Update on prof McAdams

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Well, I think when you include things like blog posts that are long on anecdote and short on facts (that aren't fact checked anyway), it discredits why academic freedom and tenure should exist in the first place.

And white supremacists and groups like Westboro Baptist Church discredit why we have the freedom of speech in the first place.  I think the distinction have to be more principled than "insufficient and/or inadequate development of facts."

[mu03eng]

OK...I just fully read the letter Marquette sent to McAdams for the first time.  Holy cow did McAdams f*ck this up.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/edit?pli=1

While I did realize that he published his blog post without allowing Abatte to respond to his inquiries, I didn't realize that he published it after the student met with the Department and the College, AND after Abatte had a follow up discussion with the class specifically addressing the issue brought up by the undergraduate student.  In short, this is hardly an issue of academic freedom, because this blog post falls well short of anything that I would call "academic."

I also didn't realize that McAdams was warned twice prior about putting a student's name in his blog after the negative actions that such actions caused.  

Marquette has this in the bag.  McAdams might get a small settlement out of this but that's about it.

Having read it in full....I'm coming to the same conclusion.  Now my only beef with MU is how they handled and messaged this.  I think it was probably the right action(in absence of a similar scenario where they didn't take this action) but very poor communications.

[GGGG]

And white supremacists and groups like Westboro Baptist Church discredit why we have the freedom of speech in the first place.  I think the distinction have to be more principled than "insufficient and/or inadequate development of facts."

But of course, there are fences around freedom of speech.  Libel, threats, etc. aren't protected.  Just like academic freedom and tenure aren't absolutes


Here is the AAUP's "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which is the bedrock of how academic freedom is applied in American universities today.  

http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure

Here is the third principal:

"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, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."

Was McAdams accurate?  Did he exercise appropriate restraint?  Did he show respect for the opinions of others?  I think the answer to each of these is "No."

Furthermore, this statement does NOT consider tenure an absolute, and has an entire section on how tenured professors can be removed for cause and what the compensation should be.  "A year's salary."  (Which is probably about Marquette will be offering to pay McAdams.)

[Ellenson Guerrero]

But of course, there are fences around freedom of speech.  Libel, threats, etc. aren't protected.  Just like academic freedom and tenure aren't absolutes


Here is the AAUP's "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which is the bedrock of how academic freedom is applied in American universities today.  

http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure

Here is the third principal:

"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, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."

Was McAdams accurate?  Did he exercise appropriate restraint?  Did he show respect for the opinions of others?  I think the answer to each of these is "No."

Furthermore, this statement does NOT consider tenure an absolute, and has an entire section on how tenured professors can be removed for cause and what the compensation should be.  "A year's salary."  (Which is probably about Marquette will be offering to pay McAdams.)

I'm not going to defend McAdams' views or manner of execution, only his right to speak his mind on an issue of campus importance without fear of retaliation from the university. 

How does the bolded provision not come down on McAdams' side? Obviously there are certain things that justify revocation of tenure.  I just don't think publishing a graduate student's name on a blog should be one of them.

[Eldon]

But of course, there are fences around freedom of speech.  Libel, threats, etc. aren't protected.  Just like academic freedom and tenure aren't absolutes


Here is the AAUP's "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which is the bedrock of how academic freedom is applied in American universities today.  

http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure

Here is the third principal:

"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, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."

Was McAdams accurate?  Did he exercise appropriate restraint?  Did he show respect for the opinions of others?  I think the answer to each of these is "No."

Furthermore, this statement does NOT consider tenure an absolute, and has an entire section on how tenured professors can be removed for cause and what the compensation should be.  "A year's salary."  (Which is probably about Marquette will be offering to pay McAdams.)

http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/

Except the AAUP seems to be rallying behind him

EDIT: An excerpt "This latest development is far more alarming. AAUP regulations, and Marquette’s own policies, explicitly prohibit what Marquette is now doing: punishing a professor for publicly expressing his opinions."

[GGGG]

http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/

Except the AAUP seems to be rallying behind him

Of course they are.  It's like a union.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Of course they are.  It's like a union.

So simultaneously they set your cited standard for handling issues of academic freedom on campus and their application of that standard to the current situation is non-credible? Interesting take.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm not going to defend McAdams' views or manner of execution, only his right to speak his mind on an issue of campus importance without fear of retaliation from the university. 

How does the bolded provision not come down on McAdams' side? Obviously there are certain things that justify revocation of tenure.  I just don't think publishing a graduate student's name on a blog should be one of them.

If he's done it several times, does that make a difference? If he's been warned/asked NOT to cite names, does that make a difference?

Also, why did he even publish her name?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

If he's done it several times, does that make a difference? If he's been warned/asked NOT to cite names, does that make a difference?

Also, why did he even publish her name?

I'm fine with MU issuing a statement or some type of administrative response to address McAdams' use of the grad student's name, especially if he'd been warned in the past, I just don't think it warrants the nuclear option.

