MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Pakuni on March 24, 2016, 12:24:45 PM
-
So, a decision has been made, but it doesn't say exactly what that decision is ... though I'm guessing bad news for McAdams.
https://news.marquette.edu/message-from-president-michael-r-lovell-to-the-marquette-community-march-24-2016/
-
Strategically released during spring break on the day before Good Friday.
-
" I can assure you that my decision has been guided by Marquette University’s values and is solely based on Professor McAdams’ actions, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog."
That says to me that he's been fired.
-
Let's bring on the lawsuit. Depositions of professors should be fun.
-
I hope McAdams fries Marquette.
-
I hope McAdams fries Marquette.
Oh stop, you're better than that Keefe. She was a students and that's honestly the long and short of the argument. I don't like Marquette for a lot of things but this is actually one thing I'm very proud of the university for doing.
-
Let's bring on the lawsuit. Depositions of professors should be fun.
I'll be fascinated to see how the lawsuit plays out.
-
Suspended through the Fall 2016 semester- http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-suspends-john-mcadams-through-the-fall-2016-semester-b99694030z1-373420291.html
-
Suspended through the Fall 2016 semester- http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-suspends-john-mcadams-through-the-fall-2016-semester-b99694030z1-373420291.html
Seems like the kind of reasonable compromise sure to upset both sides.
-
Seems like the kind of reasonable compromise sure to upset both sides.
I'm glad Marquette finally went with the smart response over the knee-jerk politically-correct one. I'm guessing McAdams will still sue, but his case just got a lot weaker.
-
So he wasn't fired. MU backs down \ compromises. I like the compromise, more importantly I like that he sticks around. It was absurd.
Everyone likes to define winners and losers here. I feel McAdams wins for sure. It will be interesting to see if he is stubborn about it. I'd take it and scream victory.
For MU, good compromise...they have less egg on their face here in my opinion. Pragmatic, common sense. I wouldn't say they come out losers on this, but not winners....instead, maybe even a bit compassionate.
I'd also be curious to hear what some of the students and professors that pushed so hard for him to be fired have to say.
-
Oh stop, you're better than that Keefe. She was a students and that's honestly the long and short of the argument. I don't like Marquette for a lot of things but this is actually one thing I'm very proud of the university for doing.
The compromise is the best possible end game.
My issue is not about the specifics of the McAdams case but the process and precedent it would set.
Forget about the TA/Student question and judge this on the strategic import. That is the issue.
A great man named houwarrior once wrote, "I disapprove of what Chico says but I defend to the death his right to say it!"
I think a French philosopher picked up on that and used it in Paris.
-
I'm glad Marquette finally went with the smart response over the knee-jerk politically-correct one. I'm guessing McAdams will still sue, but his case just got a lot weaker.
This whole issue had nothing to do with "political correctness." So tired of people using that as some sort of debate-ending crutch.
It had to do with his actions toward a student. I'm not going to rehash that debate because it has been done to death. Marquette followed its procedures and this is where it lead. My guess is that McAdams will sue, and they might come to some sort of an agreement and that's fine.
-
But will he apologize?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/25/marquette-suspends-controversial-faculty-blogger-requires-him-apologize?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=dba6c2ff11-DNU20160325&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-dba6c2ff11-197412001
-
Everyone likes to define winners and losers here. I feel McAdams wins for sure. It will be interesting to see if he is stubborn about it. I'd take it and scream victory.
No real winners in this situation.
The loser is the graduate student who was publicly bullied by a tenured faculty member who should know better.
McAdams is lucky. If he still has the gall to not issue an apology (which he is required to do or face termination), and then sue MU over this compromise, I will have lost any remaining shred of respect for him as a human being.
-
But will he apologize?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/25/marquette-suspends-controversial-faculty-blogger-requires-him-apologize?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=dba6c2ff11-DNU20160325&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-dba6c2ff11-197412001
This changes things....I hope he sues.
-
"While the university's announcement said that the punishment imposed on McAdams was the recommendation of a faculty panel, the lawyer for McAdams said that the faculty panel never recommended a required apology. (A spokesman for Marquette declined to answer questions on whether the apology was in fact imposed by President Michael Lovell and was not based on a faculty panel's report.)"
Just follow the damn procedure. Lovell is being stupid here.
-
So the punishment is fair without the apology? If the compromise/punishment is ok why would an acknowledgement of what he is being punished for take it from a don't sue to a litigious situation?
-
So the punishment is fair without the apology? If the compromise/punishment is ok why would an acknowledgement of what he is being punished for take it from a don't sue to a litigious situation?
Because the punishment was determined within the bounds of the procedures that Marquette has established. Adding on a meaningless, and obviously forced apology serves no real purpose other than giving him an avenue to sue. It simply isn't necessary.
-
Because the punishment was determined within the bounds of the procedures that Marquette has established. Adding on a meaningless, and obviously forced apology serves no real purpose other than giving him an avenue to sue. It simply isn't necessary.
Got it. I just read it as Lovell staying true to what he stated from the beginning that this was about fostering a faculty environment true to the MU values. Maybe this is his way to ensure that all his employees understand he is serious.
I didn't realize this triggers what you say - but - maybe that is his point and he is willing to go the distance to ensure his message is clear to all.
-
Because the punishment was determined within the bounds of the procedures that Marquette has established. Adding on a meaningless, and obviously forced apology serves no real purpose other than giving him an avenue to sue. It simply isn't necessary.
+1
-
Got it. I just read it as Lovell staying true to what he stated from the beginning that this was about fostering a faculty environment true to the MU values. Maybe this is his way to ensure that all his employees understand he is serious.
I didn't realize this triggers what you say - but - maybe that is his point and he is willing to go the distance to ensure his message is clear to all.
Maybe. And maybe he has the authority to add on provisions like this. But I just think its time for MU to move on. They made their point, they got their pound of flesh...
-
Maybe. And maybe he has the authority to add on provisions like this. But I just think its time for MU to move on. They made their point, they got their pound of flesh...
Agree -- you could turn it around too and ask what a persons true motivations are if he will sue over an apology to some grad student.
-
This whole issue had nothing to do with "political correctness." So tired of people using that as some sort of debate-ending crutch.
It had to do with his actions toward a student. I'm not going to rehash that debate because it has been done to death. Marquette followed its procedures and this is where it lead. My guess is that McAdams will sue, and they might come to some sort of an agreement and that's fine.
Perhaps I don't understand the dual status of teacher and student and how that negates authority and concomitant responsibility. I come from a world where chain of command and authority are unambiguous and absolute. If you have the authority you also carry the responsibility.
People say she was a student but, in fact, the issue at hand occurred when she was serving in her capacity as an instructor. And it specifically involved her interaction as the instructor of a student.
McAdams was not commenting on her classroom performance as a student but, rather, how she used her authority as an instructor.
-
No real winners in this situation.
The loser is the graduate student who was publicly bullied by a tenured faculty member who should know better.
McAdams is lucky. If he still has the gall to not issue an apology (which he is required to do or face termination), and then sue MU over this compromise, I will have lost any remaining shred of respect for him as a human being.
What about the undergraduate student who was bullied publicly by this instructor? A person given authority must accept the attendant responsibility.
-
Perhaps I don't understand the dual status of teacher and student and how that negates authority and concomitant responsibility. I come from a world where chain of command and authority are unambiguous and absolute. If you have the authority you also carry the responsibility.
People say she was a student but, in fact, the issue at hand occurred when she was serving in her capacity as an instructor. And it specifically involved her interaction as the instructor of a student.
McAdams was not commenting on her classroom performance as a student but, rather, how she used her authority as an instructor.
She is a graduate student. That is her status. She isn't faculty member. She isn't even an non-faculty academic staff hired to teach a class. She is teaching as part of her financial package to attend the University. (Does that legally make her an employee? I assume so.)
In a University setting, faculty members are supposed to mentor students - even graduate students who are teaching. Not call them out on their blog. (And to do so wrecklessly BTW.)
That's why I am insistent that this isn't a "political correctness" issue.
-
keefe,
you raise some interesting points here. no doubt her performance as an instructor was worthy of correction by her superiors. of course john wasn't in that chain of command.
tell me. in a military situation let's say your commanding officer orders you to take a certain hill. then on the battlefield some other officer redirects your mission based on the situation at hand. your commanding officer simply can't be reached or is somehow outside the immediate loop. what's your obligation?
-
She was a student AND teacher. Paid \ compensated \ financial package to teach in addition to study. To me, this is important and my argument from day one. She was not merely a student.
-
She was a student AND teacher. Paid \ compensated \ financial package to teach in addition to study. To me, this is important and my argument from day one. She was not merely a student.
She is a student. A graduate student who teaches, but a student. Not only by Marquette's status, but by the status that the academy uses and has used for decades.
This isn't a debatable point. Graduate students can teach...but they are still students. Just like undergraduate students can be hired to tutor...but they are still students.
-
She is a student. A graduate student who teaches, but a student. Not only by Marquette's status, but by the status that the academy uses and has used for decades.
This isn't a debatable point. Graduate students can teach...but they are still students. Just like undergraduate students can be hired to tutor...but they are still students.
Put someone in charge of a class- full professor, adjunct, grad student, Freeway- and that person is in charge of the class. Now, the professor serving as the advisor to the grad student might have some responsibility here, but at the end of the day, the grad student is the one assigning work, grading tests and papers and leading class discussion. The Buck stops there.
