WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[GGGG]

Because he opposed same sex marriage he is a homophobic prick?

He’s not a prick because he is homophobic.

He’s demonstrated his prickness in other ways.

[Blue Horseshoe]

It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.

Pure and simple

[Jay Bee]

It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.

You know what’s pure (sic) and simple? You posting about a court decision, falsely screaming that’s it’s politics is a clear violation of the no politics rule on this board.

#BanDisGuy
#banSultan
#PureNSimple

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

NM

[dgies9156]

Seems to me it's time for the lawyers for both sides to sit down and settle the matter.

The notion that Professor McAdams is going to be warmly received in a classroom or by the faculty of his peers is, at best, comical.  I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.

From Marquette' standpoint, this matter needs to go away. Sending it back to the Circuit Court for damage assessment means more hearings and, possibly, more trials as dueling experts debate damages and reasonable recoveries. All they will do at this point is give Professor McAdams more credibility  and a bigger podium to stand on.

Before everyone gets angry at me about settlement, keep in mind that Marquette is the same school who offered a contract to a dean candidate for the College of Arts and Sciences that lived a lifestyle at odds with Roman Catholic teaching and whose writings were openly hostile to the Catholic Church. That one cost an arm and a leg to resolve.

[StillAWarrior]

I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.

Can't speak specifically about Wisconsin law, but that's a pretty succinct summary of the entire concept of constructive discharge.  Generally speaking, if you're not entitled to fire an employee, you're not entitled to make the job so intolerable that the employee would choose to quite.  Not sure if there is anything in the McAdams/Marquette contract that would take it out of this general rule.

I'm not disagreeing that they shouldn't try to resolve things, mind you.  I'm just saying that in a lot of situations, intentionally doing things to try to get an employee to quit has essentially the same legal impact as firing him.  I'd imagine that this could be problematic coming on the heels of a court decision saying that Marquette can't fire him.

[Lennys Tap]

Dr. Lovell, overheard addressing the BOT after the Supreme Court decision:

"Who will rid me of this meddlesome professor?"

[forgetful]

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.

Strongly disagree.  He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed.  He disagreed with the decision.  He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do.  The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete.  The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not.  They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.

One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past.  Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit.  Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.

If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have.  Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court. 

Other clear aspects of judicial activisim:  A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor. 

His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor.  In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.

The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision.  It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology.  Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are.  Such an action is activism, not law. 

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.

That is not what the court saw at all.  They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination.  They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct. 

All in the name of academic freedom.

That is actually stipulated in their formal decision.  So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child?  Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation. 

Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law.  Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.

[rocket surgeon]

Can't speak specifically about Wisconsin law, but that's a pretty succinct summary of the entire concept of constructive discharge.  Generally speaking, if you're not entitled to fire an employee, you're not entitled to make the job so intolerable that the employee would choose to quite.  Not sure if there is anything in the McAdams/Marquette contract that would take it out of this general rule.

I'm not disagreeing that they shouldn't try to resolve things, mind you.  I'm just saying that in a lot of situations, intentionally doing things to try to get an employee to quit has essentially the same legal impact as firing him.  I'd imagine that this could be problematic coming on the heels of a court decision saying that Marquette can't fire him.

completely agree warrior-let's try this from another angle-if i fired an employee, was ruled by whomever that it was unjust and had to re-instate said employee, i would be filling my lab gown.  the arrogance of MU is almost as galling as their actions here over the past 2-3 years.  they haven't issued the apology they demanded from dr mccadams in order for him to keep his job.  they are throwing A LOT of our money at this issue and continue to do so.  that is, in my books, takes on an appearance of an abuse of their fiduciary duties.  donors who support dr. mccadams should rightly so be very disappointed and call on MU to cut OUR losses, formally apologize to dr mccadams and it's students and it's alumni, support him in his return to the faculty and get rid of the requirement for student groups to obtain a faculty adviser. 

    everyone here pretty much knew how the supreme court was going to rule.  didn't MU?  if not, they should be firing every attorney they have retained.  unless of course they chose not to take their attorneys advice.  why didn't MU cut it's losses?  even justice ann walsh bradley wrote in her dissenting opinion the following-

     " Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in her dissent that at its core, academic freedom is a “professional principle, not merely a legal construct,” which “embraces the academic freedom of the faculty as well as the academic freedom of the institution.”

this has an affect on EVERYONE, regardless of their persuasion, going forward

[GGGG]

Strongly disagree.  He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed.  He disagreed with the decision.  He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do.  The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete.  The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not.  They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.

One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past.  Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit.  Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.

If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have.  Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court. 

