Update on prof McAdams

[Eldon]

What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings.  For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue.  I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels.  I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time.  And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election.  Crazy world.

I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican so I suppose that i have more in common with McAdams than I would with, say, Bernie Sanders, but for me this is 100% about upholding the standards of academic tenure.

I make the analogy to the criminal judicial process.  Suppose that the police illegally obtained some incriminating evidence.  Suppose that the evidence is both damning and conclusive.  The trial has been tainted.  The guy will not have a fair trial.  He needs to be set free, even if we all know he is guilty.  Back to McAdams.  He violated social norms.  He's a d-bag and a bad colleague.  Fine.  But such is the cost of tenure.  You either bear that cost or you don't. 

[Pakuni]

I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican so I suppose that i have more in common with McAdams than I would with, say, Bernie Sanders, but for me this is 100% about upholding the standards of academic tenure.

I make the analogy to the criminal judicial process.  Suppose that the police illegally obtained some incriminating evidence.  Suppose that the evidence is both damning and conclusive.  The trial has been tainted.  The guy will not have a fair trial.  He needs to be set free, even if we all know he is guilty.  Back to McAdams.  He violated social norms.  He's a d-bag and a bad colleague.  Fine.  But such is the cost of tenure.  You either bear that cost or you don't.

I presume you're not arguing that a person with tenure should be able to do or say anything, even when unrelated to his academic position, and not face a consequence.
So, I'm curious, where do you draw that line?
I think for most of us, the debate has been whether McAdams crossed the line between legitimate academic expression and harassment. It seems as if you're almost arguing that tenure means there is no line.

[GGGG]

I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican so I suppose that i have more in common with McAdams than I would with, say, Bernie Sanders, but for me this is 100% about upholding the standards of academic tenure.

I make the analogy to the criminal judicial process.  Suppose that the police illegally obtained some incriminating evidence.  Suppose that the evidence is both damning and conclusive.  The trial has been tainted.  The guy will not have a fair trial.  He needs to be set free, even if we all know he is guilty.  Back to McAdams.  He violated social norms.  He's a d-bag and a bad colleague.  Fine.  But such is the cost of tenure.  You either bear that cost or you don't. 

You don't understand tenure.  Tenure just means you can't get fired for anything related to your academic position or for academic freedom reasons.  Which is why MU couldn't drop MacGuire. 

[Eldon]

Tenured professors can be fired. 

http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm

"Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year."

I'm well aware that tenured faculty can be fired.  Tenure essentially protects those who have it from the typical 'fire-at-will' employment policy.  Typically the firing happens for very egregious behavior or outright criminal behavior.  There are exceptions, of course.  And those exceptions are lamentable.  I believe McAdams's case to be one of those exceptions. 

[Eldon]

I presume you're not arguing that a person with tenure should be able to do or say anything, even when unrelated to his academic position, and not face a consequence.
So, I'm curious, where do you draw that line?
I think for most of us, the debate has been whether McAdams crossed the line between legitimate academic expression and harassment. It seems as if you're almost arguing that tenure means there is no line.

I'm going to bite the bullet here and say "yes, that is what I am arguing."  But this bullet isn't as big as it sounds.  And for the sake of candor, I admit that there is some line blurring, even for someone as staunchly in favor of academic freedom as I am. 

I'll give you an example.  Just this past spring semester, there was a very controversial professor who was hired by Boston University.  She accepted a tenure-track position there.  However, before her official start date, she was on Twitter, tweeting about how "white men are the problem in today's society" and other borderline racist comments.  Her Twitter feed was rife with comments deploring her tweets.  Some claimed "how can this woman be a fair grader towards white male students?!?!"  Accordingly, many called for BU to rescind the offer.  (BU did not, and donations took a hit).

While I sypmathize with those students' concerns at a personal level, and even at a professional level, I nevertheless feel that she should have been given the benefit of the doubt.  I sided with her, despite finding her comments outlandish.  In the name of academic freedom.

Here's another example of a prof saying some borderline racist stuff.  A Duke poli sci professor was commenting in the comments section of the NYT.  He was saying some stuff that was racially insensitive: 'the blacks have weird names and don't want to assimilate...unlike the Asians, who easily conform'. 

These racially insensitive comments have NOTHING to do with his research expertise (which is I believe about Eastern European politics).  Duke's response?  Duke sent out an official presser denouncing the comments.  I think it may have even suspended him.  But they did not fire him.  I think keeping him employed was a good choice.

Everything academics say/write can be considered academic freedom, as crazy as that may sound.  A priest does not cease being a priest when he leaves the parish.  A cop who is off-duty is still a cop.  Mayor Barrett is still the mayor when he is not at City Hall. 


