WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Benny B]

<sad trombone>

This was exactly what I was thinking listening to the breaking news this morning.

[Coleman]

This is the right response to the decision by MU:

"At Marquette University, we are proud that we have taken a stand for our students, our values and our Catholic, Jesuit mission," it said.


"Marquette will comply with the terms of this decision, and it does not change the university’s commitment to the safety and well-being of our students."

"This case has always been about Associate Professor John McAdams’ conduct toward a student teacher," it said. "The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages."

[Benny B]

While I don't always agree with Sultan, his responses are way less partisan... than yours.

That's like saying Dave Chappelle is way less a stoner than Jerry Garcia.

To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one.  Ginsberg and Breyer were both confirmed in the 90's (both in year and in votes), and that was pretty much the end of bipartisan support for judicial nominees (leaving aside Clarence Thomas - whose controversy had little to do with his judicial record, as well as Rehnquist and Marshall, whose "controversies" had more to do with racial issues than political leanings).

Unfortunately, holding up the supreme courts as partisan (whether State or Federal) and sowing fear amongst the masses over judicial candidates/nominees is a great way to scare people to the polls all the while ignoring the damage of making politicized courts a self-fulfilling prophecy (if you spread the message of courts being politicized as a campaign strategy, when you end up in a position to actually influence the makeup, you'll be more likely to make good on it).

Just another undesirable side-effect of democracy that would go the way of the dodo if mandatory voting were implemented.
But it's a hell of a lot easier to dupe people into voting for your candidate when you only give them two choices, right?  So go on with the thinking that the courts are politicized, and spouting off about how much of a travesty it would be for the other side of the aisle to be in control and how evil those people must be.  Because the justices, at least those elected/appointed before [insert candidate/official here]-derangement syndrome caught on, disagree with you:

"I miss [Antonin Scalia] very much."
-Ruth Bader Ginsberg

[WarriorDad]

My opinion, McAdams should not have acted the way he did.  He also should not have been fired for his actions, and that is what the case was about.  His contract and actions did not support the discipline MU took. 

[WarriorDad]

This is the right response to the decision by MU:

"At Marquette University, we are proud that we have taken a stand for our students, our values and our Catholic, Jesuit mission," it said.


"Marquette will comply with the terms of this decision, and it does not change the university’s commitment to the safety and well-being of our students."

"This case has always been about Associate Professor John McAdams’ conduct toward a student teacher," it said. "The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages."

The last paragraph was not needed and sounds of sour grapes. If they are going to relitigate they should then add another sentence that says that argument lost because they violated his contract because the case hasn't always about McAdams conduct as MU states, the justices' decisions state that was not what the case was about at all.  It is as if MU believes it won a case that wasn't before the supremes.

[jsglow]

The dynamic going forward will be interesting.  Obviously John gets his back pay and office back as well as probably some damages.  But I'm not sure the university will support him in any other way.  For example, will he ever be given an opportunity to teach a class?  Or is his compensation simply a 'sunk cost' going forward?

[muwarrior69]

Now that McAdams has won I wonder how he will be received on campus. Seems to me he will be persona non grata at MU ( at least from the consensus by those on this board) and it will be interesting to see if the administration finds some other way of getting him to leave.

I wonder how many students will sign up for his classes or will he be able even to teach.

[MUBurrow]

nm i don't know why i continue to post sometimes

[Benny B]

nm i don't know why i continue to post sometimes

Wrong thread.  This is where you want to be: https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54409.0

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

To no one’s surprise, the partisan court intervened in a private contractural dispute and ruled for McAdams.

Props to Lovell for doing the right thing. It’s not easy in this day and age to stand up for people.

Ditto.

[rocket surgeon]

  "To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one. "

  i wasn't the one who brought politics into this as i am trying to follow the rules some have trouble with-NO POLITICS.  i merely reacted to someone's knee-jerk reaction which i believe is short sighted.  i've heard both sides numerous times.  i understand the arguments from both sides.  yes, believe it or not, when i hear certain "talk-radio" only speak of it only from one side(mccadams), i do cringe a little.  if the universities, as a whole would not be so one-sided in most of their treatment of the "other side", this decision would be a little harder to take.  in other words, i think today's decision was a push back to the left, hopefully reminding them that "freedom of speech" pendulum needs to swing back the other way a little bit

[Billy Hoyle]

this case is just more proof that right wingers are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there, especially on college campuses.  The guy put a TA in physical danger and claims that's academic freedom and liberals being mean to him. He's an embarrassment to our alma mater.  He can be reinstated but I hope he's never allowed to teach MU students again. Liberty or Bob Jones is more his speed these days.

[Jay Bee]

Great to see the fine court got it right. MU should be ashamed.

McAdams has been vindicated! Congrats!

[GGGG]

That's like saying Dave Chappelle is way less a stoner than Jerry Garcia.

To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one. 

I ain’t looking at sh*t.

[GGGG]

The last paragraph was not needed and sounds of sour grapes. If they are going to relitigate they should then add another sentence that says that argument lost because they violated his contract because the case hasn't always about McAdams conduct as MU states, the justices' decisions state that was not what the case was about at all.  It is as if MU believes it won a case that wasn't before the supremes.

Duh. It’s a statement made by one side. It’s not supposed to be balanced.

