Update on prof McAdams

[Eldon]

No, entirely different situations, as evident by the fact that every faculty organization in the country was crying foul in the USM case.  Not only that, but the state supreme court got involved.  That was a clear abuse of power by the president of the university and led to a no confidence vote in the University President. 

Only the religious right is crying foul in the MU case.

Even with a clear abuse of power the two USM faculty only got two years pay and full retirement benefits (even though they needed a couple years more to reach that level).

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll give you the that the latter was a blanket statement.  The former is true, every faculty organization was up in arms in the USM case.  It was an egregious act.  Both of the faculty revoked of tenure, in that case, had job offers (promotions) by other Universities before the day was out.

Making sure I am following correctly.  Are you saying only the religous right is complaining about the currrent MU case, or a previous one?

[forgetful]

Making sure I am following correctly.  Are you saying only the religous right is complaining about the currrent MU case, or a previous one?

I was referring to this one, but admitted it was a gross stretch and way over generalized. I forget that many take internet posts absolutely literally.  I meant to imply that comparatively few care about this case, those most up in arms about it do align with the religious right, as it has been politicized.

The other one had no political agenda, but it received press around the US and universally within academia the actions were considered absurd.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was referring to this one, but admitted it was a gross stretch and way over generalized. I forget that many take internet posts absolutely literally.  I meant to imply that comparatively few care about this case, those most up in arms about it do align with the religious right, as it has been politicized.

The other one had no political agenda, but it received press around the US and universally within academia the actions were considered absurd.

Most of the items I've read from organizations that are upset have nothing to do with religious overtones at all, but simply academic freedome and such.  Of course some will take the religious angle, but in the end this will be litigated on the adademic rights argument and wrongful termination claims....if they can be proven.

[rocket surgeon]

WI is an at will employment state.  The fact that he made a blog post that played a part in a TA (also a student, mind you) feeling threatened enough to leave MU is case enough.  He has no case.  Note, I'm not saying his blog post threatened the TA, but it sure caused a lot of grief for the girl because of his readers response (and following fox news story).

Here's a more accurate account of the details...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay

by these standards, is a newspaper or any other means of pronunciation of someone's activities or conduct, held up to scrutiny dependent upon the reaction of the collective against the "victim"?  unless they can show mccadams blog express purpose was to garner death threats and ultimately a school transfer, that's just a really unfortunate blow-back.  mccadams cannot be held responsible for some idiot going "one flew over the cuckcoo's nest" on cheryl abbate.  if the journal-sentinal prints a a story which causes mean a$$ reactions to the subject, can that subject sue?  yes, i knowe it depends on the facts, but...?

mccadams purpose was not to make abbate's life that miserable.  he merely feels the need to point out one of the many "beat downs" of liberal vs. conservative ideological hypocrisies  that have been occurring on universities for too long.  he's taking the "i'm mad as hell and can't take it anymore" attitude and unfortunately or not, he's speaking for a lot of people.  he's trying to provide a voice for the conservatives who for too long have been getting shoved to the side and are actually a minority on college campuses. 
 

[GGGG]

mccadams purpose was not to make abbate's life that miserable.  he merely feels the need to point out one of the many "beat downs" of liberal vs. conservative ideological hypocrisies  that have been occurring on universities for too long.  he's taking the "i'm mad as hell and can't take it anymore" attitude and unfortunately or not, he's speaking for a lot of people.  he's trying to provide a voice for the conservatives who for too long have been getting shoved to the side and are actually a minority on college campuses. 
 

[Eldon]

I was referring to this one, but admitted it was a gross stretch and way over generalized. I forget that many take internet posts absolutely literally.  I meant to imply that comparatively few care about this case, those most up in arms about it do align with the religious right, as it has been politicized.

The other one had no political agenda, but it received press around the US and universally within academia the actions were considered absurd.

You?  Forgetful?  Ya don't say

[rocket surgeon]

we have a nice, civil thread going here and for fear of it being interpreted as going political, i need to refrain from putting more info backing my claim of universities being more liberal vs. conservative and why people like dr. mccabe fills a void.  now i'm not saying what he did is right or wrong, but he is trying to lend support to a widely held minority voice.  i'd hate to see the ole padlock going up on this topic.  i believe most people could show with the proper eveidence,  that my argument would  then turn strawman into a  "brick house"

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

we have a nice, civil thread going here and for fear of it being interpreted as going political, i need to refrain from putting more info backing my claim of universities being more liberal vs. conservative and why people like dr. mccabe fills a void.  now i'm not saying what he did is right or wrong, but he is trying to lend support to a widely held minority voice.  i'd hate to see the ole padlock going up on this topic.  i believe most people could show with the proper eveidence,  that my argument would  then turn strawman into a  "brick house"

Regardless of McAdams politics, what he did was wrong.

You can't have senior level professors taking second hand accounts and using them to critique a fellow employee. It's not politics. It's not academic freedom. It's about appropriate conduct of a senior level professor.

McAdams could be the only conservative in all of academia, and it wouldn't change a thing. What he did wasn't appropriate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Regardless of McAdams politics, what he did was wrong.

