WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[forgetful]

Not really. Lovell never gave McAdams the chance to take the committees recommendation so we'll never know.

Do you know what Lovell offered?  He requested a formal apology to Abbate, and to sign a document indicating that he will not name students in his blog post in the future.

He refused, so he was fired. 

Lovell's offer was more generous than the committees recommendation.  McAdams would not accept any responsibility.

That was the problem and why he had to be fired.  Even after a student received death threats because of his actions, he couldn't see how he did wrong, and wouldn't agree to not do something like that again in the future.  That put students at risk, McAdams then had to be fired.

[muwarrior69]

But that's not my question.
My question is that if you and other "Team McAdams" posters think he ought to have been suspended, then how can you also argue that academic freedom protects him from being punished for his actions?
Seems either he's protected or he isn't, and the level of discipline is irrelevant.

Academic freedom protects him from being fired not disciplined.

[muwarrior69]

Do you know what Lovell offered?  He requested a formal apology to Abbate, and to sign a document indicating that he will not name students in his blog post in the future.

He refused, so he was fired. 

Lovell's offer was more generous than the committees recommendation.  McAdams would not accept any responsibility.

That was the problem and why he had to be fired.  Even after a student received death threats because of his actions, he couldn't see how he did wrong, and wouldn't agree to not do something like that again in the future.  That put students at risk, McAdams then had to be fired.

That limits his speech. I can't speak for him but he probably refused since he considered her an instructor. If he agreed to those terms every TA could abuse an undergrad and he could not defend them if they asked for his help.

[GGGG]

That limits his speech. I can't speak for him but he probably refused since he considered her an instructor. If he agreed to those terms every TA could abuse an undergrad and he could not defend them if they asked for his help.

Bullsh*t.  There were plenty of avenues available for McAdams to advocate on the students behalf.  Hell there are formal procedures in place to do just that.  He could have gone to MU's Title IX officer if he saw fit.

The problem is he didn't choose those procedures.  He ignored them and did it his way.  THAT is why he was rightfully fired.

[Herman Cain]

This might be the most unintentionally hilarious part of your post, given that the professor attacked the student for what she thought.

The Professor called out a TA who he had no jurisdiction over; who is a paid employee who also happens to have student status , for attacking a student telling  the student what to think.

Sorry the facts don't comport with your view of life. That is par for the course around here though.

[forgetful]

That limits his speech. I can't speak for him but he probably refused since he considered her an instructor. If he agreed to those terms every TA could abuse an undergrad and he could not defend them if they asked for his help.

It does not limit his free speech.  He can't disclose personal information on any student.  That is a violation of FERPA.  It doesn't matter that the student also has activities that could be considered employment with the University. 

If he believes he should be able to release personal information on students, and will refuse to sign a document attesting to the fact that he will not disclose personal information.  Then he has to be fired.  Period. 

You just criticized Lovell for not going with the recommendation of the committee.  I pointed out to you that he offered McAdams a better offer, which he refused.

[GGGG]

The Professor called out a TA who he had no jurisdiction over; who is a paid employee who also happens to have student status , for attacking a student telling  the student what to think.

Sorry the facts don't comport with your view of life. That is par for the course around here though.

Well those aren't the facts.  That is par for the course with you around here.

[Blue Horseshoe]

No. Not even close. Do you have any idea how often universities get sued? If presidents stepped down every time the university lost a lawsuit the average turnover for the job would be a month.

If a university loses a law suit wherein the President of that University almost single handedly is responsible for the exhausted resources... on a public stage... regarding all faculty members... for an entire state...

[GGGG]

If a university loses a law suit wherein the President of that University almost single handedly is responsible for the exhausted resources... on a public stage... regarding all faculty members... for an entire state...

There is zero chance he resigns or is fired over this.  Believe me.  He had the backing of the BOT when he did this and likely had an opinion from counsel as well.

[muwarrior69]

It does not limit his free speech.  He can't disclose personal information on any student.  That is a violation of FERPA.  It doesn't matter that the student also has activities that could be considered employment with the University. 

If he believes he should be able to release personal information on students, and will refuse to sign a document attesting to the fact that he will not disclose personal information.  Then he has to be fired.  Period. 

You just criticized Lovell for not going with the recommendation of the committee.  I pointed out to you that he offered McAdams a better offer, which he refused.

He did not disclose any personal information. He referenced a link to an article on her blog which had no personal information contained in it but for her name. I guess going to ones blog is a violation of FERPA.

[Blue Horseshoe]

There is zero chance he resigns or is fired over this.  Believe me.  He had the backing of the BOT when he did this and likely had an opinion from counsel as well.