-
keefe,
you raise some interesting points here. no doubt her performance as an instructor was worthy of correction by her superiors. of course john wasn't in that chain of command.
tell me. in a military situation let's say your commanding officer orders you to take a certain hill. then on the battlefield some other officer redirects your mission based on the situation at hand. your commanding officer simply can't be reached or is somehow outside the immediate loop. what's your obligation?
Well, that is a very dry scenario in that there are many variables that would likely factor into the decision-making process. But using your scenario it would break down into two branches:
1. If the officer doing the redirect is subordinate to the same Commander who issued the original order then you follow.
2. If the officer is NOT in the chain of command then you have the right to exercise your best judgment.
Rank is one thing but chain of command is another. The military makes chain of command crystal clear through the use of OpOrds that spell out who is in overall command, who are the subordinated units, what are what is the objective, etc...
So if a party of TACPs embedded with a Ranger team are directed in an OpOrd to provide direct support for a ground maneuver force a Navy admiral could not simply redirect the team to another mission simply because he has seniority.
Extrapolating from this, McAdams had no authority over the grad student (not in her chain of command) and therefore could not discipline her for job performance. But McAdams was not disciplining her as he had no authority to do so.
It would have been particularly reprehensible had he commented publicly on a paper she wrote or research findings she presented as a student.
But McAdams was not commenting on her qualities as a student. He was commenting specifically about how she treated the undergraduate student, over whom she had grading authority, while performing her duties as an instructor.
People want to say she is a student but she is also an instructor.
Could McAdams have handled it better? Yes.
Should McAdams be disciplined for what he said? I honestly do not know but my esteem for Thomas Jefferson suggests not.
The irony is that while some would seek to politicize this case the fact is that both liberals and conservatives are coming down hard on Marquette for this incident. This has been terrible for McAdams in the near term but the longer term damage to Marquette is far greater.
-
Put someone in charge of a class- full professor, adjunct, grad student, Freeway- and that person is in charge of the class. Now, the professor serving as the advisor to the grad student might have some responsibility here, but at the end of the day, the grad student is the one assigning work, grading tests and papers and leading class discussion. The Buck stops there.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. She clearly is responsible for how she teaches. She clearly can be judged and have her teaching skills evaluated. She isn't above reproach.
What I am talking about is how McAdams handled the situation. He was wrong to call her out on his blog. It is his role as a faculty member, even if he isn't her supervisor, to mentor her. He failed.
-
Put someone in charge of a class- full professor, adjunct, grad student, Freeway- and that person is in charge of the class. Now, the professor serving as the advisor to the grad student might have some responsibility here, but at the end of the day, the grad student is the one assigning work, grading tests and papers and leading class discussion. The Buck stops there.
Not really, if you know anything about how academia works.
-
Well, that is a very dry scenario in that there are many variables that would likely factor into the decision-making process. But using your scenario it would break down into two branches:
1. If the officer doing the redirect is subordinate to the same Commander who issued the original order then you follow.
2. If the officer is NOT in the chain of command then you have the right to exercise your best judgment.
Rank is one thing but chain of command is another. The military makes chain of command crystal clear through the use of OpOrds that spell out who is in overall command, who are the subordinated units, what are what is the objective, etc...
So if a party of TACPs embedded with a Ranger team are directed in an OpOrd to provide direct support for a ground maneuver force a Navy admiral could not simply redirect the team to another mission simply because he has seniority.
Extrapolating from this, McAdams had no authority over the grad student (not in her chain of command) and therefore could not discipline her for job performance. But McAdams was not disciplining her as he had no authority to do so.
It would have been particularly reprehensible had he commented publicly on a paper she wrote or research findings she presented as a student.
But McAdams was not commenting on her qualities as a student. He was commenting specifically about how she treated the undergraduate student, over whom she had grading authority, while performing her duties as an instructor.
People want to say she is a student but she is also an instructor.
Could McAdams have handled it better? Yes.
Should McAdams be disciplined for what he said? I honestly do not know but my esteem for Thomas Jefferson suggests not.
The irony is that while some would seek to politicize this case the fact is that both liberals and conservatives are coming down hard on Marquette for this incident. This has been terrible for McAdams in the near term but the longer term damage to Marquette is far greater.
See, this is good stuff and I think I agree with some of what you say here. I am in agreement that 'chain of command' trumps 'rank', even in a business setting.
Let's say I run a department and have asked my subordinate to fulfill some objective. My colleague in another department doesn't have the right to direct my subordinate to do something different even if he/she 'outranks' me. The exception to this would be someone above me in my direct reporting chain. And even then any decent boss would have the courtesy to call me, etc. I'd argue that a totally unrelated 'officer' redirecting my employee would be subject to disciplinary action if the situation were serious enough.
Well, okay. So does this 'unrelated officer' get to comment very publicly about the performance of my particular subordinate? Or would that be totally out of line? From where I sit it's totally out of line and McAdams is therefore worthy of sanction. We can debate what that sanction should be.
One more thing, this academic freedom argument is a complete red herring. In my view nobody's academic freedom was in any way compromised. Academic freedom in no way allows a professor to scream fire in a theater.
-
No real winners in this situation.
The loser is the graduate student who was publicly bullied by a tenured faculty member who should know better.
McAdams is lucky. If he still has the gall to not issue an apology (which he is required to do or face termination), and then sue MU over this compromise, I will have lost any remaining shred of respect for him as a human being.
+1.
-
I was a TA at Marquette. My butt would have been in a sling from my supervising professor if I had treated an undergrad as did the TA in this situation.
From what I understand, the undergrad tried to take their complaint through the appropriate department and was rebuffed, he then took his case to McAdams.
From my perspective, if the department had taken care of the issue at its level, then McAdams would have had no reason to make a ruckus out of it.
I am more concerned about problems within a whole department than I am about a single professor with an internet following. Marquette should be also.
-
This is an embarrassing commentary by the (former) Marquette student body. Just, wow...This isn't a free speech issue like you all say. He can say whatever he wants, and did. However, he has to accept the possible punishment by his employers if he crosses a line, which he obviously did. I stand with Lovell's original decision. Fire the man.
-
This is an embarrassing commentary by the (former) Marquette student body. Just, wow...This isn't a free speech issue like you all say. He can say whatever he wants, and did. However, he has to accept the possible punishment by his employers if he crosses a line, which he obviously did. I stand with Lovell's original decision. Fire the man.
One can think that McAdams was wrong and that the university as a whole and a certain department in particular is also wrong.
-
I was a TA at Marquette. My butt would have been in a sling from my supervising professor if I had treated an undergrad as did the TA in this situation.
From what I understand, the undergrad tried to take their complaint through the appropriate department and was rebuffed, he then took his case to McAdams.
From my perspective, if the department had taken care of the issue at its level, then McAdams would have had no reason to make a ruckus out of it.
I am more concerned about problems within a whole department than I am about a single professor with an internet following. Marquette should be also.
It was clearly a kid just trying to stir things up. Good for her for realizing it and trying to move on from the discussion when it wasn't going to go anywhere productive. Keep in mind that the kid dropped the class not because he felt his rights were violated, but because, by his own admission, he was rightfully receiving a failing grade in the class.
-
+1.
The real loser was the undergrad who lost their freedom to express an on-point and valid view in classroom setting.
-
It was clearly a kid just trying to stir things up. Good for her for realizing it and trying to move on from the discussion when it wasn't going to go anywhere productive. Keep in mind that the kid dropped the class not because he felt his rights were violated, but because, by his own admission, he was rightfully receiving a failing grade in the class.
I also was a teacher in a public school before I was at Marquette and their are different and far and far more effective ways to shut things down than the way taken by that TA.
-
This is an embarrassing commentary by the (former) Marquette student body. Just, wow...This isn't a free speech issue like you all say. He can say whatever he wants, and did. However, he has to accept the possible punishment by his employers if he crosses a line, which he obviously did. I stand with Lovell's original decision. Fire the man.
Marquette has procedures in place for the review of tenured faculty dismissal. Lovell can't just "fire the man" without going through these procedures.
-
I was a TA at Marquette. My butt would have been in a sling from my supervising professor if I had treated an undergrad as did the TA in this situation.
From what I understand, the undergrad tried to take their complaint through the appropriate department and was rebuffed, he then took his case to McAdams.
From my perspective, if the department had taken care of the issue at its level, then McAdams would have had no reason to make a ruckus out of it.
I am more concerned about problems within a whole department than I am about a single professor with an internet following. Marquette should be also.
McAdams had a reason and a right to "make a ruckus." He exceeded the appropriateness of how he made that ruckus.
-
The real loser was the undergrad who lost their freedom to express an on-point and valid view in classroom setting.
(http://image.blingee.com/images19/content/output/000/000/000/7bc/797421732_1200263.gif)
-
I also was a teacher in a public school before I was at Marquette and their are different and far and far more effective ways to shut things down than the way taken by that TA.
I have no doubt that's true, but again, this is a TA. This is not a trained professor. To be honest I haven't really read into her, but my guess is that she has no real training in the education field like teachers and professors do. She probably does not have her teaching license. Etc. As has been said, mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.
-
The real loser was the undergrad who lost their freedom to express an on-point and valid view in classroom setting.
The teacher didn't think it was either on-point or valid. That is her right.
It was how she handled it afterwards that was a problem.
-
I have no doubt that's true, but again, this is a TA. This is not a trained professor. To be honest I haven't really read into her, but my guess is that she has no real training in the education field like teachers and professors do. She probably does not have her teaching license. Etc. As has been said, mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.
Professors don't have much, if any, formal training in teaching in a classroom.
-
See, this is good stuff and I think I agree with some of what you say here. I am in agreement that 'chain of command' trumps 'rank', even in a business setting.
