Author Topic: WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case (Read 75659 times)

Blue Horseshoe · « **Reply #150 on:** January 31, 2018, 11:45:45 PM »

Quote from: rocky_warrior on January 31, 2018, 06:13:46 PM

Actually...to this point, the law has said McAdams is responsible for the wasted resources...

Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.

If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.

Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?

muwarrior69 · « **Reply #151 on:** February 01, 2018, 05:41:17 AM »

Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on January 31, 2018, 11:45:45 PM

Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.

If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.

Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?

Wow! Heads I win Tails you lose.

muwarrior69 · « **Reply #152 on:** February 01, 2018, 05:45:44 AM »

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 31, 2018, 10:03:52 PM

I have a remedial question here (trying hard to avoid the game thread):

What does McAdam's blog have to do with "academic" freedom? In order to be relevant to academic freedom, shouldn't it have something to do with one's teaching or research? If a professor strips to his skivvies, stands in front of Raynor, and screams all of the names of students that don't subscribe to his politics, is "academic freedom" a fair defense to university discipline?

This trial will be the only news Marquette will get this spring that rises to the national level.

Lighthouse 84 · « **Reply #153 on:** February 01, 2018, 07:43:03 AM »

Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on January 31, 2018, 11:45:45 PM

Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.

If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.

Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?

Looks like it's:

Blue Horseshoe · « **Reply #154 on:** February 01, 2018, 07:47:41 AM »

Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on January 31, 2018, 11:45:45 PM

Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.

If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.

Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?

Yeah, over the top. The point being, we should be intilectually honest when breaking this down. I said before that people weave their own lives into this story. Lots of hypotheticals until the case is heard and final decision rendered.

Pakuni · « **Reply #155 on:** February 01, 2018, 09:30:31 AM »

Quote from: MUBurrow on January 31, 2018, 10:03:52 PM

I have a remedial question here (trying hard to avoid the game thread):

What does McAdam's blog have to do with "academic" freedom? In order to be relevant to academic freedom, shouldn't it have something to do with one's teaching or research? If a professor strips to his skivvies, stands in front of Raynor, and screams all of the names of students that don't subscribe to his politics, is "academic freedom" a fair defense to university discipline?

Academic freedom essentially says a faculty member is free to speak out as a citizen on any issue without fear of retribution, so it goes beyond just the classroom or a professor's limited area of academic expertise/research. What McAdams writes in his blog fits into that.
Except ... academic freedom has its limits, and they're spelled out (albeit vaguely) by the American Association of University Professors. Those limits say things like plagiarism, academic fraud, threats, ridicule, etc., are not covered by academic freedom.
Nobody here would argue that academic freedom would allow McAdams to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or make threats against the president of the United States.
In this case, the issue is whether academic freedom grants McAdams the right to ridicule a student by name. Marquette has decided it does not. McAdams disagrees. And his supporters believe the judicial system should tell Marquette how to discipline its employees.

MUBurrow · « **Reply #156 on:** February 01, 2018, 10:47:26 AM »

Quote from: Pakuni on February 01, 2018, 09:30:31 AM

Academic freedom essentially says a faculty member is free to speak out as a citizen on any issue without fear of retribution, so it goes beyond just the classroom or a professor's limited area of academic expertise/research. What McAdams writes in his blog fits into that.
Except ... academic freedom has its limits, and they're spelled out (albeit vaguely) by the American Association of University Professors. Those limits say things like plagiarism, academic fraud, threats, ridicule, etc., are not covered by academic freedom.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

Blue Horseshoe · « **Reply #157 on:** February 01, 2018, 03:23:53 PM »

Quote from: Pakuni on February 01, 2018, 09:30:31 AM

Academic freedom essentially says a faculty member is free to speak out as a citizen on any issue without fear of retribution, so it goes beyond just the classroom or a professor's limited area of academic expertise/research. What McAdams writes in his blog fits into that.
Except ... academic freedom has its limits, and they're spelled out (albeit vaguely) by the American Association of University Professors. Those limits say things like plagiarism, academic fraud, threats, ridicule, etc., are not covered by academic freedom.
Nobody here would argue that academic freedom would allow McAdams to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or make threats against the president of the United States.
In this case, the issue is whether academic freedom grants McAdams the right to ridicule a student by name. Marquette has decided it does not. McAdams disagrees. And his supporters believe the judicial system should tell Marquette how to discipline its employees.

McAdams is contesting that Marquette is contractually obligated to honor the same rights extended by the Constitution regarding the 1st amendment and academic freedom. His case is based on Marquette over reaching its authority and violating its own bylaws to punish/fire him.

