Update on prof McAdams

[tower912]

Sultan, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that you are some sort of college administrator, and as such have experience with things of this ilk. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

She is NOT a faculty member.  Just because she ACTS like a faculty member in that she teaches a class, doesn't MAKE her one.

I believe that's why I used ?'s to ask a question.


I would like to know if there are any materials printed online or published that list her as a faculty member in some fashion?  I suspect his attorneys are all over that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wait so you wanted me to be tolerant of you insulting me? Hmm interesting way of thinking there Chicos

If you think that was insulting, you truly need a thicker skin......you delicate flower

[NavinRJohnson]

Well let me just say that I am not going to necessarily take McAdams at his word here.  He has motivation to stretch the truth.

Are you taking Lovell at his word? Doesn't he have the same motivation?

For the record, I am not taking either at face value. Again, to a cold hearted cynic like me, this is very simple...were the initial subject matter something other than gay marriage, let's say taxes, or social security, minimum wage...whatever, and everything went down the exact same way, this would never have bubbled up as it has. It's funny, because outside of the fringies on either side, I think the overwhelming majority of people don't give a rip about gay marriage.

[reinko]

So a bunch of higher ed nerds on insidehighered.com and @ the Chronicle are debating this, and us here @ the Scoop.  When is the sky supposed to be falling over this?  When can I expect the seas to turn to blood, and raining toads?  Just want to put it in my Outlook calendar so I can be prepared.

[Coleman]

Professors should be graded out on their effectiveness in the classroom yearly based on scores similar to all "lower level" teachers.  'Are they effective?' is never asked after tenure.  No accountability leads to sloppiness and turning the soul of their job to assistants.

I agree with this.

A blog post is not the place for it though.

[Galway Eagle]

If you think that was insulting, you truly need a thicker skin......you delicate flower

Oh it didn't offend me just like me telling my honest opinion of you, explaining why it didn't offend me, shouldn't offend you. Doesn't have anything to do with tolerance you just wanted to drag that in be honest.  

[jficke13]

Oh it didn't offend me just like me telling my honest opinion of you, explaining why it didn't offend me, shouldn't offend you. Doesn't have anything to do with tolerance you just wanted to drag that in be honest.  

Yay Chicos vs Boxer fight!

[Coleman]

I agree with you: MU would have been well within its rights to publicly reprimand McAdams.  

So then you agree that he did something wrong?

Which means this isn't about academic freedom.

You just disagree with the punishment?

Its Ok to disagree with the punishment...Sultan has even said he doesn't agree with it, I'm not sure I agree with it completely, although in the end I respect Lovell's courage.

But then you are at least agreeing with us that McAdams was in the wrong here, and deserved some sort of reprimand. Maybe the punishment was too harsh, that's fine if you think that. But then stop making it about academic freedom. It is not about that. If it truly was a violation of McAdams' academic freedom, why would you think he is deserving of a reprimand?

[GGGG]

Sultan, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that you are some sort of college administrator, and as such have experience with things of this ilk.  

Yes.  And that is why I can't really take McAdams at his complete word here.  One side can discuss whatever they want in their personnel file.  They can make things up.  They can stretch the truth.  I'm not saying he DID, just saying he CAN.

Marquette can't.  They can't say if McAdams is lying.  But it is my experience that Marquette would not go through this unless they felt that they had a solid case.  Schools don't fire professors because of their political leanings.  They don't fire professors simply because they are a pain in the ass.  I mean, they never fired Maguire - and I don't think it's because Raynor and the BOT were a bunch of pansy-ass liberals.  I mean, McAdams is vocal, but he is 70 years old and doesn't have a huge following. Even at the height of the Warrior nickname debate, he wasn't severely impacting the operations of the University in any way.

BUT perhaps Marquette doesn't have that solid of a case.  If that happens, McAdams should sue and should win.    My experience however is that Universities take great care to lay out personnel cases, especially in the case of tenured professors.

[GGGG]

So a bunch of higher ed nerds on insidehighered.com and @ the Chronicle are debating this, and us here @ the Scoop.  When is the sky supposed to be falling over this?  When can I expect the seas to turn to blood, and raining toads?  Just want to put it in my Outlook calendar so I can be prepared.