Let's say I run a department and have asked my subordinate to fulfill some objective. My colleague in another department doesn't have the right to direct my subordinate to do something different even if he/she 'outranks' me. The exception to this would be someone above me in my direct reporting chain. And even then any decent boss would have the courtesy to call me, etc. I'd argue that a totally unrelated 'officer' redirecting my employee would be subject to disciplinary action if the situation were serious enough.
Well, okay. So does this 'unrelated officer' get to comment very publicly about the performance of my particular subordinate? Or would that be totally out of line? From where I sit it's totally out of line and McAdams is therefore worthy of sanction. We can debate what that sanction should be.
One more thing, this academic freedom argument is a complete red herring. In my view nobody's academic freedom was in any way compromised. Academic freedom in no way allows a professor to scream fire in a theater.
Glow,
Don't get me wrong: I believe McAdams exercised profoundly poor judgment in writing what he did. I think we both agree on that.
And I also believe we agree that the TA was wrong in how she addressed the student in her class. Furthermore, there is little doubt Marquette has the right to discipline McAdams per the employment agreement.
The real question is should Marquette discipline McAdams for what he did and in the manner in which they disciplined him?
When I was a squadron commander at Al Asad an NCO behaved incorrectly over the phone with an Air Force Colonel who was a non-flyer comms officer who had something to do with the IT backbone in Iraq. The Colonel had called directly into my squadron and was giving orders to this enlisted man over whom he had no operational or tactical control. The NCO, after repeatedly asking the Colonel to go through proper channels, finally swore at the Colonel.
I happened to be out flying when this took place but it was clearly something that needed to be addressed, even though we were fighting a war, because the Colonel was raising hell about it. When I got the Colonel on the line, at the time I was a Lt Col, he was demanding to know how I was going to discipline the NCO.
I told him directly that was my business and that I would indeed handle it correctly. But I told the Col that the only thing I wanted to talk to him about was why he felt he could violate chain of command and reach into my squadron and start giving orders which he had no authority to do. I told him the real issue here was not about the behavior of the NCO but of the Colonel.
He hung up on me and I immediately called the Wing Commander (a Brig Gen) and briefed him about the matter. The Col indeed got a hold of the Wing King who later told me that he put the Col in his place.
If the NCO is the TA and exercised poor judgment then the squadron commander (her academic advisor) has the responsibility for exercising disciplinary action against her.
If McAdams is the Colonel he had no business getting mixed up in the squadron's chain of command. The Colonel should have never been on the phone with my NCO in the same way McAdams should not have been involved with the classroom matter in question.
The Wing Commander had every right to bring the Colonel up on charges. The Colonel violated the UCMJ in a couple ways. Instead, the Brig Gen took the Col aside and told him to stay out of his Wing's business. I am certain that if that Col so much as farted in any of the hangars there would have been repercussions.
It grieves me that my alma mater, an institution my wife and I have held dear, is once more thrust into the national spotlight.
I don't think we disagree that McAdams was wrong. I think the real loser in all of this is Marquette. McAdams will fade away soon enough - he has got to be in his 70s. But the whole nation will have this incident in the back of its collective mind. That is the real issue here.
-
I have no doubt that's true, but again, this is a TA. This is not a trained professor. To be honest I haven't really read into her, but my guess is that she has no real training in the education field like teachers and professors do. She probably does not have her teaching license. Etc. As has been said, mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.
mentoring her was the responsibility of the professors in her department.
-
I think very few people outside the MU community actually know or care about this, despite McAdams' petulant hissy fits on Fox News
-
mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.
I agree. But does McAdams have the right to publish his thoughts on a private internet journal?
-
Glow,
Don't get me wrong: I believe McAdams exercised profoundly poor judgment in writing what he did. I think we both agree on that.
And I also believe we agree that the TA was wrong in how she addressed the student in her class. Furthermore, there is little doubt Marquette has the right to discipline McAdams per the employment agreement.
The real question is should Marquette discipline McAdams for what he did and in the manner in which they disciplined him?
When I was a squadron commander at Al Asad an NCO behaved incorrectly over the phone with an Air Force Colonel who was a non-flyer comms officer who had something to do with the IT backbone in Iraq. The Colonel had called directly into my squadron and was giving orders to this enlisted man over whom he had no operational or tactical control. The NCO, after repeatedly asking the Colonel to go through proper channels, finally swore at the Colonel.
I happened to be out flying when this took place but it was clearly something that needed to be addressed, even though we were fighting a war, because the Colonel was raising hell about it. When I got the Colonel on the line, at the time I was a Lt Col, he was demanding to know how I was going to discipline the NCO.
I told him directly that was my business and that I would indeed handle it correctly. But I told the Col that the only thing I wanted to talk to him about was why he felt he could violate chain of command and reach into my squadron and start giving orders which he had no authority to do. I told him the real issue here was not about the behavior of the NCO but of the Colonel.
He hung up on me and I immediately called the Wing Commander (a Brig Gen) and briefed him about the matter. The Col indeed got a hold of the Wing King who later told me that he put the Col in his place.
If the NCO is the TA and exercised poor judgment then the squadron commander (her academic advisor) has the responsibility for exercising disciplinary action against her.
If McAdams is the Colonel he had no business getting mixed up in the squadron's chain of command. The Colonel should have never been on the phone with my NCO in the same way McAdams should not have been involved with the classroom matter in question.
The Wing Commander had every right to bring the Colonel up on charges. The Colonel violated the UCMJ in a couple ways. Instead, the Brig Gen took the Col aside and told him to stay out of his Wing's business. I am certain that if that Col so much as farted in any of the hangars there would have been repercussions.
It grieves me that my alma mater, an institution my wife and I have held dear, is once more thrust into the national spotlight.
I don't think we disagree that McAdams was wrong. I think the real loser in all of this is Marquette. McAdams will fade away soon enough - he has got to be in his 70s. But the whole nation will have this incident in the back of its collective mind. That is the real issue here.
Correct. But you left out the part where the NCO's first sergeant (or whatever you blue people call them) conducts some remedial training.
-
I agree. But does McAdams have the right to publish his thoughts on a private internet journal?
If you spend 30 seconds looking at his blog, you can very clearly see McAdams' audience is not just himself. It is his own soapbox for which he attempts to play Socratic gadfly to Marquette. It is not a private journal by any stretch of the imagination.
-
mentoring her was the responsibility of the professors in her department.
So then maybe McAdams should aim his rants towards the professors in her department?
-
mentoring her was the responsibility of the professors in her department.
Oh OK. I agree with this. But this is where McAdams was reckless. Instead of respecting that, and going through his process, he went straight to his blog to call her out.
According to the Marquette's letter...
"You posted this story on the Internet (1) without speaking with Ms. Abbate or getting her permission to use her name; (2) without contacting the Chair of Ms. Abbate's Department (who had met twice with the undergraduate student) to get her perspective or express your concerns; (3) without contacting anyone in the College of Arts & Sciences to get their perspective or express your concerns; (4) without contacting anyone in the Office of the Provost to raise concerns that you believed had been ignored at the Department or College level; (5) without describing what had happened in the very next class following the one you wrote about--when Ms. Abbate discussed and addressed the student's objection (without identifying him); and (6) without even reporting fully or accurately what the student had disclosed to (and concealed from) others in the University about these events."
-
Correct. But you left out the part where the NCO's first sergeant (or whatever you blue people call them) conducts some remedial training.
Oh, trust me. The Shirt and the Squadron Command Chief were out on the ramp waiting for me when I taxied in. And from the looks on their faces I knew they weren't there to ask me about my thoughts on Paris Hilton's latest antics.
The USAF comes out of the old Army Horse Cavalry - the original units traded in their horses for canvas covered bi-planes. Our heraldry, customs, and traditions go back to the Civil War cavalry. We refer to our First Sergeant as the First Shirt or, more commonly, The Shirt.
And in this matter, while I recommended the course of action, the actual remedial training was executed by The Shirt under the Chief's discerning eye. And let me report that the NCO in question was the most squared away mother effer in the Air Force for his remaining time in the unit.
I leave some of the military minutiae details out when relating there I was tales to long haired, flag burning, dope smoking, cheese burger eating civilian types like Glow, Chico, and 4ever!
-
I agree. But does McAdams have the right to publish his thoughts on a private internet journal?
You can do whatever you want. No one will put him in jail.
What would happen to you at Microsoft if you did the same thing.
-
You can do whatever you want. No one will put him in jail.
What would happen to you at Microsoft if you did the same thing.
Microsoft is an absolutely terrible example because it is like the Wild West. Different business units are in direct competition with each other because that is the Darwinian Model Bill Gates wants.
But this is an excellent example, too, because Softies can and do blog on everything and can even be rewarded for blogging to the world that the emperor has no clothes.
Different cultures have unique norms. Seattle tech is largely defined by openness, self-examination, and public shaming. Behavior such as that exhibited by McAdams is not just expected but encouraged.
Hell, Microsoft has Gold Star Awards (no kidding) and McAdams likely would have collected more than few for his outspokenness.
-
Microsoft is an absolutely terrible example because it is like the Wild West. Different business units are in direct competition with each other because that is the Darwinian Model Bill Gates wants.
But this is an excellent example, too, because Softies can and do blog on everything and can even be rewarded for blogging to the world that the emperor has no clothes.
Different cultures have unique norms. Seattle tech is largely defined by openness, self-examination, and public shaming. Behavior such as that exhibited by McAdams is not just expected but encouraged.
Hell, Microsoft has Gold Star Awards (no kidding) and McAdams likely would have collected more than few for his outspokenness.