Other clear aspects of judicial activisim:  A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor. 

His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor.  In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.

The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision.  It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology.  Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are.  Such an action is activism, not law. 

That is not what the court saw at all.  They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination.  They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct. 

All in the name of academic freedom.

That is actually stipulated in their formal decision.  So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child?  Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation. 

Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law.  Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.

This is extremely well stated.

[GGGG]

completely agree warrior-let's try this from another angle-if i fired an employee, was ruled by whomever that it was unjust and had to re-instate said employee, i would be filling my lab gown.  the arrogance of MU is almost as galling as their actions here over the past 2-3 years.  they haven't issued the apology they demanded from dr mccadams in order for him to keep his job.  they are throwing A LOT of our money at this issue and continue to do so.  that is, in my books, takes on an appearance of an abuse of their fiduciary duties.  donors who support dr. mccadams should rightly so be very disappointed and call on MU to cut OUR losses, formally apologize to dr mccadams and it's students and it's alumni

F*ck that. MU doesn’t owe you (or me) an apology. For what?

[Babybluejeans]

I think this whole case is a yawn-fest. Literally no one cares outside of a segment of MU folks, and some right wing A.M. radio-type folks.

I'll simply say this: anyone who thinks the Court isn't partisan has their head buried deeply in the Bradford Beach sand. Unlike the entire federal judiciary and most states, Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected. Elections, by their nature, are partisan. Not only that, WI's judicial elections have been especially partisan. See, e.g., https://www.wiscontext.org/votes-2018-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-were-most-partisan-two-decades.

So if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.

[murara1994]

It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.

Right. So you are smarter than the majority of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. They are only making a political decision because you say so.

You are a unnatural carnal knowledgeing hack. And apparently not a lawyer.

[WarriorDad]

Seems to me it's time for the lawyers for both sides to sit down and settle the matter.

The notion that Professor McAdams is going to be warmly received in a classroom or by the faculty of his peers is, at best, comical.  I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.

From Marquette' standpoint, this matter needs to go away. Sending it back to the Circuit Court for damage assessment means more hearings and, possibly, more trials as dueling experts debate damages and reasonable recoveries. All they will do at this point is give Professor McAdams more credibility  and a bigger podium to stand on.

Before everyone gets angry at me about settlement, keep in mind that Marquette is the same school who offered a contract to a dean candidate for the College of Arts and Sciences that lived a lifestyle at odds with Roman Catholic teaching and whose writings were openly hostile to the Catholic Church. That one cost an arm and a leg to resolve.

I'm not so sure.  My daughter and I spoke about this today, and she's more intrigued to be in his class now than she was before because of the notoriety.  If the man loves to teach, be around students he may wish to continue to follow his passion.

Shouldn't the lawyers on both sides already have had those discussions?  Of course they did, but couldn't come to a resolution which proceeded to the civil litigation approach. 

Marquette doesn't seem to have been served too well by its legal counsel, but those words have been spoken often in the previous 45 years.

[GGGG]

Right. So you are smarter than the majority of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. They are only making a political decision because you say so.

You are a unnatural carnal knowledgeing hack. And apparently not a lawyer.

Oh.

[WarriorDad]

Strongly disagree.  He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed.  He disagreed with the decision.  He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do.  The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete.  The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not.  They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.

One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past.  Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit.  Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.

If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have.  Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court. 

Other clear aspects of judicial activisim:  A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor. 

His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor.  In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.

The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision.  It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology.  Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are.  Such an action is activism, not law. 

If she recused herself, he still wins 3-2.  I'm sensing when conservatives lose, it is because of judicial activism.  And in a parallel universe, when liberals lose, it is because of judicial activism. 

As for the decision, if you read the inputs today from a number of legal scholars, the court got it right on the merits in most of the articles I read.  Some questioned how it was wrongly interpreted by the lower court.

[murara1994]

Oh.

Nailed it.

[WarriorDad]

I think this whole case is a yawn-fest. Literally no one cares outside of a segment of MU folks, and some right wing A.M. radio-type folks.

I'll simply say this: anyone who thinks the Court isn't partisan has their head buried deeply in the Bradford Beach sand. Unlike the entire federal judiciary and most states, Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected. Elections, by their nature, are partisan. Not only that, WI's judicial elections have been especially partisan. See, e.g., https://www.wiscontext.org/votes-2018-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-were-most-partisan-two-decades.

So if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.

Jurists in other states are selected by winners of elections (Governors), and also often pass party litmus tests even if both sides claim they do not.  Federal courts, the President nominates, also a partisan job.

