Update on prof McAdams

[GGGG]

This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).

Well, I guess that's what the courts are for.  

[mu03eng]

I'm still trying to figure out how all of this escalates to a firing which is by all accounts extremely rare.  

McAdams was wrong but it seems relatively mild wrong.  The teacher was wrong but again in a relatively simple, I'm learning way.  The student was wrong in how he handled the aftermath.  MU was wrong in how they handled this, especially early because they blew it up to get the attention it's getting.

As a dispassionate observer, there seems to be a lot of fervor here, which is why I think we are seeing all this political crap thrown around.  If the actual event doesn't deserve a firing, then either something happened in the background we don't know about, or this is a totalization of McAdams history of being a curmudgeon and thorn in MU's side.  

For the former, well we'll just have to see I guess.  Though even my vivid imagination can't conjure a scenario where both MU and McAdams want to keep it quiet.  If MU doesn't share than McAdams will in a lawsuit.

If it's the latter, I have a real problem with that, because it is now about academic and intellectual freedom or lack thereof.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).

The truth is, we haven't seen the dude's personnel file. He might have been warned about this kind of thing on 15 different occasions. We don't know, and MU isn't publicly going to come out and say that.

As Sultan stated before, it's unlikely that MU is going off half-cocked on this. They have likely done their homework and know the potential outcome/risk.

Now, it's also possible that the "powers-that-be" at MU are just pissed at McAdams, and they are pushing on this issue because they just hate the guy.

We'll never really know, but we'll get a pretty good idea based upon the eventual lawsuits or lack of lawsuits.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm still trying to figure out how all of this escalates to a firing which is by all accounts extremely rare.  

McAdams was wrong but it seems relatively mild wrong.  The teacher was wrong but again in a relatively simple, I'm learning way.  The student was wrong in how he handled the aftermath.  MU was wrong in how they handled this, especially early because they blew it up to get the attention it's getting.

As a dispassionate observer, there seems to be a lot of fervor here, which is why I think we are seeing all this political crap thrown around.  If the actual event doesn't deserve a firing, then either something happened in the background we don't know about, or this is a totalization of McAdams history of being a curmudgeon and thorn in MU's side.  

For the former, well we'll just have to see I guess.  Though even my vivid imagination can't conjure a scenario where both MU and McAdams want to keep it quiet.  If MU doesn't share than McAdams will in a lawsuit.

If it's the latter, I have a real problem with that, because it is now about academic and intellectual freedom or lack thereof.

They got Capone for tax evasion, right?

[mu03eng]

They got Capone for tax evasion, right?

Right, but that's kind of my point.  If that's whats going on, that means it was a "vendetta" to "get" McAdams and those ruffled have a point.

Either this was a case that justified firing or not unless there are prior bad acts which have a direct bearing on this case.  MU is not claiming any prior acts, only this one, as justification.  So I have to ask, how is this single act firable?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Right, but that's kind of my point.  If that's whats going on, that means it was a "vendetta" to "get" McAdams and those ruffled have a point.

Either this was a case that justified firing or not unless there are prior bad acts which have a direct bearing on this case.  MU is not claiming any prior acts, only this one, as justification.  So I have to ask, how is this single act firable?

Ya, my guess would be that there is a file full of stuff on McAdams, but MU doesn't look good airing ALL of the laundry, so they'll keep the story tight and try to weather the storm.

If there is a lawsuit, the file will have to be opened up, and everybody will take their chances.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Ya, my guess would be that there is a file full of stuff on McAdams, but MU doesn't look good airing ALL of the laundry, so they'll keep the story tight and try to weather the storm.

If there is a lawsuit, the file will have to be opened up, and everybody will take their chances.

Just because there is a file on McAdams, or the fact that he may have been written to and scolded does not prove McAdams was in the wrong. Nor does it prove if Marquette over reached or violated McAdams rights as a tenured professor. Many have noted, this is far from over and there are more developments to come.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Just because there is a file on McAdams, or the fact that he may have been written to and scolded does not prove McAdams was in the wrong. Nor does it prove if Marquette over reached or violated McAdams rights as a tenured professor. Many have noted, this is far from over and there are more developments to come.