Ha I should have said GE. I didn't think about the open cultures of tech. I would personally have been fired in The organizations I have worked for.
This is my last point. The guy effectively went after an intern publicly. Organizationally that is a problem. Can you imagine a senior leader doing that in a company?
-
And in this matter, while I recommended the course of action, the actual remedial training was executed by The Shirt under the Chief's discerning eye. And let me report that the NCO in question was the most squared away mother effer in the Air Force for his remaining time in the unit.
I was a first sergeant before my officer lobotomy so I find this to be excellent news.
-
I was a first sergeant before my officer lobotomy so I find this to be excellent news.
A good shirt is worth his weight in good single malt. If a squadron is running smoothly I guarantee The Shirt is 4.0
-
All three (undergrad, TA, and McAdams) acted outside of their respective dictated behaviors as such each should be "punished" per the violations of their expected behaviors and the punishments should be whatever is codified in Marquette's policies and procedures.
Where Marquette(to be fair it happens to a lot of organizations) gets into trouble is they back emotion into their decision and that tends to influence decisions to be indefensible from a policy and procedure standpoint.
Bottom line, if a public policy is written into the rules and regulations, then expect that of McAdams and if he doesn't do it follow through with whatever the policy is after that. If a public apology is not codified then DON'T ASK FOR IT.
Man, adults can act like babies sometimes :)
-
All three (undergrad, TA, and McAdams) acted outside of their respective dictated behaviors as such each should be "punished" per the violations of their expected behaviors and the punishments should be whatever is codified in Marquette's policies and procedures.
Where Marquette(to be fair it happens to a lot of organizations) gets into trouble is they back emotion into their decision and that tends to influence decisions to be indefensible from a policy and procedure standpoint.
Bottom line, if a public policy is written into the rules and regulations, then expect that of McAdams and if he doesn't do it follow through with whatever the policy is after that. If a public apology is not codified then DON'T ASK FOR IT.
Man, adults can act like babies sometimes :)
We need to be honest - Fellow academics have had a hard-on for McAdams. I recall reading how the Department then the College handled this and it was not entirely objective. Professionals stick to the merits of the matter and not the feelings they have for the individual. Clearly, there was a lack of propriety throughout the Marquette faculty in this.
Marquette needs to understand that alumni and the general public are watching. I have three alma maters and my wife has a fourth. I have given to all but Marquette in recent years.
edit: My concern is that Marquette has been a vortex of upheaval, uncertainty, and controversy in recent years. And frankly, I am still on the fence about Lovell. Poor hires, bad decisions, and general bone-headedness gives me significant pause.
Marquette is a great institution and it has been a bedrock component of our lives for decades. But it really needs to get its head out of its a$$. The overall strategic management of the university as an enterprise has been substandard for many years.
-
We need to be honest - Fellow academics have had a hard-on for McAdams. I recall reading how the Department then the College handled this and it was not entirely objective. Professionals stick to the merits of the matter and not the feelings they have for the individual. Clearly, there was a lack of propriety throughout the Marquette faculty in this.
Marquette needs to understand that alumni and the general public are watching. I have three alma maters and my wife has a fourth. I have given to all but Marquette in recent years.
edit: My concern is that Marquette has been a vortex of upheaval, uncertainty, and controversy in recent years. And frankly, I am still on the fence about Lovell. Poor hires, bad decisions, and general bone-headedness gives me significant pause.
Marquette is a great institution and it has been a bedrock component of our lives for decades. But it really needs to get its head out of its a$$. The overall strategic management of the university as an enterprise has been substandard for many years.
I don't have an opinion on Lovell, but I thought Fr. Wild ran this university near-flawlessly during his tenure, when you think about where it was when he came on board.
-
Ha I should have said GE. I didn't think about the open cultures of tech. I would personally have been fired in The organizations I have worked for.
This is my last point. The guy effectively went after an intern publicly. Organizationally that is a problem. Can you imagine a senior leader doing that in a company?
I thought going after interns is a good thing.....
-
I think very few people outside the MU community actually know or care about this, despite McAdams' petulant hissy fits on Fox News
Agree. I am far out of Milwaukee, and the only place this has popped up on my radar is here on Scoop.
That said, reading this thread and the other McAdams thread, I don't understand the logic of folks defending McAdams by pointing at the Grad Student/TA.
As many have pointed out, there is plenty of blame to go around. The question is on the appropriate punishment.
As for the Grad Student/TA, I believe she has already received her punishment for her share of the blame:
She was publically called out on the blog
She received a ton of unwanted publicity
She ended up deciding to leave MU
It was brought up on cable news
She apparently did have some counseling from her MU supervisors after the incident, because she did re-raise the issue the next time class was held. Further details of any counseling/punishment cannot be discussed by MU
Is that enough punishment for her?
If so, I believe it is a distraction to defend McAdams by pointing to her. She received her punishment. Whether she should be punished or not is immaterial to his punishment. She has already been punished.
If however, you believe her punishment is pertinent to McAdams punishment, then I think the appropriate question is: Given her punishment, what is appropriate for McAdams?
-
Not really, if you know anything about how academia works.
Luckily, I live and work in the real world.
-
Luckily, I live and work in the real world.
:D
-
I don't have an opinion on Lovell, but I thought Fr. Wild ran this university near-flawlessly during his tenure, when you think about where it was when he came on board.
Fr Wild did a solid job running Marquette but it was hardly flawless. If his only mistake was Jodi O'Brien that would be bad enough. But unfortunately O'Brien wasn't his only lapse. And that one alone made me ashamed of my alma mater.
-
I really enjoy chatting with you keefe. I can't easily read all this on my phone but will as time permits. I'm sure you thoroughly enjoyed that Col getting his butt tanned.
-
She is a student. A graduate student who teaches, but a student. Not only by Marquette's status, but by the status that the academy uses and has used for decades.
This isn't a debatable point. Graduate students can teach...but they are still students. Just like undergraduate students can be hired to tutor...but they are still students.
So one student (the teacher who is not a teacher) can deny a student in the same class from speaking freely? I will no longer make donations to MU if this is their policy.
-
There are two interactions at the heart of this controversy.
1) the interaction between instructor and an undergraduate. Instructors have the right to control the flow and direction of discussion in their classroom. This has always been true. An undergraduates right to free speech is not absolute in the classroom. You can't start talking about X when X is not on topic. It sounds like Abbate handled this interaction poorly, and it should have been a learning opportunity for her as a graduate student, but let's get real here, no one's constitutional rights were trampled.
2) the second interaction between a tenured faculty member and a graduate student. Although he was commenting on her perormance as an instructor, the relationship and power dynamic here is hardly one of equals. Mcadams was way out of line in subverting the normal protocol and calling out a graduate student on his blog.
-
So one student (the teacher who is not a teacher) can deny a student in the same class from speaking freely? I will no longer make donations to MU if this is their policy.
Read the thread. Good lord. I never said that. Not in the least.
I never said she was above reproach. I have repeatedly said that there were proper avenues for McAdams to take, and he decided not to take them.
-
There are two interactions at the heart of this controversy.
1) the interaction between instructor and an undergraduate. Instructors have the right to control the flow and direction of discussion in their classroom. This has always been true. An undergraduates right to free speech is not absolute in the classroom. You can't start talking about X when X is not on topic. It sounds like Abbate handled this interaction poorly, and it should have been a learning opportunity for her as a graduate student, but let's get real here, no one's constitutional rights were trampled.
2) the second interaction between a tenured faculty member and a graduate student. Although he was commenting on her perormance as an instructor, the relationship and power dynamic here is hardly one of equals. Mcadams was way out of line in subverting the normal protocol and calling out a graduate student on his blog.
That's about how I see it.
Now back to keefe calling me a dope smoking, flag burning civilian! I never burned a flag. Not one time.
-
There are two interactions at the heart of this controversy.
1) the interaction between instructor and an undergraduate. Instructors have the right to control the flow and direction of discussion in their classroom. This has always been true. An undergraduates right to free speech is not absolute in the classroom. You can't start talking about X when X is not on topic. It sounds like Abbate handled this interaction poorly, and it should have been a learning opportunity for her as a graduate student, but let's get real here, no one's constitutional rights were trampled.
2) the second interaction between a tenured faculty member and a graduate student. Although he was commenting on her perormance as an instructor, the relationship and power dynamic here is hardly one of equals. Mcadams was way out of line in subverting the normal protocol and calling out a graduate student on his blog.
He called out a graduate student \ instructor
-
He called out a graduate student \ instructor
MU's written policies about this are crystal clear. Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second. And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions. He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.
-
Luckily, I live and work in the real world.
Bottled water delivery will never be replaced by a robot, hey?
-
MU's written policies about this are crystal clear. Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second. And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions. He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.
That may be the case, but they are still both....whenever someone keeps saying they are ONLY students, they are being disingenious. I get what you are saying, in terms of the priority order, and that is all fine and good. But to read some comments on here you would think this person was a student only, which is wholly not the case.
-
If you spend 30 seconds looking at his blog, you can very clearly see McAdams' audience is not just himself. It is his own soapbox for which he attempts to play Socratic gadfly to Marquette. It is not a private journal by any stretch of the imagination.
Coleman
I don't disagree that his blog is his own personal corner of Hyde Park. That wasn't my point; rather, I am asking if McAdams, or any member of the Marquette community, is entitled to their own personal corner of Hyde Park.
I am a big fan of TJ. And I have to think that, as the man who founded UVA, he would want a guy like McAdams to have that piece of Hyde Park.