You can't have senior level professors taking second hand accounts and using them to critique a fellow employee. It's not politics. It's not academic freedom. It's about appropriate conduct of a senior level professor.

McAdams could be the only conservative in all of academia, and it wouldn't change a thing. What he did wasn't appropriate.

Let the courts decide...or MU can write a check to make it go away...not that this hasn't happened a time or two.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Let the courts decide...or MU can write a check to make it go away...not that this hasn't happened a time or two.

Do you think what he did was appropriate?

I'm not talking about MU's level of punishment... just McAdam's actions. Do you think it's appropriate?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Regardless of McAdams politics, what he did was wrong.

You can't have senior level professors taking second hand accounts and using them to critique a fellow employee. It's not politics. It's not academic freedom. It's about appropriate conduct of a senior level professor.

McAdams could be the only conservative in all of academia, and it wouldn't change a thing. What he did wasn't appropriate.

That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.

Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student.  Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it?  If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?

[mu-rara]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Dr. McAdams was out of line.  Having read the blog post, I think it was pretty mild.  I'm also not sure where the "2nd hand accounts" idea came from.  McAdams had the audio account.  I realize for various reasons this may not be admissible in court, but for our purposes, Abbatte has not denied saying it.

Many Marquette grads have faced  worse in their first jobs out of school.  I worked for one of the most manipulative psychos in business my first job, and this was in a very well respected company.  I learned from it.  She will face a lot worse if she moves up the ladder.

I firmly believe that the "Dr. McAdams was mean to Ms. Abbatte" line is PR spin.  MU realized that was a better argument in these times, so they changed the narrative.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.

Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student.  Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it?  If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?

It's a fair point.

If we can all agree that what McAdam's did was unprofessional, then let's examine the punishment:

Is it too much? Did MU go too far?

To me, this seems like a "last straw" scenario, but I'm obviously not aware of McAdam's conversations with his bosses or his personnel file, so this is just my best guess.

That's where the debate will come. If MU has specifically warned him about his conduct (in writing), and have specific evidence in his personnel file, then I think MU can argue they have cause to remove him.

If this is really McAdam's first warning or MU hasn't documented previous issues, then McAdams has a good case.

To me, this isn't about academic freedom, and this isn't about politics. Those are strawmen. It's about professionalism in the workplace and respect for coworkers.  

[🏀]

It's about professionalism in the workplace and respect for coworkers. 

Nailed it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Dr. McAdams was out of line.  Having read the blog post, I think it was pretty mild.  I'm also not sure where the "2nd hand accounts" idea came from.  McAdams had the audio account.  I realize for various reasons this may not be admissible in court, but for our purposes, Abbatte has not denied saying it.

Many Marquette grads have faced  worse in their first jobs out of school.  I worked for one of the most manipulative psychos in business my first job, and this was in a very well respected company.  I learned from it.  She will face a lot worse if she moves up the ladder.

I firmly believe that the "Dr. McAdams was mean to Ms. Abbatte" line is PR spin.  MU realized that was a better argument in these times, so they changed the narrative.

Right, but McAdams had no proof or verification that the audio was actually real, or context of the audio. In all seriousness, he's lucky it was real, and it wasn't just a student with an axe to grind.

Again, if McAdams wants to take on MU and it's liberal professors, more power to him. But, taking 1 student's account and then running to his blog without speaking to the TA, her professor, the department head, etc. is unprofessional at best, and at worst, harassment.

[reinko]

That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.

Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student.  Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it?  If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?

Why don't you create the same set circumstances to actually create a real comparable?

In your dream scenario, does your leftist women's studies professor have a verifiable pattern of behavior that the university has warned the said professor about?  In your dream scenario does said professor name not go through the proper university channels to see if this could be addressed?  In your dream scenario does your professor knowingly leave out facts in blog post?  I really could go on.  But hey, just create false comparable to make yourself feel better.

[Lennys Tap]

That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.

Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student.  Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it?  If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?

1. The professor wouldn't get fired
2. Outrage would be limited to conservatives.
3. Liberals would dismiss the entire "appropriate/not appropriate" issue.

Why? Because in academia, they have all the power. It's what happens with a super majority. You can rid yourself of a pain in the ass and claim politics had nothing to do with it (he was "inappropriate") or protect your own in the opposite scenario on the grounds of academic freedom, a higher principle than "appropriateness". Conservatives would no doubt do the same thing if they held all the power but to claim politics has nothing to do with this ignores the real world.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

1. The professor wouldn't get fired
2. Outrage would be limited to conservatives.
3. Liberals would dismiss the entire "appropriate/not appropriate" issue.

Why? Because in academia, they have all the power. It's what happens with a super majority. You can rid yourself of a pain in the ass and claim politics had nothing to do with it (he was "inappropriate") or protect your own in the opposite scenario on the grounds of academic freedom, a higher principle than "appropriateness". Conservatives would no doubt do the same thing if they held all the power but to claim politics has nothing to do with this ignores the real world.

If you're right, McAdams is going to get a nice check.