I have no knowledge of a "Magic file", it's just my speculation that MU is NOT firing McAdams based solely on this event.

Now, if the "Magic file" only includes silly stuff about McAdams being written up for having a messy office, then no, that's not applicable.

If the "Magic file" includes specific situations where McAdams been reprimanded for similar behavior, and has a pattern of being a poor co-worker/employee and/or has a log of complaints from other co-workers, then that could be applicable.

*I have no knowledge that this exists, just speculating based upon some HR and employee documentation experience in my own profession.

[mu-rara]

Reading this thread, and the stuff MU is saying, made me go back and read the original post. For all the "harassment, bullying, attacking" being thrown out, I don't think this reads that way at all. Critical, yes. But not to a fireable level.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html

MU cannot win this if it is an academic freedom argument so they changed the narrative.  (Ask Sultan, that is what PR staff do). 

There is nothing worse in academia today than a charge of bullying.   Change the narrative to bullying.  Bingo, all the usual suspects jump on board.

[jsglow]

MU McAdams cannot win this if it is isn't an academic freedom argument so they he changed the narrative.  (Ask Sultan, that is what PR staff do).  

Fixed.

[zrjones13]

This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).

Mccadams has been reprimanded before for identifying student's by name on his blog. 

[jsglow]

Bottom line.  Nobody on this thread has any idea what is in Dr. McAdams' personnel file.

[zrjones13]

I'm still trying to figure out how all of this escalates to a firing which is by all accounts extremely rare.  

McAdams was wrong but it seems relatively mild wrong.  The teacher was wrong but again in a relatively simple, I'm learning way.  The student was wrong in how he handled the aftermath.  MU was wrong in how they handled this, especially early because they blew it up to get the attention it's getting.

As a dispassionate observer, there seems to be a lot of fervor here, which is why I think we are seeing all this political crap thrown around.  If the actual event doesn't deserve a firing, then either something happened in the background we don't know about, or this is a totalization of McAdams history of being a curmudgeon and thorn in MU's side.  

For the former, well we'll just have to see I guess.  Though even my vivid imagination can't conjure a scenario where both MU and McAdams want to keep it quiet.  If MU doesn't share than McAdams will in a lawsuit.

If it's the latter, I have a real problem with that, because it is now about academic and intellectual freedom or lack thereof.

How was the TA in the wrong?  She was teaching a class and used an example on gay marriage.  The student then came up after class and said he was offended and wanted to have a class debate.  The class didn't call for a debate they didn't have time.  McAdams has gotten in trouble before for identifying students by name on his blog.  He ran a story based on information he got from one persons point of view, and a recording of a private conversation between a TA and a student, which is illegal.  McAdams identified the TA by her full name which led to her receiving a lot of hate mail basically leading to her transfer.  McAdams wasn't trying to protect anyone.  If he wanted this to be a learning situation he could have taken it up with the departments.  He only had his interests in heart, not what was best for the student, TA, or even MArquette University.

[zrjones13]

Bottom line.  Nobody on this thread has any idea what is in Dr. McAdams' personnel file.

I don't think you need to know whats in his personnel file to decide what he did was wrong.  You could see why people might argue they don't agree with the punishment. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't think you need to know whats in his personnel file to decide what he did was wrong.  You could see why people might argue they don't agree with the punishment. 

I agree, but it could be argued that what he did wasn't egregious enough to warrant firing.

I personally would fire him, but that's because I run Ammo Corp., and I'm in the private sector.

Academia is a little different.

Now, if the personnel file is full of other similar situations and written warnings, then MU might have enough back-up to win a wrongful termination case.

[GGGG]

MU cannot win this if it is an academic freedom argument so they changed the narrative.  (Ask Sultan, that is what PR staff do). 

Actually no.

Not change the narrative.  Explain the narrative.  I wouldn't lie.

[brandx]

In a somewhat similar situation:

Before Marquette University punished the outspoken conservative professor John McAdams for blogging, Chicago State University was embroiled in a similar fight with two of its blogging faculty.

A federal judge ruled this week that those professors can continue their First Amendment lawsuit against the administration for allegedly chilling their speech, using an expansive reading of the school’s trademark rights among other policies.