Exactly.  That is why I have been saying that from a PR perspective, this is nothing right now and will likely be nothing in the future.

[jsglow]

Marquette can't.  They can't say if McAdams is lying.  But it is my experience that Marquette would not go through this unless they felt that they had a solid case.  Schools don't fire professors because of their political leanings.  They don't fire professors simply because they are a pain in the ass.  I mean, they never fired Maguire - and I don't think it's because Raynor and the BOT were a bunch of pansy-ass liberals.  I mean, McAdams is vocal, but he is 70 years old and doesn't have a huge following. Even at the height of the Warrior nickname debate, he wasn't severely impacting the operations of the University in any way.

BUT perhaps Marquette doesn't have that solid of a case.  If that happens, McAdams should sue and should win.    My experience however is that Universities take great care to lay out personnel cases, especially in the case of tenured professors.

Yep.  Book it Dano.

[rocket surgeon]

So a bunch of higher ed nerds on insidehighered.com and @ the Chronicle are debating this, and us here @ the Scoop.  When is the sky supposed to be falling over this?  When can I expect the seas to turn to blood, and raining toads?  Just want to put it in my Outlook calendar so I can be prepared.

Things like this don't necessarily have an immediate impact-ever hear of boiling the frog?  It takes a long time to stop a rolling train.  By the time one thinks the world is all good, the frog is cooked.  Then what?  But but but, our intentions weren't to....quick-cpr, turn down the heat, somebody do something, these are things that wise people think about before they act

Mccadams is merely providing a minority voice to campus's all over who are sick and tired of getting the beat down from the liberal majority.  We're his methods questionable?  Probably. Should he be fired over this?  I don't believe so.  Is Marquette doing this for"political" reasons?  Absolutely!  They are trying to hide that behind a veil of a bunch of legalese horse-hockey handbooks, rules, ethics, morals, blah blah blah-lets cut the crap and say it for what it is-they've wanted to get rid of this guy for some time-they believe they've found their crack in the door.  As someone said earlier, what if this were over taxes or the Vietnam war, or....this is about gay marriage. One would think Marquette being the jesuit(I think) university it ascribes to be, would welcome an exchange of opinion in a controlled environment.  Oh no? It's about a student? Yeah, nice-here's our chance-go get him.  I think mu is getting some bad bad advice from attorneys who think like them.  Well the same of course can be said about Johnny except he has the constitution behind him

[Ellenson Guerrero]

So then you agree that he did something wrong?

Which means this isn't about academic freedom.

You just disagree with the punishment?

Its Ok to disagree with the punishment...Sultan has even said he doesn't agree with it, I'm not sure I agree with it completely, although in the end I respect Lovell's courage.

But then you are at least agreeing with us that McAdams was in the wrong here, and deserved some sort of reprimand. Maybe the punishment was too harsh, that's fine if you think that. But then stop making it about academic freedom. It is not about that. If it truly was a violation of McAdams' academic freedom, why would you think he is deserving of a reprimand?

I fail to see how supporting MU's right to disapprove of a professor's comments means the issue is not about academic freedom.

My view:
1) McAdams should be allowed to make his criticisms about campus matters in public.

2) Marquette should be allowed to publicly state that it disagrees with McAdams criticisms and the way he handled the issue. McAdams academic freedom doesn't insulate him from counter-speech, but it should insulate his from adverse employment action by the institution. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It's not about academic freedom.

If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.

If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.

What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.

He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.

He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.

I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).

[mu-rara]

Well call me naive if you'd like, it's no secret I think you're a pompous a$$.

The classic response of those who have nothing to offer.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

It's not about academic freedom.

If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.

If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.

What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.

He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.

He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.

I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).

Someone explain to me how commenting about a student's experience with academic discourse within a college classroom is not scholarly discourse protected under academic freedom?  Also please explain from where this "duty" to fact check comes?  Also explain why the student's shady behavior in secretly taping the conversation impacts McAdams decision to run with the story? Please also explain why McAdams supposed motive to get blog hits is relevant to the exercise of his rights?

Listen, you can disagree with what McAdams did, think he is a sh*tty guy, call him all the names you want on your blog.  Just don't try to pretend academic freedom isn't at issue.

