Scholarship table
Webster's defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (emphasis mine)Non-rhetorical question:Is denying a group of people a legal right based solely on their sexual orientation qualify as discrimination, or even irrational discrimination?If so, I would think, then being against gay marriage does at least meet the dictionary definition of being homophobic.
as i am sure many of you here on this board, myself included, have long traditions here at marquette, i am really getting more and more disappointed with this administration specifically and higher education in general. i thought liberalism, political correctness and all that goes with it had plateaued. not gone away because that would be denying opposing views. but, the activism and power to truth has really bummed me out. example-the ever expanding definition of harassment and people claiming to be offended by something. it's like an intellectual game of whac-a-mole.
This is one of the best things I've seen written on the issue. Very fair take.http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/12/behaving-badly-at-marquette-university
Yeah I can go with most of that. I still am not sure about the outlines of the harassment policy and what it entails however.
John McAdams, the Marquette University associate professor whose public criticism of a teaching assistant ignited a firestorm, has not been suspended, the university clarified in a statement Thursday."He is under review. He has been relieved of his teaching duties and other faculty duties," the statement said. "His salary and benefits will continue during the course of the review." Asked to clarify what would constitute a suspension, spokesman Brian Dorrington said: "Our definition of suspension is without pay."Dorrington said he could not comment on specifics of a personnel matter under review, but he responded to general questions about whether certain types of conduct could prompt a professor to be relieved of duties."Under faculty conduct rules, a professor cannot be relieved of teaching duties for voicing an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class. A professor also cannot be relieved of teaching duties for having a viewpoint contrary to the university's position on a moral issue," Dorrington responded."We want to emphasize that all of our graduate student teaching assistants are students first. As students, they are learning their craft and it is our expectation that they are mentored and supported by our faculty," Dorrington said. "The university has clearly outlined rules of conduct, specifically as they relate to the faculty-student relationship."Under the General Conduct section of the Employee Handbook, Dorrington said, "the rules state that behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a student is considered a violation of accepted policy and practice. The handbook also states that employees are encouraged to call attention to concerns by discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor."McAdams said in a blog post Tuesday that he wasn't given specifics for why he was relieved of his duties while under review, and that he has secured an attorney. "Whether Marquette officials really want to punish us for blogging, or whether they simply feel the need for a pro forma 'investigation' of charges someone has brought, we don't know. Either would be gross misconduct on the part of Marquette officials."
Down 1 w 5 seconds left. Doable.
I especially like the point about calling out the student by name and potentially ruining her academic career. I think he could have made his point without naming her explicitly.
this could get expen$ive...i mean really really expen$$$ive.
Not at all. If he has a case (and I don't think he has a case at all) his maximum compensation based on precedent at other universities would be about 1.5 years salary.
I would counter that age and experience is irrelevant. Lt William Calley didn't get a pass on My Lai because he was 24 years old. He was rightfully convicted because he was brutally incompetent and responsible for the crime. Unfortunately, in a deeply politically divided America, William Calley's were being given responsibility they would not otherwise have been entrusted with. While the system shared responsibility (that is another discussion) Calley was correctly held accountable.If Cheryl Abbate is given authority she must also accept the attendant responsibility. The absence of which is defined as tyranny.
yes, that to, butlet's not forget about the crowd on the sidelines. i'm pretty sure there are alumni on both side of this issue watching to see how marquette handles this. it could make the difference between writing that check you have always been procrastinanting. or having a good year and feeling benevolent and then...wondering what direction marquette chooses to go.
Mods, while I would completely understand if you had locked this thread up seven posts in, I applaud you for letting it run its course.
Which is why Marquette should have gotten ahead of it and continues to demonstrate it has no idea how to handle these situations given that they released a statement to clarify that McAdams wasn't, ya know, suspended suspended.....he's just paid to not do anything while they review what happened......No reason to make that statement, now it's just created more fodder for the newspaper to report....OHHHHH prof is suspended but he's not suspended but he says he's suspended, must be a conspiracy lets keep reporting!!!! MU was sloppy getting to this point and has now exacerbated the issue. Hopefully they figure it out because I'd rather not have a "scandal" as stupid as this 9 months into Lovell's presidency and dampen all the enthusiasm that has created.
McAdams was on Fox News this morning.http://video.foxnews.com/v/3952209069001/marquette-university-professor-suspended-over-blog/?#sp=show-clips
What a crock.First of all, the Fox host mislabels her as a "professor." Second, McAdams calls her an "instructor," which is true but doesn't correct the initial mistake. Third, the Fox guy said that the Catholic Church "runs" the University. That isn't accurate.Why I hate the media and its slanted views (on either side.)
i agree-with little pieces of fact sprinkled in with a perceived agenda doesn't bode well for anyone. although i lean toward fox, they should have made this scoop thread required reading before going on the air with mcadams-that would have been more fair n balanced. the last thing we need is a reputable outlet steering this thing to one side or the other. it(the subject at hand) should define itself based on the "rest of the story" and the chips will fall where they should fall if everyone is honest rather than guided by agendas, money and self interest and oh yeah, money?