EDIT: You said without consequence and so I want to clarify.  Without consequence from the employer (university) yes.  Without consequence from the government no.  In other words, if McAdams was guilty of criminal harassment, e.g., stalking, then I would not hold it against MU for making sure that there is a consequence.

[Pakuni]

Everything academics say/write can be considered academic freedom, as crazy as that may sound.  A priest does not cease being a priest when he leaves the parish.  A cop who is off-duty is still a cop.  Mayor Barrett is still the mayor when he is not at City Hall. 

I disagree with some of what you wrote, in that I don't think anything an academic spouts is by definition academic freedom. For example, if an electrical engineering prof were to make some racially offensive and inaccurate comments about the genetic makeup of Asians ... that's not academic freedom because it's well outside the prof's academic realm.

All that said, McAdams' case - at least from the argument MU has presented - is not about the content of his remarks, but his decision to "out" the student who was target of his remarks, after having been warned repeatedly in the past about naming students in that context. Just my opinion, but he could have made his point just as effectively without naming the student and exposing her to threats and ridicule.

[Eldon]

You don't understand tenure.  Tenure just means you can't get fired for anything related to your academic position or for academic freedom reasons.  Which is why MU couldn't drop MacGuire.

You understand tenure better than the average Joe and I understand it better than you.  That's why you think that I don't understand it.

Tenure is two things.  First, it is a contractual agreement (sometimes tacit), enforceable by the courts of employment tort law.

Second, it is a norm within the academic community, "enforced" by academics, potential academics, and anyone else who cares about upholding the institution of academic freedom at all costs.

[Eldon]

I disagree with some of what you wrote, in that I don't think anything an academic spouts is by definition academic freedom. For example, if an electrical engineering prof were to make some racially offensive and inaccurate comments about the genetic makeup of Asians ... that's not academic freedom because it's well outside the prof's academic realm.

All that said, McAdams' case - at least from the argument MU has presented - is not about the content of his remarks, but his decision to "out" the student who was target of his remarks, after having been warned repeatedly in the past about naming students in that context. Just my opinion, but he could have made his point just as effectively without naming the student and exposing her to threats and ridicule.

To the extent that I can be both respectful and in staunch disagreement, I do not agree.  There are scholars who work in completely separate fields from their doctoral training and field of academic employment. 

Noam Chomsky immediately comes to mind.  He is a a world-renowned scholar in linguistics.  A niche field, to be sure.  But another fact about Chomsky is that he is the most cited person currently living.  How can both of these facts be true?  Chomsky is most commonly known for his political commentary.  (I would actually call them rants.)  He goes on and on and on and on about how power corrupts, about how the US government did XYZ in Chile, Nicaragua, etc.  He blasts the mainstream media, etc.  Listen to his rants on YouTube.

Then, after you listen to his YouTube rants, go to Wikipedia and read about his contribution to linguistics and the philosophy of language.  They are COMPLETELY unrelated.  His linguistic genius is about how syntactic structures are created and understood by the human mind.

Academic freedom is much broader than 'biology profs can only work/speak about biology and maybe, just maybe closely related fields, but that's it'.

[keefe]

I presume you're not arguing that a person with tenure should be able to do or say anything, even when unrelated to his academic position, and not face a consequence.
So, I'm curious, where do you draw that line?
I think for most of us, the debate has been whether McAdams crossed the line between legitimate academic expression and harassment. It seems as if you're almost arguing that tenure means there is no line.

Should kids at Yale dressed up in KKK sheets for Halloween get kicked out of school? Should the Masters of Silliman College at Yale lose their jobs for defending the rights of kids to dress up in KKK sheets?

Free Speech is an absolute. One might not agree with a KKK costume or the American Nazi Party marching through Skokie but those who choose these expressions have every right to do so.

Marquette chose to play on a very slippery slope.

[jsglow]

You're right, Glow. There definitely are cases where people are victimized because of political leanings here in this country. I just don't think this is one of them.

I believe there should be professors of all stripes on campus. Despite our different political beliefs, I'm guessing you feel the same way.

I very much do.  And I'm no RINO if you put me to the purity test.

[Pakuni]

Academic freedom is much broader than 'biology profs can only work/speak about biology and maybe, just maybe closely related fields, but that's it'.

1. I know who Chomsky is.
2. The statement quoted above is not close to what I've said. Anyone is free to say anything, regardless of their particular field. But having the right to say something and claiming that academic freedom protects you from any consequence of it aren't the same thing.

Even the president of the American Association of University Professors - which, literally, has written the book on what academic freedom means - doesn't go as far as you.