And I don't understand the people who will attribute ill intentions to McAdams in using the instructor's name, but assume MU's motivations are as pure as the driven snow.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm fine with MU issuing a statement or some type of administrative response to address McAdams' use of the grad student's name, especially if he'd been warned in the past, I just don't think it warrants the nuclear option.

And I don't understand the people who will attribute ill intentions to McAdams in using the instructor's name, but assume MU's motivations are as pure as the driven snow.

How many times would you let him do it before you fired him?

(I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking).

[Ellenson Guerrero]

How many times would you let him do it before you fired him?

(I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking).

Let's assume that McAdams really had been warned about using students' names on his blog twice (the details on these prior incidents is unclear at this point).  I think after the second or third offense, when it became obvious the issue wasn't being resolved informally, I would go through the process of adding a formal university policy on the subject.  If you have a written policy putting everyone on notice, it is a lot easier sell that the termination is about violation of MU's faculty handbook and not about the underlying viewpoints. 

[mu-rara]

That makes no sense.  There is no reason to gin something up against McAdams.  He's harmless and he's old.  The negative press they are getting for dismissing him has been way worse than anything he did previously.

Who ever said Marquette PR was smart or effective?

[Blue Horseshoe]

How many times would you let him do it before you fired him?

(I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking).

According to McAdams blog, MU has been inconsistent about students names being published. In short, Marquette likes when faculty praise students by name but are reluctant to show a critical viewpoint.

Incredibly weak propaganda type coverage is embarrassing and should be discouraged, not encouraged by MU.

Blog post:

Publishing Student Names

Holz continues:
You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts.
This is simply untrue. Only once did any university official (Provost John Pauly) tell us not to make any blog posts about students. (Actually, he said it was fine to commend students, but we should not criticize student activities – essentially demanding biased journalism.)

We blogged about this, and made it clear to Pauly that he had no right to tell us what to blog about. This was in 2011, and we continued to blog about student activities. Pauly let us alone, which we interpreted as meaning that he knew he had no authority to censor our blog.

Holz cited another case, but mangled the details:
In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name.
In fact, if we recall correctly, it was a faculty member who contacted us, soon after the post went up (nobody in the Communications School or at the Tribune responded to our earlier inquiries). She convinced us that the student in question was not in fact responsible for the failure of the Tribune to run the ad (contrary to what we had been told by Wisconsin Right to Life), and we were happy to delete the student’s name.

But the issue was not “mentioning students’ names,” it was the actions of this particular student.  Nobody told us we could “not mention student names” in this case.

Interestingly, this past fall, Holz explicitly told us that one of our posts that mentioned two students’ names was not an issue. We had been summoned to his office on the basis of a student complaint which he would not explain. (It turned out that the president of the Palestinian Student Association claimed to feel “intimidated” when we tried to interview him about “Israeli Apartheid Week” which his organization, and three offices at Marquette, sponsored.)

We asked Holz whether the meeting was about a post we had made regarding a meeting between Marquette officials and a student group who wanted to boycott Palermo’s Pizza. We sent him the link to the post. He replied that it was “not the issue.”

So a post where we named two student activists was not an “issue.” But then all of a sudden a post naming a student instructor becomes the issue when Marquette wants to get rid of a professor who causes controversy.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Let's assume that McAdams really had been warned about using students' names on his blog twice (the details on these prior incidents is unclear at this point).  I think after the second or third offense, when it became obvious the issue wasn't being resolved informally, I would go through the process of adding a formal university policy on the subject.  If you have a written policy putting everyone on notice, it is a lot easier sell that the termination is about violation of MU's faculty handbook and not about the underlying viewpoints. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but are you saying that if it were in the handbook, you'd be 100% okay with what MU is doing?

Is MU supposed to rewrite the handbook just to include specific language for McAdams infractions? You think he's not going to freak out about that? He'll argue that they are singling him out because of his views.

If McAdams was appropriately warned (in writing) more than once, then I'm not sure what else MU can do. (SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE)

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

According to McAdams blog, MU has been inconsistent about students names being published. In short, Marquette likes when faculty praise students by name but are reluctant to show a critical viewpoint.

Incredibly weak propaganda type coverage is embarrassing and should be discouraged, not encouraged by MU.

Blog post:

Publishing Student Names

Holz continues:
You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts.
This is simply untrue. Only once did any university official (Provost John Pauly) tell us not to make any blog posts about students. (Actually, he said it was fine to commend students, but we should not criticize student activities – essentially demanding biased journalism.)

We blogged about this, and made it clear to Pauly that he had no right to tell us what to blog about. This was in 2011, and we continued to blog about student activities. Pauly let us alone, which we interpreted as meaning that he knew he had no authority to censor our blog.

Holz cited another case, but mangled the details:
In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name.
In fact, if we recall correctly, it was a faculty member who contacted us, soon after the post went up (nobody in the Communications School or at the Tribune responded to our earlier inquiries). She convinced us that the student in question was not in fact responsible for the failure of the Tribune to run the ad (contrary to what we had been told by Wisconsin Right to Life), and we were happy to delete the student’s name.