I don't respect what McAdams said or how he said it. But like Voltaire I respect his right to say it.And I am convinced Tom Jefferson would agree with that.
-
MU's written policies about this are crystal clear. Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second. And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions. He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.
Chick
Let's extrapolate from the McAdams case. Marquette didn't like what the man wrote in his free time on his own little piece of the interwebs. So they have taken disciplinary action against him.
Marquette hires Jodi O'Brien as its Dean of the Liberal Arts College. Then, ex post facto, they take a hard look at what she has written, legitimate academic research, and rescind their offer of employment.
I don't agree with what McAdams said or why he said it. I might not even agree with O'Brien's works (as I have not read them.)
But I am disturbed that Marquette has established a pattern of behavior that seems to circumscribe what people can and cannot say.
The real issue here is not John McAdams' actions or Jodi O'Brien's writings. It is Marquette's institutional behavior that is under scrutiny. As I have said, I have withheld giving to Marquette until I rinse the bile from all of this out of my mouth. I am concerned deeply about Marquette's behavior.
-
Chick
Let's extrapolate from the McAdams case. Marquette didn't like what the man wrote in his free time on his own little piece of the interwebs. So they have taken disciplinary action against him.
You're smarter than that. It was about what he said where he called out a graduate student teaching a class without getting all the facts. He was all about making a political point at the expense of a graduate student. A student who left Marquette because of the backlash against her. He was a bully.
This had nothing to do with "freedom of speech" so you can drop the Thomas Jefferson references.
The O'Brien stuff I agree with you on. That was the archbishop and some donors raising a stink about something. They should not have let that sway them.
-
I thought going after interns is a good thing.....
It is for some cigar smokers.
-
I really enjoy chatting with you keefe. I can't easily read all this on my phone but will as time permits. I'm sure you thoroughly enjoyed that Col getting his butt tanned.
He never spoke with me again for the balance of our time at Al Asad. I would see him occasionally in the DFAC and he would give me the stink eye which I guess he thought was going to ruin my day.
He was a non-flyer and those guys typically have a complex about pilots. He was also a fat boy and had jowls and I know that he became known within the flying Wing as "The River Pig."
-
It is for some cigar smokers.
Vaginal humidor
-
You're smarter than that. It was about what he said where he called out a graduate student teaching a class without getting all the facts. He was all about making a political point at the expense of a graduate student. A student who left Marquette because of the backlash against her. He was a bully.
This had nothing to do with "freedom of speech" so you can drop the Thomas Jefferson references.
The O'Brien stuff I agree with you on. That was the archbishop and some donors raising a stink about something. They should not have let that sway them.
I won't drop the Jefferson references because this is very much a question of liberty.
Let me ask where that line is? If I am with GE and I have a blog in which I rant and rave about nuclear power, coal power, or diesel - major customers of GE Power Systems - could GE fire me for cause?
As I said - I do not agree with the content of what McAdams did or how he did it. That isn't the issue. The real issue is whether or not an employer has the right to terminate an employee for speaking their mind anywhere outside of the workplace.
If McAdams went to a bar and railed about this issue could be be fired for that? If he got a soapbox out in Speaker's Corner and said the same thing verbatim could he be terminated?
We agree that the O'Brien case is egregious. Frankly, it is the only time I have been ashamed of my Marquette diploma.
So, how is the O'Brien case different than the McAdams matter? In my mind they are inextricably connected. And I hate how I feel about Marquette for that.
-
If I went online and criticized a student in a public forum, while naming the student, I would be disciplined. If I did the same with a co-worker, I would be disciplined. You would too.
If we did it at a bar, and someone recorded it and sent it to our supervisors, we would be disciplined. If either of us did it repeatedly, we would be fired.
-
If I went online and criticized a student in a public forum, while naming the student, I would be disciplined. If I did the same with a co-worker, I would be disciplined. You would too.
If we did it at a bar, and someone recorded it and sent it to our supervisors, we would be disciplined. If either of us did it repeatedly, we would be fired.
You didn't answer the question about how the McAdams case is different from O'Brien's.
We agree that what McAdams said and did was inappropriate. We agree that Marquette's handling of the O'Brien hire was egregious.
But how are the two different?
I will tell you this - GE could not and would not discipline me or try to terminate me for posting my personal thoughts on line. The hook GE has is the Spirit and Intent Compliance Policy but that does not prevent me nor does it give GE the right to terminate me for doing what McAdams did.
What they would do is make my professional life a living hell through a series of subtle mechanisms that would frustrate me to the point I would say enough and pull the ejection handle. GE is much too clever, more wealthy, and far more patient than any single individual employee.
Marquette could have played this very differently. Fact is they did not.
-
You didn't answer the question about how the McAdams case is different from O'Brien's.
We agree that what McAdams said and did was inappropriate. We agree that Marquette's handling of the O'Brien hire was egregious.
But how are the two different?
McAdams dealt with a workplace violation. One that he was warned about previously. O'Brien's did not.
-
McAdams dealt with a workplace violation. One that he was warned about previously. O'Brien's did not.
McAdams wrote something on the interwebs from the sanctity of his own home through his own router from his personal box.
I was a GE Cap employee when Gary Wendt was Cap's Chairman. If I am sitting in my home and accessing the interwebs through a personal device and posted on a blog that Wendt was an incompetent fool GE would not fire me. They would make my life difficult but they could not have fired me.
If I was sitting in my Shibuya office on the GE network and did the same they would discipline me - not for writing what I did - but for a misuse of corporate property.
Perhaps there is a difference between rules of governance between the corporate world and academia. But I will assert that GE Cap would not fire an employee for posting what McAdams did on a personal blog.
Again, you have not explained the difference between the O'Brien case and the McAdams matter. You are trying to differentiate on context. The question is were they not both the target of adverse actions by Marquette for what they wrote?
-
I have answered your question as to why they are different. You simply don't accept my response.
-
" I think the real loser in all of this is Marquette. McAdams will fade away soon enough - he has got to be in his 70s. But the whole nation will have this incident in the back of its collective mind. That is the real issue here."
keep in mind, the rest of the nation only has bits and pieces of the info that we are talking about. one side that wants to believe MU will do so based on their filters and the other side will do the same. in the end, MU looks out of line because in order to take sides with the university, you need to understand the nuances we are discussing. it's easier and more succinct to question why/how MU fired a tenured professor over a freedom of speech issue. therefore, unless MU wants to put forth a vigorous PR campaign, mccadams wins
-
I have answered your question as to why they are different. You simply don't accept my response.
And you did not answer my question.
Both McAdams and O'Brien were the subject of an adverse employment action by Marquette University. Marquette took that action because of what each of those persons wrote outside of Marquette University.
O'Brien's work did not mention Marquette University (as far as I know) but McAdams' did. But as I pointed out, a GE Cap employee doing the same thing could not be disciplined. More importantly, GE Cap would never try to discipline an employee for that. GE is much too clever and savvy to handle it in the way Marquette University did.
Here is the irony: Marquette had every right to rescind its job offer to O'Brien without so much as a by your leave. McAdams case against Marquette is the stronger of the two, actually.
So, how do you differentiate between the two cases?
-
O'Brien did nothing wrong.
McAdams did.
-
" I think the real loser in all of this is Marquette. McAdams will fade away soon enough - he has got to be in his 70s. But the whole nation will have this incident in the back of its collective mind. That is the real issue here."
keep in mind, the rest of the nation only has bits and pieces of the info that we are talking about. one side that wants to believe MU will do so based on their filters and the other side will do the same. in the end, MU looks out of line because in order to take sides with the university, you need to understand the nuances we are discussing. it's easier and more succinct to question why/how MU fired a tenured professor over a freedom of speech issue. therefore, unless MU wants to put forth a vigorous PR campaign, mccadams wins
People here have lobbed spears suggesting I have taken up in defense of what McAdams said and the manner in which he did it. I am not. I do not like what he did or how he did it.
My point is that Marquette mishandled the O'Brien and McAdams cases. Mishandled them badly. And at the end of the day Marquette ends up as the loser because, as you point out correctly, people do not know or care about the nuances.
Marquette University took adverse action against two employees and created a spectacle in doing so. Both events have reflected terribly on our alma mater.
I hope McAdams sues because employers cannot target people for speaking their minds, however reprehensible the message. And hopefully Marquette will use this as a teaching moment that will guide future decision making.
-
O'Brien did nothing wrong.
McAdams did.
What did McAdams do that was "wrong?"
-
What did McAdams do that was "wrong?"
I have explained my POV on this issue countless times. You don't agree with me. No need to rehash.
-
I hope McAdams sues because employers cannot target people for speaking their minds, however reprehensible the message. And hopefully Marquette will use this as a teaching moment that will guide future decision making.
Please cite your source here, Keefe. It is my understanding that unless it is legally protected activity such as unionizing or whistleblowing, an employer can most certainly punish an employee for speaking negatively about the company or other employees in a public forum.
-
Please cite your source here, Keefe. It is my understanding that unless it is legally protected activity such as unionizing or whistleblowing, an employer can most certainly punish an employee for speaking negatively about the company or other employees in a public forum.
I was the COO for a GE Cap biz in Japan. The Compliance team reported in to me. GE employees are governed by the GE Spirit & Intent program.
If a GE employee stands on the sidewalk outside Mark City in Shibuya (or anywhere else in the world including Fairfield) and bad mouths the company, Jack Welch, Jeff Immelt, or Thomas Edison you can't fire him.
But if on company time he uses the GE network and GE assets to surf smut, post on a personal blog, or troll on MU Scoop one can take disciplinary action - NOT for what he posts on a personal blog or MU Scoop but for misusing corporate assets and for dicking off on duty.