Some excerpts:

1. Academic freedom does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.
6. Academic freedom does not give students or faculty the right to ignore college or university regulations, though it does give faculty and students the right to criticize regulations they believe are unfair.
7. Academic freedom does not protect students or faculty from disciplinary action, but it does require that they receive fair treatment and due process.
8. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from sanctions for professional misconduct, though sanctions require clear proof established through due process.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/nelson_on_academic_freedom

[Pakuni]

Should kids at Yale dressed up in KKK sheets for Halloween get kicked out of school? Should the Masters of Silliman College at Yale lose their jobs for defending the rights of kids to dress up in KKK sheets?

Free Speech is an absolute. One might not agree with a KKK costume or the American Nazi Party marching through Skokie but those who choose these expressions have every right to do so.

Marquette chose to play on a very slippery slope.

Well, free speech is not an absolute. You already know that.
And the Constitutional right to free speech has nothing to do with (and has no authority over) an employee-employer relationship. It's about the relationship between the governor and the governed. Which you also know already.

To answer your questions:
1. No.
2. No.

[jsglow]

Wow.  I find this surreal.  So my Senior son has actually done work on behalf of the university that probably most of you have seen.  Does 'academic freedom' give a guy like McAdams the right to disparage it publicly (not sure why he would but for the sake of argument)?  So there's no limit or line?  Sorry, not in my book.

[Coleman]

What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings.  For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue.  I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels.  I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time.  And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election.  Crazy world.

Well said.

This is not about McAdams' political views.

It is about professional conduct. Period.

[Coleman]

Should kids at Yale dressed up in KKK sheets for Halloween get kicked out of school? Should the Masters of Silliman College at Yale lose their jobs for defending the rights of kids to dress up in KKK sheets?

Free Speech is an absolute. One might not agree with a KKK costume or the American Nazi Party marching through Skokie but those who choose these expressions have every right to do so.

Marquette chose to play on a very slippery slope.

Difference here is that it is a professor harassing a student on a blog.

[rocket surgeon]

Well said.

This is not about McAdams' political views.

It is about professional conduct. Period.

period??  do you think MU will admit otherwise? publicly, they need a legal leg to stand on. it's all very logical and easy for them to take the workplace stance, but something still doesn't smell right, especially in the academic setting and the precedent that has been set.  what precedent you ask?  the one that liberals have set for most universities and now they have to try to blow past it-the fact that liberals own the field of academia.  if it were a more even playing field, it wouldn't be this difficult or in other words, people wouldn't be as skeptical. 

[GGGG]

You understand tenure better than the average Joe and I understand it better than you.  That's why you think that I don't understand it.

Tenure is two things.  First, it is a contractual agreement (sometimes tacit), enforceable by the courts of employment tort law.

Second, it is a norm within the academic community, "enforced" by academics, potential academics, and anyone else who cares about upholding the institution of academic freedom at all costs.

I have worked in higher education for 25 years.  I know full well when tenure is, and what is the norm within the academic community.  And your statement that "everything that academics say/write can be considered academic freedom" is not accurate.

Marquette outlines in their faculty bylaws by what could cause tenure to be revoked, and the process for that revocation.

http://www.marquette.edu/provost/306.php

"Discretionary cause shall include those circumstances, exclusive of absolute cause, which arise from a faculty member's conduct and which clearly and substantially fail to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence which generally characterizes University faculties, but only if through this conduct a faculty member's value will probably be substantially impaired. Examples of conduct that substantially impair the value or utility of a faculty member are: serious instances of illegal, immoral, dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct. In no case, however, shall discretionary 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."


I don't have time to read the letter that he posted, but I am assuming that they are calling his contact dishonorable and/or irresponsible. 

[GGGG]

period??  do you think MU will admit otherwise? publicly, they need a legal leg to stand on. it's all very logical and easy for them to take the workplace stance, but something still doesn't smell right, especially in the academic setting and the precedent that has been set.  what precedent you ask?  the one that liberals have set for most universities and now they have to try to blow past it-the fact that liberals own the field of academia.  if it were a more even playing field, it wouldn't be this difficult or in other words, people wouldn't be as skeptical. 

Find a case where Marquette treated a liberal professor who did the same things and was treated differently and you'd have a case.

Because I know plenty of conservative Marquette professors who function just fine at the University.

[rocket surgeon]

Find a case where Marquette treated a liberal professor who did the same things and was treated differently and you'd have a case.

Because I know plenty of conservative Marquette professors who function just fine at the University.

you misunderstood my point-it is well known that liberals dominate the field of academia-right? i'm just saying that because of the liberal atmosphere created in general, not just MU, but all over, MU has to overcome that stigma in order to convince the public that the mccadams case isn't really about freedom of speech.  many will think that MU is not really going after prof. john for his political views-wink wink.  get it?  just saying, not trying to argue what it is, but what MU has to overcome

[keefe]

Difference here is that it is a professor harassing a student on a blog.