[Coleman]

It's not about academic freedom.

If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.

If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.

What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.

He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.

He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.

I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).

This. Exactly this.

[Coleman]

Someone explain to me how commenting about a student's experience with academic discourse within a college classroom is not scholarly discourse protected under academic freedom?  Also please explain from where this "duty" to fact check comes?  Also explain why the student's shady behavior in secretly taping the conversation impacts McAdams decision to run with the story? Please also explain why McAdams supposed motive to get blog hits is relevant to the exercise of his rights?

Listen, you can disagree with what McAdams did, think he is a sh*tty guy, call him all the names you want on your blog.  Just don't try to pretend academic freedom isn't at issue.

If you don't know the difference between a blog post and scholarly discourse, which is indeed fact-checked, peer reviewed, edited, and subjected to other scrutiny before being disseminated throughout the academic community, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

This wasn't scholarly discourse. It was a bully pulpit, conducted by someone in a position of authority with tenure on someone without equal privileges in the academic system.

This has nothing to do with academic freedom.

[Blackhat]

Tenure isn't about classroom evaluation, nor should it be.

That's the effect of tenure whether or not that was it's reason for creation.  It'd be nice to know they're doing their actual job of teaching competently and have repercussions available.

[jficke13]

If you don't know the difference between a blog post and scholarly discourse, which is indeed fact-checked, peer reviewed, edited, and subjected to other scrutiny before being disseminated throughout the academic community, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

This wasn't scholarly discourse. It was a bully pulpit, conducted by someone in a position of authority with tenure on someone without equal privileges in the academic system.

This has nothing to do with academic freedom.

So only certain kinds of speech qualify as "scholarly" and thus are protected?

Edited to add: I guess only newspaper writers are "journalists" too. Blogs are sorta a thing now, ya know?

[Lennys Tap]

Oh it didn't offend me just like me telling my honest opinion of you, explaining why it didn't offend me, shouldn't offend you. Doesn't have anything to do with tolerance you just wanted to drag that in be honest.  

Bags - don't agree with your position, I think politics are surely involved here. That aside, I'll pay $500 to the charity of your choice for ringside seats if you can convince Clint Eastwood (er, Chico) to go three rounds with you. Don't be intimidated by his celebrity entourage (he almost never mentions it, but he runs with famous people, doncha' know) - your support from us little people at Scoop will drown them out.

[Coleman]

So only certain kinds of speech qualify as "scholarly" and thus are protected?

Edited to add: I guess only newspaper writers are "journalists" too. Blogs are sorta a thing now, ya know?

Tenure does not imply you can say whatever the hell you want in whatever way you want to other people at Marquette and face no repercussions.

This is NOT about McAdams' views. Its about the manner in which he treated someone lower on the totem pole than him.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Someone explain to me how commenting about a student's experience with academic discourse within a college classroom is not scholarly discourse protected under academic freedom?  Also please explain from where this "duty" to fact check comes?  Also explain why the student's shady behavior in secretly taping the conversation impacts McAdams decision to run with the story? Please also explain why McAdams supposed motive to get blog hits is relevant to the exercise of his rights?

Listen, you can disagree with what McAdams did, think he is a sh*tty guy, call him all the names you want on your blog.  Just don't try to pretend academic freedom isn't at issue.

As I've stated before, what if the student was straight up lying and McAdams posted his blog? Would that change anything for you?

So yes, I think McAdams has a responsibility to fact check his published critique. Otherwise, he's basically just posting and commenting on rumors he's heard around campus.

Cannot act like that, and then call it "academic discourse".

[Ellenson Guerrero]

If you don't know the difference between a blog post and scholarly discourse, which is indeed fact-checked, peer reviewed, edited, and subjected to other scrutiny before being disseminated throughout the academic community, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

This wasn't scholarly discourse. It was a bully pulpit, conducted by someone in a position of authority with tenure on someone without equal privileges in the academic system.

This has nothing to do with academic freedom.

So lectures are not covered by academic freedom because they are not fact-checked, peer reviewed, and edited before being disseminated? You are just making stuff up to fit your preferred notions of justice in this case.

Again, please explain what words McAdams used that constituted bullying.  Just calling something bullying or harassment doesn't make it so.