The only content you can hammer someone for is if they disclose trade secrets, corporate IP, communications considered internal, etc...
Guy writing in a personal blog that Jeff Immelt is a prick can not be subject to adverse personnel action. Guy writing in a personal blog that GE Power is signing a deal with Genesis Energy will get fired.
McAdams expressed an opinion. He did not disclose any trade secrets or cause irreparable competitive disadvantage to the enterprise. GE would not and should not fire a person for speaking their mind.
I would invite you to look into the range of social media around the Microsoft, Amazon, f5, etc... ecosystems and look at what is said there. What McAdams did was nothing compared to what the tech industry not only expects but actively encourages.
This reminds me of when I was with GE in Japan. In those pre-Scoop days, after the Dodds coup d'etat that toppled Mike Juno, I used to surf Dodds' site during the work day in Tokyo. I would post irreverent comments, especially about Tanned Tommy, which drove Dodds and Uncle John crazy.
Dodds would no sooner ban me than I would come back under a different nom d'guerre. This triggered rampant speculation, especially from that idiot Uncle John, who surmised that I was some guy working the third shift in a utility based on the times I was posting (mid-day in Tokyo, of course) and the fact that the network had electric in its name (I guess Uncle Johnny never heard of General Electric...)
Back to your question: GE could have disciplined me for surfing Dodds' site during work hours. They could not discipline me for anything I wrote but that I misused assets and was clearly screwing off during work hours.
-
I have answered your question as to why they are different. You simply don't accept my response.
Actually, your response is obtuse and oblique. I expected greater intellectual courage from you, Sultan. You are normally more willing to engage in healthy discourse.
-
I was the COO for a GE Cap biz in Japan. The Compliance team reported in to me. GE employees are governed by the GE Spirit & Intent program.
If a GE employee stands on the sidewalk outside Mark City in Shibuya (or anywhere else in the world including Fairfield) and bad mouths the company, Jack Welch, Jeff Immelt, or Thomas Edison you can't fire him.
But if on company time he uses the GE network and GE assets to surf smut, post on a personal blog, or troll on MU Scoop one can take disciplinary action - NOT for what he posts on a personal blog or MU Scoop but for misusing corporate assets and for dicking off on duty.
The only content you can hammer someone for is if they disclose trade secrets, corporate IP, communications considered internal, etc...
Guy writing in a personal blog that Jeff Immelt is a prick can not be subject to adverse personnel action. Guy writing in a personal blog that GE Power is signing a deal with Genesis Energy will get fired.
McAdams expressed an opinion. He did not disclose any trade secrets or cause irreparable competitive disadvantage to the enterprise. GE would not and should not fire a person for speaking their mind.
I would invite you to look into the range of social media around the Microsoft, Amazon, f5, etc... ecosystems and look at what is said there. What McAdams did was nothing compared to what the tech industry not only expects but actively encourages.
This reminds me of when I was with GE in Japan. In those pre-Scoop days, after the Dodds coup d'etat that toppled Mike Juno, I used to surf Dodds' site during the work day in Tokyo. I would post irreverent comments, especially about Tanned Tommy, which drove Dodds and Uncle John crazy.
Dodds would no sooner ban me than I would come back under a different nom d'guerre. This triggered rampant speculation, especially from that idiot Uncle John, who surmised that I was some guy working the third shift in a utility based on the times I was posting (mid-day in Tokyo, of course) and the fact that the network had electric in its name (I guess Uncle Johnny never heard of General Electric...)
Back to your question: GE could have disciplined me for surfing Dodds' site during work hours. They could not discipline me for anything I wrote but that I misused assets and was clearly screwing off during work hours.
If I spoke badly of my employer in a public forum, I'd be terminated the day my employer found out.
I imagine that's the case for many, many people
-
If I spoke badly of my employer in a public forum, I'd be terminated the day my employer found out.
I imagine that's the case for many, many people
You might get fired but I guaran-goddam-tee it won't be for speaking badly of your employer.
I don't know who your employer is but they have multiple mechanisms for getting rid of you. It won't be for bad mouthing the company, however.
Washington state is an at will jurisdiction but employers still need to be meticulous in documenting performance issues, attempts at remediation, etc... At will is a splendid concept but people can and do seek relief through the courts and no company wants to go through that.
When MSFT gets rid of a person they go overboard to give a poor performing cast off an overly generous severance. Except in cases of explicit malfeasance or gross misconduct they give more than they should just to make the problem child disappear.
-
Actually, your response is obtuse and oblique. I expected greater intellectual courage from you, Sultan. You are normally more willing to engage in healthy discourse.
Well I'm sorry to disappoint. If you go back into this thread, and about a half dozen others on the same topic, you will find my argument. I'm not going to continue to rehash it.
-
MU's written policies about this are crystal clear. Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second. And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions. He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.
Which by definition should not give one student the right to ban, limit discussion in the class room by another student because they think it is "offensive." I am sure this practice would have continued or maybe still does despite this incident becoming public. The next question is will McAdams be replaced with a like minded professor. I am not holding my breath on that one.
-
Which by definition should not give one student the right to ban, limit discussion in the class room by another student because they think it is "offensive." I am sure this practice would have continued or maybe still does despite this incident becoming public. The next question is will McAdams be replaced with a like minded professor. I am not holding my breath on that one.
???
The graduate assistant gets to determine how the class functions under the guidance of their supervisor. Otherwise what you are promoting is a complete free for all.
Furthermore the point isn't what the student gets to do in front of the classroom. The point is that McAdams didn't do what he should have done. He behaved recklessly, and Abatte was harmed by his behavior.
-
Well I'm sorry to disappoint. If you go back into this thread, and about a half dozen others on the same topic, you will find my argument. I'm not going to continue to rehash it.
I would say that you are starting from a false premise.
I recast the construct to present a different perspective. I thought you were more open.
It could be that academia, the world you have been in since age 18, is just a different beast.
I do not agree with what McAdams did but I think there is a trail of misconduct and poor judgment throughout Marquette on this. The only real end game is that it is another PR disaster for Marquette.
-
The only real end game is that it is another PR disaster for Marquette.
This. Regardless of which side you land on with respect to the merits of McAdams behavior, the University mishandled the PR.
-
This. Regardless of which side you land on with respect to the merits of McAdams behavior, the University mishandled the PR.
Perhaps it's time to unchain The Zizzo Group to sort out this PR mess...
-
Here's my problem. It's not just this one instance. McAdams and publicly ridiculed other professors and admin on his blog as well. Good for Lovell taking action, wish he would have just fired him cause he's a clown but at least something happened.
-
Here's my problem. It's not just this one instance. McAdams and publicly ridiculed other professors and admin on his blog as well. Good for Lovell taking action, wish he would have just fired him cause he's a clown but at least something happened.
I don't know academia and its arcane rules and I also have no idea about his employment contract.
But here is the bottom line: Marquette University took adverse personnel actions against Jodi O'Brien and John McAdams for things they wrote on their own time.
Whether or not you agree with what they wrote is not the issue. Their right to express themselves is at the heart of this.
GE employees are expected to aide by the provisions set forth in the corporate Spirit & Letter program. Blogging from home about Jack Wlech, Gary Wendt, or Jeff Immelt will not get you fired. Nor should it.
-
I don't know academia and its arcane rules and I also have no idea about his employment contract.
But here is the bottom line: Marquette University took adverse personnel actions against Jodi O'Brien and John McAdams for things they wrote on their own time.
Whether or not you agree with what they wrote is not the issue. Their right to express themselves is at the heart of this.
GE employees are expected to aide by the provisions set forth in the corporate Spirit & Letter program. Blogging from home about Jack Wlech, Gary Wendt, or Jeff Immelt will not get you fired. Nor should it.
I work very closely with (though not within) the office of ethics at a major Fortune 500 company and doing what mcadams did towards a company superior or colleague would certainly get you an official warning on the first offense, and probably fired on the second.
-
"He behaved recklessly, and Abatte was harmed by his behavior."
was she really? she had the backing of the administration. yes, i realize that she had some "blow-back" from the mccadams supporters, but hey, what a nice teaching moment. strap on the big boy pants and rock n roll. we are all going to face some criticism throughout life, especially those who want to lead. if she was in the right, nothing to worry about
-
GE employees are expected to aide by the provisions set forth in the corporate Spirit & Letter program. Blogging from home about Jack Wlech, Gary Wendt, or Jeff Immelt will not get you fired. Nor should it.
Keefe,
I don't know how long it has been since you worked for GE, but all of the companies I have been associated with in the last several years have very recently updated their employee handbooks regarding online behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if GE's policies have also been changed or clarified since the last time you checked.
Also, McAdams wasn't criticizing the Jack Welch of Marquette. He excoriated the equivalent of an intern whose personal safety was affected as a result. He did it after he had been admonished for similar behavior in the past. It's not apples to apples.
-
Keefe,
I don't know how long it has been since you worked for GE, but all of the companies I have been associated with in the last several years have very recently updated their employee handbooks regarding online behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if GE's policies have also been changed or clarified since the last time you checked.
Also, McAdams wasn't criticizing the Jack Welch of Marquette. He excoriated the equivalent of an intern whose personal safety was affected as a result. He did it after he had been admonished for similar behavior in the past. It's not apples to apples.
I was last with GE in Singapore in the aughts so they might very well have updated the Spirit & Letter program in the meantime.