The case is part of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Stand Up for Speech project, and the second this month to get a judge’s blessing to move forward. The ruling last week at Iowa State University also involved disputed trademarks.

Professors Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz contribute to a blog that’s frequently critical of the CSU administration, CSU Faculty Voice. Though the blog isn’t hosted on university servers, the professors claim that the school has tried to shut it down.

CSU’s policies on cyberbullying and computer usage are broad enough to chill the professors’ expression, they said, and the school said the blog’s use of CSU’s name and trademarks “caused confusion” and “implied CSU’s endorsement” of its commentary.

‘Civility’ as a threat to take legal action

Judge Joan Gottschall focused on a cease-and-desist letter the administration sent to Beverly, specifically its reference to “civility” – a watchword that has gripped faculty around the country since the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign revoked a job offer to anti-Israel academic Steven Salaita.

CSU General Counsel Patrick Cage told Beverly the blog’s “lack of civility and professionalism” violates university policies. The professors “stress that this letter is dated one business day after” a blog post accused the school’s interim provost of having “partially falsified her resume,” Gottschall said.

Though the administration says the “civility” reference wasn’t a legal threat to use the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies against the professors, “t is eminently reasonable to read the letter as a demand to shut down” the blog for its “alleged failure to meet CSU on-line civility standards,” Gottschall said.

Both policies have civility overtones, the judge said: One prohibits “any communication which tends to embarrass or humiliate any member of the community” and the other “could be read as prohibiting a series of negative blog posts.” Gottschall noted neither policy explicitly limits itself to material hosted on the university’s servers.

The professors have clearly stated “their First Amendment rights were chilled” because of CSU’s language against their blog, Gottschall said, denying the school’s claim that their fears were “speculative.” She said the professors raised the school’s trademark theories only for “context” about their First Amendment claims.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the professors’ next goal is to get a preliminary injunction against the school, so it can’t enforce the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies or send any more cease-and-desist letters about the blog.

As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I said I expected FIRE to get involved if MU doesn't revoke the punishment. Their MO has been to go after public universities - even to the extent of fighting for the right to bully students - but I really think they might get involved here.

[bucksandy34]

How was the TA in the wrong?  She was teaching a class and used an example on gay marriage.  The student then came up after class and said he was offended and wanted to have a class debate.  The class didn't call for a debate they didn't have time.  McAdams has gotten in trouble before for identifying students by name on his blog.  He ran a story based on information he got from one persons point of view, and a recording of a private conversation between a TA and a student, which is illegal.  McAdams identified the TA by her full name which led to her receiving a lot of hate mail basically leading to her transfer.  McAdams wasn't trying to protect anyone.  If he wanted this to be a learning situation he could have taken it up with the departments.  He only had his interests in heart, not what was best for the student, TA, or even MArquette University.

That's not illegal in Wisconsin.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

In a somewhat similar situation:

Before Marquette University punished the outspoken conservative professor John McAdams for blogging, Chicago State University was embroiled in a similar fight with two of its blogging faculty.

A federal judge ruled this week that those professors can continue their First Amendment lawsuit against the administration for allegedly chilling their speech, using an expansive reading of the school’s trademark rights among other policies.

The case is part of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Stand Up for Speech project, and the second this month to get a judge’s blessing to move forward. The ruling last week at Iowa State University also involved disputed trademarks.

Professors Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz contribute to a blog that’s frequently critical of the CSU administration, CSU Faculty Voice. Though the blog isn’t hosted on university servers, the professors claim that the school has tried to shut it down.

CSU’s policies on cyberbullying and computer usage are broad enough to chill the professors’ expression, they said, and the school said the blog’s use of CSU’s name and trademarks “caused confusion” and “implied CSU’s endorsement” of its commentary.

‘Civility’ as a threat to take legal action

Judge Joan Gottschall focused on a cease-and-desist letter the administration sent to Beverly, specifically its reference to “civility” – a watchword that has gripped faculty around the country since the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign revoked a job offer to anti-Israel academic Steven Salaita.

CSU General Counsel Patrick Cage told Beverly the blog’s “lack of civility and professionalism” violates university policies. The professors “stress that this letter is dated one business day after” a blog post accused the school’s interim provost of having “partially falsified her resume,” Gottschall said.

