WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Lighthouse 84]

Well, MU and McAdams made Laura Ingraham’s show tonight.  I only caught the tail end, but the show was centered on free speech. I bring this up only to point out MU was shown on her show, not to turn this into a political discussion by the few who like to get a thread shut down. The campus looked nice. 😬

[muwarrior69]

Article in the Washington Times

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/15/john-mcadams-marquette-professor-says-firing-shows/

[Blue Horseshoe]

I believe opening arguments are scheduled for Thursday 4/19. Looking forward to this finally playing out.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I believe opening arguments are scheduled for Thursday 4/19. Looking forward to this finally playing out.

You can listen to the arguments live via this website:  https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/soralarguments.htm

[Sir Lawrence]

You can listen to the arguments live via this website:  https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/soralarguments.htm

Or watch it here:

http://www.wiseye.org/

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Pretty straightforward questioning by the Justices today.  Unless the Chief Justice has a surprise up her sleeve, the math doesn’t look very good for alma mater.

[GGGG]

Pretty straightforward questioning by the Justices today.  Unless the Chief Justice has a surprise up her sleeve, the math doesn’t look very good for alma mater.

Yep.  The hypocrites will win this one.

[Jay Bee]

My alma mater eff’d up and must pay!

#FreeMcAdams

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

So, if McAdams wins what does Marquette do going forward?

I would not be surprised if staff members are prohibited from having blogs in the future.  Write employment contracts so that merely having a blog is grounds for termination, and you give the university cover from future lawsuits such as this.

Facebook, twitter, and other social media could be restricted, too.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

So, if McAdams wins what does Marquette do going forward?

I would not be surprised if staff members are prohibited from having blogs in the future.  Write employment contracts so that merely having a blog is grounds for termination, and you give the university cover from future lawsuits such as this.

Facebook, twitter, and other social media could be restricted, too.

Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure.  They won't be making any anti-blogging rules or social media restrictions; that'd be a fool's errand. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure.  They won't be making any anti-blogging rules or social media restrictions; that'd be a fool's errand.

Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

[Galway Eagle]

Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

You say this till it's a liberal professor then it's indoctrination etc. let's not pretend that the majority of you are on mcadams side because of academic freedom. It's about viewpoints he holds and was trying to stand up for.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure.  They won't be making any anti-blogging rules or social media restrictions; that'd be a fool's errand.

Selective on what grounds? That sounds ripe for discrimination and more lawsuits.

Whatever policy changes are made need to be black and white.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You say this till it's a liberal professor then it's indoctrination etc. let's not pretend that the majority of you are on mcadams side because of academic freedom. It's about viewpoints he holds and was trying to stand up for.

^This.  But some are completely unembarrassed by extreme hypocrisy.

[jsglow]

I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult.  I'm a conservative.  Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady.  I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being.  I would tell that to her face.  But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure.  In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation.  But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.

My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained.  If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground.  And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action. 

I applaud the university however this turns out.  If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it.  But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.

[GGGG]

^This.  But some are completely unembarrassed by extreme hypocrisy.

Yep.

[GGGG]

I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult.  I'm a conservative.  Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady.  I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being.  I would tell that to her face.  But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure.  In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation.  But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.

My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained.  If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground.  And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action. 

I applaud the university however this turns out.  If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it.  But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.

I 100% agree with your conclusion.  (Correction however...Abate wasn't a Professor.)

[GGGG]

Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

It really hasn't caused that much time or money.  And it won't even if they have to pay McAdams.  Stop being so melodramatic. 

Marquette did the right thing. 

[GGGG]

Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure. 

That might be hard to do.  It is a faculty oriented process.  While it still does require approvals from up above, they can't really veto too many recommendations without pretty good reasons.

[Pakuni]

Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

None of which led to McAdams' dismissal.

[Blue Horseshoe]

None of which led to McAdams' dismissal.

A single blog post criticizing and naming an instructor of record (and linking to her personal blog) literally led to all of this.

[GGGG]

A single blog post criticizing and naming an instructor of record (and linking to her personal blog) literally led to all of this.

That is literally not true.

[Pakuni]

A single blog post criticizing and naming an instructor of record (and linking to her personal blog) literally led to all of this.

Wrong again.
Maybe third time's the charm?

[Blue Horseshoe]

That is literally not true.

Explain otherwise. Something else was the catalyst for his suspension and dismissal?

Remember, I literally used the word literally in the literal sense. The initial post literally was the first occurrence that led to yesterday's opening arguments.

[GGGG]

Explain otherwise. Something else was the catalyst for his suspension and dismissal?

Yeah.  The fact that he was warned previously about doing the very thing he ended up doing.

That's like a cop pulling over an alleged mass murderer for speeding, calling for a back up SWAT team, and saying "wow, all that for a suspected speeder?"  (Admittedly hyperbolic.)

The fact is that the Supreme Court would be WAY overstepping its bounds by ruling in favor of McAdams and have already done so by accepting the case on direct appeal.  This is a private employment agreement that should no way be judged on any free speech grounds.