Or a professor calling out the classroom conduct of an instructor.

A Prof brow beating or berating a student is a clear abuse of authority. And I would scream loudest for McAdams to be disciplined. But from what I read, this instructor was guilty of abusing her position of authority vis-a-vis her student.

Did McAdams exercise poor judgment in terms of how he called her behavior into question? I believe the answer is yes. Should he be dismissed for that action? I think not.

[Pakuni]

Did McAdams exercise poor judgment in terms of how he called her behavior into question? I believe the answer is yes. Should he be dismissed for that action? I think not.

What if he were a repeat offender in this regard (as the university maintains and has documented)?

[warriorchick]

What if he were a repeat offender in this regard (as the university maintains and has documented)?

Let's also not forget that it is clearly stated in written policy that graduate student instructors are considered to be students first and instructors second. So any argument that she was "really an instructor" is irrelevant in regards to how she should be regarded in terms of the code of conduct.

[Eldon]

1. I know who Chomsky is.

OK.  Pardon my presumption.

Even the president of the American Association of University Professors - which, literally, has written the book on what academic freedom means - doesn't go as far as you.

Well they certainly do in McAdams's case:

As you [President Lovell] are doubtless aware, our Association’s [AAUP] interest in the case of Professor McAdams stems from its commitment to fundamental tenets of academic freedom, tenure, and due process articulated in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure...Given the facts reported to us [the AAUP], it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams’s continuing to teach as constituting a “threat of immediate harm” to himself or others. Nor are we aware of the administration’s having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions...Assuming the essential accuracy of the foregoing account, we would urge you to reach an arrangement with Professor McAdams which will return him to his teaching responsibilities (emphasis added)

http://academeblog.org/2015/01/26/aaup-letter-to-marquette-on-john-mcadams/

7. Academic freedom does not protect students or faculty from disciplinary action, but it does require that they receive fair treatment and due process.
8. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from sanctions for professional misconduct, though sanctions require clear proof established through due process.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/nelson_on_academic_freedom

Both the AAUP and a fellow MU professor claim that McAdams was not given due process

1) Nor are we aware of the administration’s having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions (see AAUP's letter above)

2) “My key objection is that action was taken against a professor without due process,” Maguire said. “I decided to write the letter [to President Lovell] because I’m a believer in due process. I’m a long term member of (the American Association of University Professors), which is really the premier of academic freedom and integrity. Their strongest process is due process.”
In the letter, Maguire describes McAdams’ banning from Marquette’s campus as “bizarre, demeaning and unjust.”

“In almost half a century in the academe, I have never seen a similar punishment imposed on a professor in this ‘blunt instrument’ fashion,” Maguire said in his letter.
Maguire goes on to explain how the handling of the widely publicized event affects Marquette’s reputation, in addition to questioning the continuity of due process.

“I believe you [President Lovell] owe us more explanation that you have given on your decision on this matter.  Since reports on this situation have gotten national attention and stirred up remembrance of the Dr. Jodi O’Brien contract violation, Marquette’s reputation is affected.  We are all affected,” Maguire said in the letter. “The incident has a chilling effect on all members and staff since it implies that due-process protections may be brittle and uncertain at this university and specifically under your presidency.”

http://marquettewire.org/3907918/tribune/tribune-news/theology-professor-defends-john-mcadams-on-grounds-of-due-process/

[Blue Horseshoe]

I find your opinion interesting.

Do you feel it is OK for a professor to publicly try to humiliate a student? On a public blog for anyone in the country to read? to open this student up to all kind of vile threats?

I don't care - and I don't think MU cared whether he was conservative. Certainly he had been writing his blog from a far right perspective for a long time and MU never tried to fire him.

Just wondering why you feel MU should pay. And, I don't mean for this post to criticize your opinion.

1. The student was acting as a professor and in charge of teaching class.
2. Just as it is ok to write something positive about a student/prof, it is also acceptable to write something negative or critical.

I think MU over reacted and over stepped its authority in how it has handled the situation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow.  I find this surreal.  So my Senior son has actually done work on behalf of the university that probably most of you have seen.  Does 'academic freedom' give a guy like McAdams the right to disparage it publicly (not sure why he would but for the sake of argument)?  So there's no limit or line?  Sorry, not in my book.

There is a line, but I'm not sure we're all in agreement that line was crossed.  Furthermore, you can't ignore the history of what the university was trying to do with him and his views.  They are part of the issue here, at least in my opinion.  Ultimately that will be for a judge to decide, but I suspect a good lawyer is going to provide linkage.