Though the administration says the “civility” reference wasn’t a legal threat to use the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies against the professors, “t is eminently reasonable to read the letter as a demand to shut down” the blog for its “alleged failure to meet CSU on-line civility standards,” Gottschall said.

Both policies have civility overtones, the judge said: One prohibits “any communication which tends to embarrass or humiliate any member of the community” and the other “could be read as prohibiting a series of negative blog posts.” Gottschall noted neither policy explicitly limits itself to material hosted on the university’s servers.

The professors have clearly stated “their First Amendment rights were chilled” because of CSU’s language against their blog, Gottschall said, denying the school’s claim that their fears were “speculative.” She said the professors raised the school’s trademark theories only for “context” about their First Amendment claims.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the professors’ next goal is to get a preliminary injunction against the school, so it can’t enforce the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies or send any more cease-and-desist letters about the blog.

As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I said I expected FIRE to get involved if MU doesn't revoke the punishment. Their MO has been to go after public universities - even to the extent of fighting for the right to bully students - but I really think they might get involved here.

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?

MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?

[brandx]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?

MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?

I don't think it does. I think it may be what is used in a lawsuit, though. And does it hinge on the fact that he uses "Marquette" in the name of his blog?

I think I stated earlier (if not, I meant to), that so far FIRE has targeted public universities across the country in defending conservatives that it thinks were wronged in free speech issues. Circumstances here are somewhat similar, but I am not privy to their thinking about going after private schools.

The cases are interesting. At Iowa State, they are contending that ISU does not have the right to administer its own trademark in a case where pro-pot students wore t-shirts including the ISU cardinal mascot. So even though FIRE is a Koch brothers funded organization, it is not strictly about protecting the rights of conservatives though that is the main focus.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?

MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?

There is a difference: the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private schools like Marquette so you can't bring any type of constitutional claim.  However, McAdams has a contract-based case that I suspect can likely survive summary judgment and get to a jury.  

Essentially, the argument would be: Marquette contractually promised to treat me as if I were at a public institution and uphold identical standards of academic speech and debate; the university then violated that contractual promise by firing me for what I said on my blog.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There is a difference: the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private schools like Marquette so you can't bring any type of constitutional claim.  However, McAdams has a contract-based case that I suspect can likely survive summary judgment and get to a jury.  

Essentially, the argument would be: Marquette contractually promised to treat me as if I were at a public institution and uphold identical standards of academic speech and debate; the university then violated that contractual promise by firing me for what I said on my blog.

Good to know, that's for the clarification.

I have a reasonable understanding of private sector employment regulations and wrongful termination stuff, but academia is a while different animal, I suppose.

[rocky_warrior]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?

MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Marquette is not attempting to stop McAdams free speech.  They are merely not willing to employ him anymore because of it.  There is a difference.

[mu03eng]

How was the TA in the wrong?  She was teaching a class and used an example on gay marriage.  The student then came up after class and said he was offended and wanted to have a class debate.  The class didn't call for a debate they didn't have time.  McAdams has gotten in trouble before for identifying students by name on his blog.  He ran a story based on information he got from one persons point of view, and a recording of a private conversation between a TA and a student, which is illegal.  McAdams identified the TA by her full name which led to her receiving a lot of hate mail basically leading to her transfer.  McAdams wasn't trying to protect anyone.  If he wanted this to be a learning situation he could have taken it up with the departments.  He only had his interests in heart, not what was best for the student, TA, or even MArquette University.

The TA was wrong because she treated a students opinion of a policy decision as potentially homophobic, which is as stifling as anything McAdams did.  And recording a conversation is not illegal in Wisconsin.

FYI, I think the TA is least "guilty" in this whole mess but she doesn't get a complete pass.

[brandx]

The TA was wrong because she treated a students opinion of a policy decision as potentially homophobic, which is as stifling as anything McAdams did.  And recording a conversation is not illegal in Wisconsin.

FYI, I think the TA is least "guilty" in this whole mess but she doesn't get a complete pass.

It's what being a TA is all about. When you make a mistake, you should be taken aside - in private - and it becomes a teaching moment. Being ridiculed online? Not so much.