But with GE Edison Life/GE Asset Management Japan the Compliance team reported to me and the policy was clear - you cannot take adverse action against an employee for written or verbal correspondence unless it disclosed proprietary information or trade secrets, violated the rights of a protected category, or was deemed hostile in a threatening way.
It did not permit adverse action against an employee saying Jack Welch, their supervisor, or the tea lady was incompetent, had bad breath, or that you just didn't like them.
We are modeling our employee handbook after the MSFT, f5, and Getty Images models and I know all of these cultures allow significant latitude in communication (Our COO was the CTO of Getty, our CIO was an EVP at MSFT, our CFO was the CFO of Getty, and our HR head was an SVP at f5 Networks.) I have the handbooks from each of those three companies and, like GE, they are very specific in what they won't accept and blogging is not within their purview.
Here is my perspective: Seattle and San Jose are the epicenters of technical innovation and creativity. Corporate cultures here facilitate artistic freedom and intellectual investigation. Putting restrictions on discourse inhibits expression. Cruise through the MSFT, Google, and Apple ecosystems and you will see Darwinian struggles for intellectual supremacy and curated excellence.
I know you are back in Chicago - perhaps the Midwest has a different attitude about how corporate cultures should be. Because in Seattle, corporate officers wear fleece, shorts and flip flops, staff ride Cannondales to work, and there is an insistence on openness, candor, critical evaluation, and a no holds barred attitude toward intellectual discourse and staff engagement.
We have pin ball machines, pool tables, and xBox mosh pits in the office. Pearl Jam plays in the common areas where lunches are provided every day and there are reach in coolers stocked with dozens of different drinks. And when both our engineering and dev teams gather to work they employ Agile methodologies including Kanban and Scrum processes which are ferocious tests of will designed to build out applications through a vigorous dialectic process where the weak are marginalized and fall by the wayside.
Seattle generates more disruptive technology across a range of verticals and will generate more wealth off of that innovation than will Chicago which is three times the size. I would argue that we ditched the suits and enabled personal freedoms that have unleashed the creative energy that continues to alter the way we work, play, think, and produce.
What McAdams did was in poor taste and ill advised. He would not have been disciplined by GE. Getty, MSFT, and f5 would not do anything about him blogging what he did from home.
-
I was last with GE in Singapore in the aughts so they might very well have updated the Spirit & Letter program in the meantime.
But with GE Edison Life/GE Asset Management Japan the Compliance team reported to me and the policy was clear - you cannot take adverse action against an employee for written or verbal correspondence unless it disclosed proprietary information or trade secrets, violated the rights of a protected category, or was deemed hostile in a threatening way.
It did not permit adverse action against an employee saying Jack Welch, their supervisor, or the tea lady was incompetent, had bad breath, or that you just didn't like them.
We are modeling our employee handbook after the MSFT, f5, and Getty Images models and I know all of these cultures allow significant latitude in communication (Our COO was the CTO of Getty, our CIO was an EVP at MSFT, our CFO was the CFO of Getty, and our HR head was an SVP at f5 Networks.) I have the handbooks from each of those three companies and, like GE, they are very specific in what they won't accept and blogging is not within their purview.
Here is my perspective: Seattle and San Jose are the epicenters of technical innovation and creativity. Corporate cultures here facilitate artistic freedom and intellectual investigation. Putting restrictions on discourse inhibits expression. Cruise through the MSFT, Google, and Apple ecosystems and you will see Darwinian struggles for intellectual supremacy and curated excellence.
I know you are back in Chicago - perhaps the Midwest has a different attitude about how corporate cultures should be. Because in Seattle, corporate officers wear fleece, shorts and flip flops, staff ride Cannondales to work, and there is an insistence on openness, candor, critical evaluation, and a no holds barred attitude toward intellectual discourse and staff engagement.
We have pin ball machines, pool tables, and xBox mosh pits in the office. Pearl Jam plays in the common areas where lunches are provided every day and there are reach in coolers stocked with dozens of different drinks. And when both our engineering and dev teams gather to work they employ Agile methodologies including Kanban and Scrum processes which are ferocious tests of will designed to build out applications through a vigorous dialectic process where the weak are marginalized and fall by the wayside.
Seattle generates more disruptive technology across a range of verticals and will generate more wealth off of that innovation than will Chicago which is three times the size. I would argue that we ditched the suits and enabled personal freedoms that have unleashed the creative energy that continues to alter the way we work, play, think, and produce.
What McAdams did was in poor taste and ill advised. He would not have been disciplined by GE. Getty, MSFT, and f5 would not do anything about him blogging what he did from home.
And people working 22 hours a day existing on cocaine. Count me out. Never wanted it, never will. I coached youth soccer instead. And raised 2 great kids.
-
And people working 22 hours a day existing on cocaine. Count me out. Never wanted it, never will. I coached youth soccer instead. And raised 2 great kids.
Personally, I have never, ever seen that nor do I know anyone who does. But that legend is out there...
If we wish to compare notes on addiction:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-chicago-has-worst-heroin-problem-in-us/
-
When hell freezes over
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4801/Embattled-Marquette-Professor-Will-Apologize-%E2%80%98When-Hell-Freezes-Over%E2%80%99.aspx
-
When hell freezes over
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4801/Embattled-Marquette-Professor-Will-Apologize-%E2%80%98When-Hell-Freezes-Over%E2%80%99.aspx
Some of what Lovell is proposing is not as bad as I thought. Expressing regret for harm caused to the TA seems OK to me.
I must say, while he is clearly an enthusiastic guy. Lovell seems to enjoy attention as much, if not more, than McAdams.
-
I must say, while he is clearly an enthusiastic guy. Lovell seems to enjoy attention as much, if not more, than McAdams.
I think that's because we have become so conditioned to a guy like Wild who did substantive work, but he was usually behind the scenes.
Lovell is much more in the mold of a modern university President.
-
When hell freezes over
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4801/Embattled-Marquette-Professor-Will-Apologize-%E2%80%98When-Hell-Freezes-Over%E2%80%99.aspx
and MU, with it's "lay authority" now in place, continue to not only continue to step in it, but are now rolling around and soiling themselves in the process. note how they've "progressed" from fr.s raynor( the last true warrior)-diulio-wilde-pilarz-wilde-lovell, the stage has been set; does lovell have to take the same vow of poverty? sorry, i digress. you can't tell me there are some in this administration that are wincing real hard at what has become of this once "proud" jesuit, catholic institution of higher learning. i know there are many alumni included, that do not recognize this school as the one they've once attended.
it's funny, not in a ha-ha way, but weird how they viewed dr. daniel mcguire's teachings back in the day. note the form letter they wrote, probably due to the hundreds if not more of complaints they received for his "stuff".
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2012/02/dan-maguire-just-short-step-from.html
they exihibited a tolerance back then, with the veins in their foreheads pulsated with anger; the same should be shown with prof. mccadams, sans the hemorrhagic petechia-EIN'a? yes, i hear it coming already, dr. mccadams strayed outside the boundaries of academia to attack a "student" personally, blah blah...well my friends, i think doc mcguire just plum tuckered them out. maybe dr. mccadams put his toe on the line. but MU has POUNCED and they just will not let go. they are letting out all their pent up aggression built up over the years of having to bite their tongue. finally with patience wearing thin and a LAY president in place, the stage had been set and they've sprung; now they just can't help themselves.
in their latest demands on dr mccadams, they think they've reached a compromise. it's their way of saying, o.k., we can acknowledge our wrongs(which in their mind are few to none) now you dr. mccadams must do your part and then they might be able to hold their nose and lie in wait for mccadams to "cross THEIR line" again. MU thinks it's taking the high road, offering the "olive branch"(for those of you from rio linda-sorry for the religious reference, but that means piece, umm, i mean peace) ya see with more and more lay people in charge, this is easy. this is the way academia is moving, sectarian or not, but mostly not. so now, MU is trying to tell dr. mccadams with a proverbial gun(once again i apologize for the violent reference which MU would never approve of) to his head to say he's sorry. ya know, one has to admire him for sticking to his principles. he could do a head fake and walk right into MU's trap and enslave himself to them as many others have in this bastion of what they call themselves "an institution of higher learning". the PC people have everyone walking around like automatons, in constant fear of HR and the PC police; sadly, they have now ensnared MU. curious to see how this would play out if prof. mccadams were wearing taqiyah instead of a brewers hat...dr. mccadams would just really be a peaceful fella, AYN'a hey fellas?
-
I love it when, without a hint of irony, people claim others are "automatons" yet parrot one another's phrases like "PC police."
-
Some of what Lovell is proposing is not as bad as I thought. Expressing regret for harm caused to the TA seems OK to me.
I must say, while he is clearly an enthusiastic guy. Lovell seems to enjoy attention as much, if not more, than McAdams.
You nailed my reservations about Lovell. I think he will do a fine job; my concerns center around style.
Wild did an excellent job but his public personae was very different than what he employed behind the scenes. Anyone who thinks that Bob Wild was the jovial parish priest running the CYO has an incorrect understanding of the man's personality.
One of my other alma maters appointed a new university President recently and I have that unique perspective of watching two men settle into similar roles. Michigan named Dr. Mark Schissel as its President in 2014. His style is markedly different than Lovell's and, frankly, I much prefer Schissel's approach.
Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash. Schissel brings the gravitas of an accomplished scholar to the role of senior executive. I much prefer the latter over the former. There is something to be said for the understated and letting accomplishment stand on its own merit.
http://umich.edu/announcements/new-president/
-
Lovell is by pretty much any definition, "an accomplished scholar."
-
Lovell is by pretty much any definition, "an accomplished scholar."