[mu03eng]

Why don't you create the same set circumstances to actually create a real comparable?

In your dream scenario, does your leftist women's studies professor have a verifiable pattern of behavior that the university has warned the said professor about?  In your dream scenario does said professor name not go through the proper university channels to see if this could be addressed?  In your dream scenario does your professor knowingly leave out facts in blog post?  I really could go on.  But hey, just create false comparable to make yourself feel better.

This very well may be true, but that's not MU's narrative in this issue.  I'm win Ammo on this, McAdams was unprofessional period.  Where I diverge is that MU has said this one event of unprofessionalism is grounds for dismissal and I very much disagree with that.  This very well may be about a pattern of unprofessionalism, but then SAY THAT!. 

Based on the facts/stories/PR statements from all involved, MU has completely overreacted in the best case, worst case they are being manipulative and shady.

I agree McAdams was unprofessional in this situation.  I agree that McAdams was likely unprofessional in other situations.  In total, perhaps that earns a dismissal....but it doesn't matter because Marquette isn't making that case.  They are simply saying, McAdams was unprofessional in his interactions(or lack thereof) with the TA and that is grounds for dismissal...full stop.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This very well may be true, but that's not MU's narrative in this issue.  I'm win Ammo on this, McAdams was unprofessional period.  Where I diverge is that MU has said this one event of unprofessionalism is grounds for dismissal and I very much disagree with that.  This very well may be about a pattern of unprofessionalism, but then SAY THAT!. 

Based on the facts/stories/PR statements from all involved, MU has completely overreacted in the best case, worst case they are being manipulative and shady.

I agree McAdams was unprofessional in this situation.  I agree that McAdams was likely unprofessional in other situations.  In total, perhaps that earns a dismissal....but it doesn't matter because Marquette isn't making that case.  They are simply saying, McAdams was unprofessional in his interactions(or lack thereof) with the TA and that is grounds for dismissal...full stop.

Ya, I'm just wondering if MU is holding back any ammunition they have and choosing not to air it publicly.

Might be better to take some heat for a few weeks from 1 group, instead of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and taking heat from:

1. Conservative talkers
2. Liberals who will ask why MU put up with these shenanigans for so long.
3. Other profs who don't think somebody's entire personnel record should be aired out.

Again, this assumes that there is a pattern. If there isn't, I'd say McAdams has a good case.

We'll never know for sure as everybody will firmly be entrenched in their camps, but if we ever find out how much money is exchanged, that will give us a good idea. Ben Franklins don't know politics.

[mu03eng]

Ya, I'm just wondering if MU is holding back any ammunition they have and choosing not to air it publicly.

Might be better to take some heat for a few weeks from 1 group, instead of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and taking heat from:

1. Conservative talkers
2. Liberals who will ask why MU put up with these shenanigans for so long.
3. Other profs who don't think somebody's entire personnel record should be aired out.

Again, this assumes that there is a pattern. If there isn't, I'd say McAdams has a good case.

We'll never know for sure as everybody will firmly be entrenched in their camps, but if we ever find out how much money is exchanged, that will give us a good idea. Ben Franklins don't know politics.

You could be right, and that's what MU is doing.  If so, I think it's dumb as they are opening themselves up far more than they need to.  This just compounds the mistake they made by escalating it in the first place.  This gets no attention if they don't ban/suspend McAdams from campus.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You could be right, and that's what MU is doing.  If so, I think it's dumb as they are opening themselves up far more than they need to.  This just compounds the mistake they made by escalating it in the first place.  This gets no attention if they don't ban/suspend McAdams from campus.

You'll get no argument from me.

MU ain't perfect, and this thing might get worse before it gets better.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Why don't you create the same set circumstances to actually create a real comparable?

In your dream scenario, does your leftist women's studies professor have a verifiable pattern of behavior that the university has warned the said professor about?  In your dream scenario does said professor name not go through the proper university channels to see if this could be addressed?  In your dream scenario does your professor knowingly leave out facts in blog post?  I really could go on.  But hey, just create false comparable to make yourself feel better.

Defensive much?  It is a thought experiment and I obviously didn't spend an hour laying out every last detail for a simple hypothetical.  If it makes things easier for you, fill in all of the facts that you think make the scenario fully comparable.  The women's studies professor has a history of outlandish blog posts, didn't investigate the student's story at all, didn't contact administrators, etc.

Do you honestly think it is likely that professor would be fired?

But hey, you could always just fight the hypothetical by brainstorming a bunch of deficiencies in my two sentence question in order to make yourself feel better.

[Lennys Tap]

If you're right, McAdams is going to get a nice check.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what's in his "file". There may well be enough there to justify his being canned. He's been tilting at windmills a long time and the powerful don't particularly  appreciate Don Quixote types. I'm sure they've been building a case for decades. If the institution, corporation, etc., sees you as the enemy of their orthodoxy they look for the justification to fire you. Perhaps McAdams gave them enough ammo. But please, please, let's not be naïve enough to think his having the "wrong" politics doesn't affect the way his actions are viewed.