Sir Lawrence · « **Reply #158 on:** March 26, 2018, 10:24:29 AM »

MU has created a talking points web page regarding the McAdams case:

http://www.marquette.edu/mcadams-case-facts/

muwarrior69 · « **Reply #159 on:** March 26, 2018, 11:23:55 AM »

...and the he said she said goes on.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com

Eldon · « **Reply #160 on:** March 30, 2018, 11:55:45 AM »

Amicus briefs filed on behalf of McAdams:

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

"If criticism of the ideas proposed, and pedagogical choices made, by fellow instructors in this context are not protected by Marquette’s
seemingly robust promises of academic freedom, then it is not clear what is."

https://www.thefire.org/fires-amicus-brief-in-mcadams-v-marquette-november-29-2017/

American Association of University Professors (AAUP):

"In requiring Dr. McAdams to renounce his blog post as a condition of reinstatement, the administration used the threat of dismissal to force Dr. McAdams to choose between adhering to his protected political views and regaining his tenured position."

https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/McAdams_Marquette_Feb2018.pdf

National Association of Scholars (NAS):

Go ahead and read Footnote 2

http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-02-28-filed-nas-amicus.pdf

Ellenson Guerrero · « **Reply #161 on:** March 31, 2018, 06:26:43 AM »

There are about 10 amicus briefs in the case now. Oral argument is set for April 19. I’d guess that the Justices’ questioning will be a pretty good indicator of where things are at.

McAdams already thinks he has the case won, as his lawyers are throwing this weird pre-party thing a couple days before the argument: http://www.will-law.org/event-preview-landmark-mcadams-v-marquette-lawsuit/.

GGGG · « **Reply #162 on:** March 31, 2018, 12:20:59 PM »

I would like to say that I'd be surprised to watch the right celebrate when "activist judges" decide to insert themselves in a contract disagreement between an individual and a private employer, but I've seen enough hypocrisy over the last two years that this won't even register.

Blue Horseshoe · « **Reply #163 on:** March 31, 2018, 01:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 31, 2018, 06:26:43 AM

McAdams already thinks he has the case won, as his lawyers are throwing this weird pre-party thing a couple days before the argument: http://www.will-law.org/event-preview-landmark-mcadams-v-marquette-lawsuit/.

"Proceeds support McAdams case expenses." is it more of a fund raiser for the legal fees? Serious question... if he wins, will MU be on the hook for those?

Jay Bee · « **Reply #164 on:** March 31, 2018, 02:13:56 PM »

#FreeMcAdams

Shame on my university for their behavior here!

Juan Anderson's Mixtape · « **Reply #165 on:** March 31, 2018, 02:14:44 PM »

Quote from: Jay Bee on March 31, 2018, 02:13:56 PM

#FreeMcAdams

Shame on my university for their behavior here!

He is free. Mission accomplished!

4everwarriors · « **Reply #166 on:** March 31, 2018, 02:59:19 PM »

FreeChicos2018

Ellenson Guerrero · « **Reply #167 on:** March 31, 2018, 05:48:22 PM »

Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on March 31, 2018, 01:00:12 PM

"Proceeds support McAdams case expenses." is it more of a fund raiser for the legal fees? Serious question... if he wins, will MU be on the hook for those?

MU won’t have to pay any attorney fees for McAdams. Both sides are responsible for their own lawyers. But McAdams’ lawyers are mostly retired guys who file lawsuits that they themselves want to pursue, and I’m sure aren’t charging him.

rocket surgeon · « **Reply #168 on:** March 31, 2018, 05:55:12 PM »

Quote from: #bansultan on March 31, 2018, 12:20:59 PM

I would like to say that I'd be surprised to watch the right celebrate when "activist judges" decide to insert themselves in a contract disagreement between an individual and a private employer, but I've seen enough hypocrisy over the last two years that this won't even register.

so...they're following the constitution and rule of law when you agree with them and they're activist judges when they go against your belief system?
fair enough

GGGG · « **Reply #169 on:** April 01, 2018, 06:35:01 AM »

Quote from: rocket surgeon on March 31, 2018, 05:55:12 PM

so...they're following the constitution and rule of law when you agree with them and they're activist judges when they go against your belief system?
fair enough

I guess irony is lost on you.

WarriorDad · « **Reply #170 on:** April 01, 2018, 12:14:38 PM »

Both sides make these claims about activist judges. Move on.

Lennys Tap · « **Reply #171 on:** April 01, 2018, 07:02:18 PM »

Quote from: Eldon on March 30, 2018, 11:55:45 AM

Amicus briefs filed on behalf of McAdams:

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

"If criticism of the ideas proposed, and pedagogical choices made, by fellow instructors in this context are not protected by Marquette’s
seemingly robust promises of academic freedom, then it is not clear what is."

https://www.thefire.org/fires-amicus-brief-in-mcadams-v-marquette-november-29-2017/

American Association of University Professors (AAUP):

"In requiring Dr. McAdams to renounce his blog post as a condition of reinstatement, the administration used the threat of dismissal to force Dr. McAdams to choose between adhering to his protected political views and regaining his tenured position."

https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/McAdams_Marquette_Feb2018.pdf

National Association of Scholars (NAS):

Go ahead and read Footnote 2

http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-02-28-filed-nas-amicus.pdf