Update on prof McAdams

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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 did. 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.

You're not wrong, I guess I'm just assuming the don quixote stuff is more the issue vs specific political views.

[rocket surgeon]

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.

thank you lenny-you were able to say it better than i.  just the reality of the situation, that's all.  we're not going to change that aspect of it by denying it-it is what it is and now that mccabe has made his bed...there's probably some merit on each side.  the winner or loser is to be determined

[Dr. Blackheart]

Lovell's first misstep, I'm really a badger fan?

[🏀]

Lovell's first misstep, I'm really a badger fan?

Not at all. Another strong statement from Lovell.

[GGGG]

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.

*If* this isn't the culmination of a pattern of behavior, then Marquette completely overreacted and Marquette did indeed screw this up royally. 

I do understand mu03eng's point though.  Unless their attorneys are hyper-sensitive, why not say "pattern of behavior?"

[GGGG]

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.

Look, almost every college campus has a faculty member or two that are Don Quixote types.  Most of the time they are ignored, like McAdams has largely been, because confronting them brings more attention to them, and because they aren't really all that powerful in the grand scheme of things.  I mean, McAdam's spouting off on Belling et. al. over the past 15 years hasn't been all that harmful to Marquette.

[mu-rara]

Look, almost every college campus has a faculty member or two that are Don Quixote types.  Most of the time they are ignored, like McAdams has largely been, because confronting them brings more attention to them, and because they aren't really all that powerful in the grand scheme of things.  I mean, McAdam's spouting off on Belling et. al. over the past 15 years hasn't been all that harmful to Marquette.

Dr. McGuire's spouting off has not hurt MU either, but MU has not disciplined him.*

*I had Dr. McGuire as a prof in 1981?  Disagreed with him, but as I became older, hopefully wiser,  appreciated that MU allowed his view of the world to be presented.

[GGGG]

Dr. McGuire's spouting off has not hurt MU either, but MU has not disciplined him.*

Exactly.  So why is MU coming down on McAdams but not McGuire?

Is it because McGuire's politics are "right" but McAdams' are "wrong?"  Or is it because McGuire apparently never had an issue will treating students and colleagues with respect?

My guess it is that it's the latter.

[mu-rara]

Exactly.  So why is MU coming down on McAdams but not McGuire?

Is it because McGuire's politics are "right" but McAdams' are "wrong?"  Or is it because McGuire apparently never had an issue will treating students and colleagues with respect?

My guess it is that it's the latter.

This is a canard put up by MU PR.  They needed to change the narrative, and this was the new story.

[mu03eng]

Exactly.  So why is MU coming down on McAdams but not McGuire?

Is it because McGuire's politics are "right" but McAdams' are "wrong?"  Or is it because McGuire apparently never had an issue will treating students and colleagues with respect?

My guess it is that it's the latter.

Right, but again is there a pattern of this respect issue with McAdams?  I've been aware of him over the years to generally be a curmudgeon but I'm not aware of a pattern of mistreating people.

And I know you are already on-board with this thought Sultan, but if there is a pattern why aren't they saying that?  Either they are telling the truth now and this is about one incident or they are at best obfuscating and this is a pattern.  I have an issue with both scenarios.

I don't understand how MU can screw up these "big" public issues every damn time....my disdain for this is definitely about a pattern  

[GGGG]

This is a canard put up by MU PR.  They needed to change the narrative, and this was the new story.

That makes no sense.  There is no reason to gin something up against McAdams.  He's harmless and he's old.  The negative press they are getting for dismissing him has been way worse than anything he did previously.

[GGGG]

Right, but again is there a pattern of this respect issue with McAdams?  I've been aware of him over the years to generally be a curmudgeon but I'm not aware of a pattern of mistreating people.

And I know you are already on-board with this thought Sultan, but if there is a pattern why aren't they saying that?  Either they are telling the truth now and this is about one incident or they are at best obfuscating and this is a pattern.  I have an issue with both scenarios.

I can't argue with any of this really. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The story has made it to The Atlantic online.  

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/

[Aughnanure]

Quite the discussion going on at The Atlantic - 1200+ comments.

Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Right, but again is there a pattern of this respect issue with McAdams?  I've been aware of him over the years to generally be a curmudgeon but I'm not aware of a pattern of mistreating people.

And I know you are already on-board with this thought Sultan, but if there is a pattern why aren't they saying that?  Either they are telling the truth now and this is about one incident or they are at best obfuscating and this is a pattern.  I have an issue with both scenarios.

I don't understand how MU can screw up these "big" public issues every damn time....my disdain for this is definitely about a pattern  

The Atlantic article mentions he did this twice before in the past on his blog and both times the university politely asked him to handle more professionally in the future.

