Boulder, Ms. Abbate?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today.  I wasn't going to go, but will now.

The good news and bad news is that money talks.

You want to make a statement? Pull your donations and write a letter explaining why you're pulling it. If millions of dollars are pulled, then MU will likely change their tune.  

It's the double edged sword we face when we support a private institution.

[jsglow]

Is there a bottom line here?  I think it all depends on who presents the best argument.  Was Cheryl abate an instructor or a student?  Freedom of speech or not?  Did mccadams conduct put marquette's safety at risk?  What I am seeing here mostly is if one likes mccadams, he's cool, if not, get out!  There are going to be a lot of precedent setting issues being established here.  Either way, mccadams is damaged goods to Marquette.  "Guilty as sin, free as a bird"?  Only works for Some

It's funny rocket.  I wonder if I am in the minority here.  I had John at least 3 times for class back in the day and would be mostly aligned with his political viewpoint.  I'm not sure I would have terminated him with the limited facts I have but I can see why the university chose to head in that direction.  No doubt your series of questions will be the issues litigated.

[Blue Horseshoe]

The good news and bad news is that money talks.

You want to make a statement? Pull your donations and write a letter explaining why you're pulling it. If millions of dollars are pulled, then MU will likely change their tune.  

It's the double edged sword we face when we support a private institution.

If this is indeed headed to litigation, legal fees will also be incurred. Only one way to pay those bills.

[jsglow]

Except every student agrees with this decision. Even a lot of the hard core right wingers I know...I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.

So Blue, are you John?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

If this is indeed headed to litigation, legal fees will also be incurred. Only one way to pay those bills.

My guess is that MU has good lawyers on retainer.

This case won't be free... but they wouldn't have dismissed McAdams unless they were sure about their case.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

Ralph Weber....his dad was in the history department as a professor.  One of my favorite professors ever at MU.  Worked with the CIA on cryptography.  He and his son (the attorney above) published a book on Ronald Reagan called the Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan. 

Ralph (attorney), really great guy.  He worked with us extensively back in the day to get Mia Hamm out to Marquette for a clinic along with 3 or 4 other members of the women's US team.  Ralph made it happen and then helped set up some fund raising opportunities for Mia's brother Garrett, who was dying of a rare blood disease (he passed in 1997).  At the time, Ralph was with Kravitt, Gass, and Weber....still have a sweatshirt he gave me back in the day. 

I also had Dr. McAdams as a prof, enjoyed his classes very much.  Hate to see this go to litigation, but seems inevitable which will be bad for MU to some extent.