But the issue was not “mentioning students’ names,” it was the actions of this particular student.  Nobody told us we could “not mention student names” in this case.

Interestingly, this past fall, Holz explicitly told us that one of our posts that mentioned two students’ names was not an issue. We had been summoned to his office on the basis of a student complaint which he would not explain. (It turned out that the president of the Palestinian Student Association claimed to feel “intimidated” when we tried to interview him about “Israeli Apartheid Week” which his organization, and three offices at Marquette, sponsored.)

We asked Holz whether the meeting was about a post we had made regarding a meeting between Marquette officials and a student group who wanted to boycott Palermo’s Pizza. We sent him the link to the post. He replied that it was “not the issue.”

So a post where we named two student activists was not an “issue.” But then all of a sudden a post naming a student instructor becomes the issue when Marquette wants to get rid of a professor who causes controversy.

Ya, so for the record, I have no idea how these warnings have been issued. If they were informal, or vague, then sure, McAdams has a case. He can play the Costanza card: "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?".

If the warnings and consequences were issued clearly and and documented, then he's likely f*cked.

[GGGG]

Ya, so for the record, I have no idea how these warnings have been issued. If they were informal, or vague, then sure, McAdams has a case. He can play the Costanza card: "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?".

If the warnings and consequences were issued clearly and and documented, then he's likely f*cked.

Yep.  Really it is all about how McAdams "acknowledged" the issue before.

[GGGG]

So simultaneously they set your cited standard for handling issues of academic freedom on campus and their application of that standard to the current situation is non-credible? Interesting take.

Well, I would argue that they are not applying their own standards correctly.  But that's just my opinion.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but are you saying that if it were in the handbook, you'd be 100% okay with what MU is doing?

Is MU supposed to rewrite the handbook just to include specific language for McAdams infractions? You think he's not going to freak out about that? He'll argue that they are singling him out because of his views.

If McAdams was appropriately warned (in writing) more than once, then I'm not sure what else MU can do. (SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE)

Yes, if MU thinks publishing student's names is a serious enough offense to warrant dismissing a tenured professor then they should make that clear in writing for the world to see, not trot it out as some type of mysterious unwritten policy used to justify its actions ex post. 

If McAdams freaks out about the written policy, whatever, its not a big deal, no one would listen to his gripes.  What is a big deal is walking into a situation where it looks like the university is singling out a disliked professor for his political views.   

[Blue Horseshoe]

Well, I would argue that they are not applying their own standards correctly.  But that's just my opinion.

This is definitely part of McAdams case.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yes, if MU thinks publishing student's names is a serious enough offense to warrant dismissing a tenured professor then they should make that clear in writing for the world to see, not trot it out as some type of mysterious unwritten policy used to justify its actions ex post.  

If McAdams freaks out about the written policy, whatever, its not a big deal, no one would listen to his gripes.  What is a big deal is walking into a situation where it looks like the university is singling out a disliked professor for his political views.  

Fair enough.

I'd argue that revising the handbook would have been met with the same type of speculation about a certain professor with political views. "They are just doing this to run out McAdams" or "They just revised the handbook last year, and now they are using it to run out McAdams!"

But, your point is still well made... if it's important enough to lose your job over it, it's important enough to document it. Again, my guess is that MU THINKS they have it documented well enough.

We'll see if they do.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Fair enough.

I'd argue that revising the handbook would have been met with the same type of speculation about a certain professor with political views. "They are just doing this to run out McAdams" or "They just revised the handbook last year, and now they are using it to run out McAdams!"

But, your point is still well made... if it's important enough to lose your job over it, it's important enough to document it. Again, my guess is that MU THINKS they have it documented well enough.

We'll see if they do.

I think Marquette does not want to make public how some people in power feel in private. Marquette already has a broad (laughable) harassment policy. I believe that certain people at Marquette are willing to do anything to remove McAdams. Changing the rules in the middle of the game does not matter, the end justifies the means.

[GGGG]

I think Marquette does not want to make public how some people in power feel in private. Marquette already has a broad (laughable) harassment policy. I believe that certain people at Marquette are willing to do anything to remove McAdams. Changing the rules in the middle of the game does not matter, the end justifies the means.

See this is where I disagree.  I think Marquette wishes the entire thing never occurred. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

See this is where I disagree.  I think Marquette wishes the entire thing never occurred. 

In November, a number of department chairs signed a letter denouncing McAdams actions. These individuals in particular are using this situation as an excuse to apply pressure to the university to get rid of McAdams.

Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

In November, a number of department chairs signed a letter denouncing McAdams actions. These individuals in particular are using this situation as an excuse to apply pressure to the university to get rid of McAdams.

Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology

Where are you getting all of this? McAdams?

[ChicosBailBonds]

In November, a number of department chairs signed a letter denouncing McAdams actions. These individuals in particular are using this situation as an excuse to apply pressure to the university to get rid of McAdams.

Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology

As a reminder from the Washington Post....looks like most of the list.






Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."