[mu03eng]

The Atlantic article mentions he did this twice before in the past on his blog and both times the university politely asked him to handle more professionally in the future.

Where is the article was that, couldn't find it, but admittedly I was skimming before my next meeting.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Where is the article was that, couldn't find it, but admittedly I was skimming before my next meeting.

Slight misquote on my part.  It was in one of the comments on the story from a Kurt Akemann who pulls the info straight from Dean Holtz's letter that includes two prior incidents.  Back in 2011, McAdams himself said it was something he should not do.
 

Kurt Akemann > DigitalDust  • 13 hours ago   

On page 14 of Dean Holtz's letter, he list two prior incidents where McAdams had posted the name of a female student in one of his blog articles as the result of a political disagreement and the student had then been harassed online. The second time (in 2011) he acknowledged in writing why posting names like that was not something he should do.

And then after having been warned twice and having acknowledged he had done something wrong, he proceeded to do that wrong thing again. That takes matters outside of errors in judgement and into the rhelm of malice.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Slight misquote on my part.  It was in one of the comments on the story from a Kurt Akemann who pulls the info straight from Dean Holtz's letter that includes two prior incidents.  Back in 2011, McAdams himself said it was something he should not do.
 

Kurt Akemann > DigitalDust  • 13 hours ago   

On page 14 of Dean Holtz's letter, he list two prior incidents where McAdams had posted the name of a female student in one of his blog articles as the result of a political disagreement and the student had then been harassed online. The second time (in 2011) he acknowledged in writing why posting names like that was not something he should do.

And then after having been warned twice and having acknowledged he had done something wrong, he proceeded to do that wrong thing again. That takes matters outside of errors in judgement and into the rhelm of malice.

Well, maybe that's what MU is going to lean on. If McAdams knew printing the TA's name was going to cause a virtual dust up, then you could say it was malicious.

He didn't HAVE to print her name in order to make the blog post, but he did.

[exercisevanity]

Quite the discussion going on at The Atlantic - 1200+ comments.

Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/

Woah...now that I have read through the whole thread, Cheryl Abbate comes off pretty hardcore. Don't get me wrong -- the student who taped the conversation was tremendously rude -- but there is a serious lack of professionalism from the TA here.

I guess what is shocking to me is that Nancy Snow completed dismissed this conversation. Seeing the whole conversation is really eye-opening here. Of course, I wouldn't have taped the conversation, because that's just weird and antisocial.

Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?

Student: No, I don't.

Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?

Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...

The TA actually believes -- and feels justified in believing as an authority figure over the class -- that having the opinion that gay marriage should not be legal is homophobic and not permittable conversation in an ethics course. Again, that is shocking, considering the beliefs that the leader of the free world held only three or four years ago.

[haymaker]

Lovell's first misstep, I'm really a badger fan?

Considering YTD performance under Coach, I'll let you know in a couples years

[GGGG]

OK...I just fully read the letter Marquette sent to McAdams for the first time.  Holy cow did McAdams f*ck this up.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/edit?pli=1

While I did realize that he published his blog post without allowing Abatte to respond to his inquiries, I didn't realize that he published it after the student met with the Department and the College, AND after Abatte had a follow up discussion with the class specifically addressing the issue brought up by the undergraduate student.  In short, this is hardly an issue of academic freedom, because this blog post falls well short of anything that I would call "academic."

I also didn't realize that McAdams was warned twice prior about putting a student's name in his blog after the negative actions that such actions caused.  

Marquette has this in the bag.  McAdams might get a small settlement out of this but that's about it.

[GGGG]

Well, maybe that's what MU is going to lean on. If McAdams knew printing the TA's name was going to cause a virtual dust up, then you could say it was malicious.

He didn't HAVE to print her name in order to make the blog post, but he did.

That's exactly what they are going to do.  According to the letter that was sent to him, after a previous incident he "acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern."

I don't know how he "acknowledged" that at the time, but if it is in writing?  He's in trouble.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

In short, this is hardly an issue of academic freedom, because this blog post falls well short of anything that I would call "academic."

Your limited definition of academic freedom is mind boggling to me.

[GGGG]

Your limited definition of academic freedom is mind boggling to me.

Well, I think when you include things like blog posts that are long on anecdote and short on facts (that aren't fact checked anyway), it discredits why academic freedom and tenure should exist in the first place.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Your limited definition of academic freedom is mind boggling to me.

Publishing her name likely isn't protected by "academic freedom".

Now, the blog in general, I wouldn't protect that either, as I feel it's not well researched, or particularly well written... but I guess we could debate that.

However, the name, well, he could have done the blog without it, and obviously I'm using hindsight, but I wonder why he even included it. He didn't really need it.