[mu03eng]

this case is just more proof that right wingers are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there, especially on college campuses.  The guy put a TA in physical danger and claims that's academic freedom and liberals being mean to him. He's an embarrassment to our alma mater.  He can be reinstated but I hope he's never allowed to teach MU students again. Liberty or Bob Jones is more his speed these days.

While I agree with the McAdam's discipline and firing, I don't agree with the bolded part at all. He put information at there(he shouldn't have) but he did not directly put her in any physical danger(unless there is a story I missed) and yes people threatened her but those actions should be held to account for those that did the threatening not to McAdams.

His actions were bad enough without piling on inaccurate accusations (again, unless I missed something).

Ultimately, I hope the university does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the obligations of the court.

[Coleman]

That's like saying Dave Chappelle is way less a stoner than Jerry Garcia.

To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one.  Ginsberg and Breyer were both confirmed in the 90's (both in year and in votes), and that was pretty much the end of bipartisan support for judicial nominees (leaving aside Clarence Thomas - whose controversy had little to do with his judicial record, as well as Rehnquist and Marshall, whose "controversies" had more to do with racial issues than political leanings).

Unfortunately, holding up the supreme courts as partisan (whether State or Federal) and sowing fear amongst the masses over judicial candidates/nominees is a great way to scare people to the polls all the while ignoring the damage of making politicized courts a self-fulfilling prophecy (if you spread the message of courts being politicized as a campaign strategy, when you end up in a position to actually influence the makeup, you'll be more likely to make good on it).

Just another undesirable side-effect of democracy that would go the way of the dodo if mandatory voting were implemented.
But it's a hell of a lot easier to dupe people into voting for your candidate when you only give them two choices, right?  So go on with the thinking that the courts are politicized, and spouting off about how much of a travesty it would be for the other side of the aisle to be in control and how evil those people must be.  Because the justices, at least those elected/appointed before [insert candidate/official here]-derangement syndrome caught on, disagree with you:

"I miss [Antonin Scalia] very much."
-Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Vis a vis Sultan and Rocket...I believe in shades of grey. Both have their biases but one's arguments stand much more on solid logic.

I agree with everything else you said.

[Coleman]

While I agree with the McAdam's discipline and firing, I don't agree with the bolded part at all. He put information at there(he shouldn't have) but he did not directly put her in any physical danger(unless there is a story I missed) and yes people threatened her but those actions should be held to account for those that did the threatening not to McAdams.

His actions were bad enough without piling on inaccurate accusations (again, unless I missed something).

Ultimately, I hope the university does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the obligations of the court.

That's just plausible deniability. If you put someone's contact info into the blogosphere, you are basically asking them to be harassed by the internet's worst creatures, without having to explicitly ask.

[Coleman]

The last paragraph was not needed and sounds of sour grapes. If they are going to relitigate they should then add another sentence that says that argument lost because they violated his contract because the case hasn't always about McAdams conduct as MU states, the justices' decisions state that was not what the case was about at all.  It is as if MU believes it won a case that wasn't before the supremes.

Not sure what you were hoping for. Seems about as civil and even keeled a response MU could offer, given the circumstances.

[Jockey]

As I said previously, there was never any question which way this court would rule.

[Galway Eagle]

While I agree with the McAdam's discipline and firing, I don't agree with the bolded part at all. He put information at there(he shouldn't have) but he did not directly put her in any physical danger(unless there is a story I missed) and yes people threatened her but those actions should be held to account for those that did the threatening not to McAdams.

His actions were bad enough without piling on inaccurate accusations (again, unless I missed something).

Ultimately, I hope the university does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the obligations of the court.

Doesn't that come down to whether or not you believe McAdams is aware of how volatile a segment of his audience can be? I personally think he's very aware that by publishing her name he opened the door to all the letters and other potential harm. That being said I feel that people on the left do this frequently as well so nobody jump on my back and accuse me of being partisan in this.

[mu03eng]

That's just plausible deniability. If you put someone's contact info into the blogosphere, you are basically asking them to be harassed by the internet's worst creatures, without having to explicitly ask.

Guess I don't care, if he "knew" the threats would happen.....we should be holding the people responsible for their direct actions so the threat makers are the true problem.

[mu03eng]

Doesn't that come down to whether or not you believe McAdams is aware of how volatile a segment of his audience can be? I personally think he's very aware that by publishing her name he opened the door to all the letters and other potential harm. That being said I feel that people on the left do this frequently as well so nobody jump on my back and accuse me of being partisan in this.

Whether it gets done on the left or the right (Doxxing I mean), while I don't think it should be done, I also think that we spend far too much time focusing on the people that publish the information and not enough time shining a light on the cockroaches that do the actual threatening.

I say publish the information that threaten and keep them in the sunlight.....it'll be amazing how little of that will happen once you start to remove the anonymity involved. It doesn't even have to be positioned as "go get this troll", simply a "I got threatening messages from XXXX acccounts who tie back to YYYY users", etc

[Blue Horseshoe]

Received an email from MU regarding today's decision. Continuing to portray the university as the moral superior/authority "we stood up for decency..." really angers me. I am disappointed that Lovell is reduced to empty platitudes.

[Herman Cain]

The way I look at it the TA was acting as a teacher. She ran the class , assigned grades etc. . To hide behind the notion that she was a student was a stretch in my view and thankfully the court saw it the same way.