How can anyone in his constituency continue to support such a poor leader? Again, hypothetical here... if Marquette loses the battle in court.

[GGGG]

He did not disclose any personal information. He referenced a link to an article on her blog which had no personal information contained in it but for her name. I guess going to ones blog is a violation of FERPA.

Yeah I'm not sure how he violated FERPA.  Simply disclosing that she is a student or that she is a TA doesn't violate FERPA. 

[GGGG]

How can anyone in his constituency continue to support such a poor leader? Again, hypothetical here... if Marquette loses the battle in court.

Because this is only a small part of what he has done.  It must be properly weighed against everything else he has done both positively and negatively.

Honestly I think he did the right thing no matter how the case turns out.  It wouldn't be his fault that the Court is full of political hacks.

[muwarrior69]

Yeah I'm not sure how he violated FERPA.  Simply disclosing that she is a student or that she is a TA doesn't violate FERPA.

So just by googling you violate FERPA?

http://www.marquette.edu/phil/CurrentGraduateStudents.shtml

[Pakuni]

Academic freedom protects him from being fired not disciplined.

Nope.
The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure developed by the American Association of University Professors (and widely used as the definition of "academic freedom") states:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline ..."

[Blue Horseshoe]

Because this is only a small part of what he has done.  It must be properly weighed against everything else he has done both positively and negatively.

Honestly I think he did the right thing no matter how the case turns out.  It wouldn't be his fault that the Court is full of political hacks.

No accountability? Relying way too much on a narrative that implies people/organizations are actively persecuted in the legal system for political bias and not their own actions.

[muwarrior69]

Nope.
The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure developed by the American Association of University Professors (and widely used as the definition of "academic freedom") states:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline ..."

I guess he should not be disciplined as well.

[warriorchick]

For you lawyer types out there: Any chance this gets taken to the Supreme Court? My guess is that there is more than one MU law professor who would be willing to work on this case pro bono just for the CV enhancement.

[rocky_warrior]

If a university loses a law suit wherein the President of that University almost single handedly is responsible for the exhausted resources... on a public stage... regarding all faculty members... for an entire state...

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

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The Professor called out a TA who he had no jurisdiction over; who is a paid employee who also happens to have student status , for attacking a student telling  the student what to think.

Sorry the facts don't comport with your view of life. That is par for the course around here though.

Oh Gus, I await your in-person reporting on their body language while the discussion was going on.

[GGGG]

No accountability? Relying way too much on a narrative that implies people/organizations are actively persecuted in the legal system for political bias and not their own actions.

Of course he has accountability.  I think he has been a very good president regardless of how this case turns out. 

[forgetful]

Yeah I'm not sure how he violated FERPA.  Simply disclosing that she is a student or that she is a TA doesn't violate FERPA.

Agreed, but this case isn't that simple.  And I'm certainly not saying this is a FERPA violation, just that it may be argued to be one.  I am far from a FERPA legal expert, I just know that we are advised to not release any information, not even confirm a student is enrolled in our class to their parents, until we confirm they've authorized the release of info to their parents.

In this case, it is questionable whether he violated FERPA, and it may be a legal reach, but since he:

1.  Disclosed the student's name and role as the instructor in the course.
2.  Discussed the student's name in the context of an ongoing dispute, and corrective action regarding teaching methods, as part of their education/degree plan.

He could have violated FERPA.  Simply releasing a name of an instructor would not be a violation.  But, disclosing the students name in the context of an ongoing corrective action/investigation, where it is conceivable that the disclosure could cause harm to the student can be a violation of FERPA.

Directory information gets a pass in 99.9% of cases as directory information does not contain, things like disciplinary measures, and is unlikely to cause harm.  Neither of those matters is true here, so release of directory information in the context of their responsibilities/corrective action may be a FERPA violation. 

In this particular instance though I was not talking about this case, rather his unwillingness to sign a document agreeing to not name students in his blog in the future. 

[Pakuni]

For you lawyer types out there: Any chance this gets taken to the Supreme Court? My guess is that there is more than one MU law professor who would be willing to work on this case pro bono just for the CV enhancement.

I assume you mean U.S. Supreme Court.
Not likely, at least not as the case currently is pleaded. As far as I can tell, McAdams is making a basic breach of contract complaint without any federal/constitutional claims.
I could be wrong, but that's my reading.

[Pakuni]

I guess he should not be disciplined as well.

Except ... the same AAUP puts limits on academic freedom that exclude speech or writings that, among other things, ridicule, threaten or harass students or colleagues.
Hard to argue that McAdams at the very least didn't ridicule Abbate.

[MUBurrow]

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?