Wisconsin has a non-partisan election for justices.  You are correct that no one really believes that, but there are a number of states where justices are elected based on party.  Here in Illinois, for one.  Also in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Alabama, Louisiana.

There will always be some levels of partisanship with that point of view, but these are normally educated jurists who use their knowledge of the law to provide opinions based on the merits of the case.  We often may not agree with their decisions, but those decisions aren't handed down because they said so. They are grounded in legal precedent or theory of the law.

[real chili 83]

This case is just odd

One party claims academic freedoms, then maligns someone under that pretense.

Our most precious amendment, the First Amendment has limitations to it.

Someone broke the rules, warned and warned again. Where’s the issue?

Stilla, I agree with the issue of constructive discharge is an issue for MU.

I think we can all agree, McAdams as a person, despite his being “right”, is a prick.

Oh, and....IN BEFORE THE 🔒 🔐

[Babybluejeans]

We often may not agree with their decisions, but those decisions aren't handed down because they said so. They are grounded in legal precedent or theory of the law.

Like Roe v. Wade, eh Cheekz?

if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.

[jesmu84]

Strongly disagree.  He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed.  He disagreed with the decision.  He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do.  The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete.  The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not.  They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.

One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past.  Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit.  Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.

If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have.  Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court. 

Other clear aspects of judicial activisim:  A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor. 

His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor.  In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.

The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision.  It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology.  Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are.  Such an action is activism, not law. 

That is not what the court saw at all.  They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination.  They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct. 

All in the name of academic freedom.

That is actually stipulated in their formal decision.  So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child?  Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation. 

Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law.  Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.

Seems no one wants to discuss this part of the outcome

[jesmu84]

completely agree warrior-let's try this from another angle-if i fired an employee, was ruled by whomever that it was unjust and had to re-instate said employee, i would be filling my lab gown.  the arrogance of MU is almost as galling as their actions here over the past 2-3 years.  they haven't issued the apology they demanded from dr mccadams in order for him to keep his job.  they are throwing A LOT of our money at this issue and continue to do so.  that is, in my books, takes on an appearance of an abuse of their fiduciary duties.  donors who support dr. mccadams should rightly so be very disappointed and call on MU to cut OUR losses, formally apologize to dr mccadams and it's students and it's alumni, support him in his return to the faculty and get rid of the requirement for student groups to obtain a faculty adviser. 

    everyone here pretty much knew how the supreme court was going to rule. didn't MU?  if not, they should be firing every attorney they have retained.  unless of course they chose not to take their attorneys advice.  why didn't MU cut it's losses?  even justice ann walsh bradley wrote in her dissenting opinion the following-

     " Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in her dissent that at its core, academic freedom is a “professional principle, not merely a legal construct,” which “embraces the academic freedom of the faculty as well as the academic freedom of the institution.”

this has an affect on EVERYONE, regardless of their persuasion, going forward

How did "everyone know?"

And, I don't believe this had to affect everyone. At least not in the way you think. I do not believe a professor, under the guise of "academic freedom," should be allowed to doxx a student.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A good example of how some times the legal thing is not the right thing. Bravo to Lovell for seeing through all the smoke and mirrors surrounding this case and seeing what what was really important. There was a professor who was cyber bullying a student. Not only that but the professor had done it before and had been warned. A man like that has no business teaching and no business representing Marquette.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I will also say again....conservatives cheering for stronger tenure protections is hilarious. I expect that the next time a liberal leaning MU professor says something outlandish like Ashanti Shakur is an American hero that these same people will be lining up to defend him/her.

[rocket surgeon]

I will also say again....conservatives cheering for stronger tenure protections is hilarious. I expect that the next time a liberal leaning MU professor says something outlandish like Ashanti Shakur is an American hero that these same people will be lining up to defend him/her.

  we may not have agreed with this professor and despite many believing this was over the line, i believe she still remains a "professor".  i think this would fall under the category of " outlandish" eyn'a?  after most people got over the shock of how evil her comments were, they let it go.  why?  1st amendment i guess.  would this fall under your category of "cyber-bullying"? 

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fresno-professor-barbara-bush-20180424-story.html

i don't think it is all conservatives cheering.  i'm going to go out on a limb here, but if they would ever admit it out loud, there may just be some liberal professors breathing a sigh of relief here as well.  i'd love to hear alan dershowitz' opinion, believing he has been a breath of fresh air from the liberal side.  same with jonathon turley. 

    just as your post seems to indicate here tamu, when you flip this, you are hoping views from the opposite side of the spectrum are greeted the same.  once again, we may not agree with them, or think they are appropriate, but we have to swallow hard and let them slide lest we want to surrender the freedoms discussed here.