You are being obtuse as I never said he was not.
Lovell craves the limelight and throws a lot of flash into his messaging. I contrast that with the style of Schissel whose approach to his role is fundamentally different.
The Puerto Rican pointed out correctly how Lovell is a showman.
I know members of the Bok family and they have given me insight into a transition in the management of Harvard Corporation. Lawrence Summers is an accomplished scholar but he was too much the showman for the college. Summers "left" Harvard and Bok came back, a la Bob Wild II, until Drew Gilpin Faust was named as President.
I am watching how Schissel and Lovell are settling into their roles and I much prefer Schissel's Derek Bok over Lovell's Lawrence Summers.
-
You are being obtuse as I never said he was not.
This is what you wrote:
"Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash. Schissel brings the gravitas of an accomplished scholar to the role of senior executive. I much prefer the latter over the former."
You were clearly implying it. If Lovell is an accomplished scholar, why would you bring up that attribute to describe Schissel in a paragraph clearly setting out to contrast the two?
Here is my suggestion:
"While both are accomplished scholars, Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash, whereas Schissel leads in a much more reserved role away from the limelight. I much prefer the latter over the former."
You're welcome.
-
Lovell craves the limelight and throws a lot of flash into his messaging. I contrast that with the style of Schissel whose approach to his role is fundamentally different.
I can see how you got here, but having seen Lovell speak at an alumni event, I would disagree - seems very humble.
He does have a lot of big ideas and seems to find it very important to support and foster the mission of MU. Based on what he said a couple years ago its the over-riding reason he chose MU rather than going on the public university path he was on.
I agree that Wild had plenty of controversy in his tenure and I believe public 'messaging' of those controversies was one thing people criticized MU over.
At the end of the day Lovell is choosing to take a stand here...let's see how it goes.
-
This is what you wrote:
"Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash. Schissel brings the gravitas of an accomplished scholar to the role of senior executive. I much prefer the latter over the former."
You were clearly implying it. If Lovell is an accomplished scholar, why would you bring up that attribute to describe Schissel in a paragraph clearly setting out to contrast the two?
Here is my suggestion:
"While both are accomplished scholars, Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash, whereas Schissel leads in a much more reserved role away from the limelight. I much prefer the latter over the former."
You're welcome.
I am an excellent writer and stand by my phrasing: "Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash. Schissel brings the gravitas of an accomplished scholar to the role of senior executive. I much prefer the latter over the former."
Mike Lovell does things that Mark Schissel never would. These two men have different perspectives on how they wish to present themselves. I prefer Schissel's understated dignity.
From your reply I have to wonder what grade you got in logic...I got an A from Fr Davitt.
-
I can see how you got here, but having seen Lovell speak at an alumni event, I would disagree - seems very humble.
He does have a lot of big ideas and seems to find it very important to support and foster the mission of MU. Based on what he said a couple years ago its the over-riding reason he chose MU rather than going on the public university path he was on.
I agree that Wild had plenty of controversy in his tenure and I believe public 'messaging' of those controversies was one thing people criticized MU over.
At the end of the day Lovell is choosing to take a stand here...let's see how it goes.
Liquor
My comment is removed from the whole McAdams mess.
This is an observation on style. I hope Lovell does a fine job at Marquette. But he has a different style than what I would otherwise want in the leader of a university.
I have seen how a President putting himself above the institution can impact the university negatively. There is a reason Lawrence Summers is doing cameos in movies today. Marquette doesn't have the same margin for error as Harvard - and Marquette is still hurting from the Pilarz fiasco.
Frankly, I prefer the more understated approach to university leadership. There is a marked difference between Mark Schissel or Drew Gilpin Faust and Mike Lovell. With the former it is all about the institution. With the latter there is more of the individual in the messaging. I think we all know how a cult of personality can turn out.
-
I am an excellent writer and stand by my phrasing: "Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash. Schissel brings the gravitas of an accomplished scholar to the role of senior executive. I much prefer the latter over the former."
Mike Lovell does things that Mark Schissel never would. These two men have different perspectives on how they wish to present themselves. I prefer Schissel's understated dignity.
From your reply I have to wonder what grade you got in logic...I got an A from Fr Davitt.
As someone who writes and edits for a living, I think your written communication skills in this instance were far below "excellent."
Try harder next time and hopefully you will improve!
-
When hell freezes over
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4801/Embattled-Marquette-Professor-Will-Apologize-%E2%80%98When-Hell-Freezes-Over%E2%80%99.aspx
See you all in Court!
-
As someone who writes and edits for a living, I think your written communication skills in this instance were far below "excellent."
Try harder next time and hopefully you will improve!
While I may know a lot about flow dynamics and chemical kinetics I also write and speak for a living. My communications skills are superb.
Let me know if you need help with some edits!
-
So when Lovell gets the university's endowment up to heights never seen with new dorms, athletic facilities and classroom building are we still gonna be bitching about taking a stand about a professor that was clearly out of line?
Lovell has done more in 2 years then Pilarz would have done in about 20, Wild too. Also who gives a damn that he isn't a priest or taken a vow of poverty. Have you seen the new jes res with their 3 million dollar wine cellar?
-
So when Lovell gets the university's endowment up to heights never seen with new dorms, athletic facilities and classroom building are we still gonna be bitching about taking a stand about a professor that was clearly out of line?
Lovell has done more in 2 years then Pilarz would have done in about 20, Wild too. Also who gives a damn that he isn't a priest or taken a vow of poverty. Have you seen the new jes res with their 3 million dollar wine cellar?
Lovell hasn't even come close to what Wild accomplished at Marquette. And Lovell would readily admit that. If Lovell has a career that comes even close to Wild's, he would be considered TREMENDOUSLY successful.
-
Lovell hasn't even come close to what Wild accomplished at Marquette. And Lovell would readily admit that. If Lovell has a career that comes even close to Wild's, he would be considered TREMENDOUSLY successful.
On this we agree. Wholeheartedly, in fact.
-
So when Lovell gets the university's endowment up to heights never seen with new dorms, athletic facilities and classroom building are we still gonna be bitching about taking a stand about a professor that was clearly out of line?
Lovell has done more in 2 years then Pilarz would have done in about 20, Wild too. Also who gives a damn that he isn't a priest or taken a vow of poverty. Have you seen the new jes res with their 3 million dollar wine cellar?
Recency error. Lovell, while I think will accomplish a lot of good, has not even begun to approach the heights Father Wild did. I think he gets there but we're talking years from now.
-
Recency error. Lovell, while I think will accomplish a lot of good, has not even begun to approach the heights Father Wild did. I think he gets there but we're talking years from now.
I hate to think where Marquette would be were it not for Bob Wild.
After DiUlio MU could have ended up in a very different place. Was Bob Wild perfect? Of course not. But he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. Imagine if DiUlio had been succeeded by Pilarz... Good Lord...
-
I hate to think where Marquette would be were it not for Bob Wild.
After DiUlio MU could have ended up in a very different place. Was Bob Wild perfect? Of course not. But he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. Imagine if DiUlio had been succeeded by Pilarz... Good Lord...
Well we wouldn't be having this conversation because I wouldn't have gone to Marquette.....so I guess it's one of the things Wild got wrong ;)
-
Well we wouldn't be having this conversation because I wouldn't have gone to Marquette.....so I guess it's one of the things Wild got wrong ;)
Damn Bob Wild!
-
Yea...if you guys don't think the student was harmed at all, go look at Lovell's twitter account with the attached link. Cmon man, that's just awful. McAdams really hurt the students career and personal life.
-
Also, the worst part is some of these people blindly follow McAdams like some of you here. They don't even know what the girl looks like (asking for a picture) and are still pursuing making her life a living hell.
What if this happened to your daughter. You'd be pretty pissed off and want an apology too, so no more with the BS excuses.
We live in such a divided, angry and selfish country, I'm just tired of it man, just honestly so tired. It's so hard to stay mad anymore, it's just exhausting.because I will bet you any damn amount of money, if that is your daughter you want that man fired. Guaranteed.
-
https://medium.com/@marquetteu/a-call-for-decency-ea3f2efeff54#.ndfbne1x9 (https://medium.com/@marquetteu/a-call-for-decency-ea3f2efeff54#.ndfbne1x9)
Here is the link I think you are referencing
-
Lovell's little twitter outburst tonight was embarrassing.
-
I agree with his decision and I applaud Mike's willingness to speak out. Despite the fact that he was a mentor of mine 35 years ago, John has devolved to someone who is no longer a person for others. Done. Out.
-
John has devolved to someone who is no longer a person for others.
Not the case. And I have first-hand experience with how accommodating and caring of a prof he is.
-
Lovell's little twitter outburst tonight was embarrassing.
Your daughter. Now keep telling me what mcadams did was right.
-
Your daughter. Now keep telling me what mcadams did was right.
Two separate issues. It is possible to think he handled it poorly, and also think the punishment was excessive.
-
When we look at effects I have to ask: What did Lovell hope to accomplish with this message? The university handed down its decision. McAdams chose to reply.
But what was gained by Lovell's message? Did he think he could alter McAdams' position or intended course of action?
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. A more learned leader would have known that nothing more needed to be said and that nothing good could have come from this communication.
Mike Lovell lessened himself tonight.
-
Two separate issues. It is possible to think he handled it poorly, and also think the punishment was excessive.
All I'm saying is if what he did lead to the abuse this student is getting, intended or not, he should get fired. If that was my sister, he would have gotten a well deserved throat punch from me.
-
All I'm saying is if what he did lead to the abuse this student is getting, intended or not, he should get fired. If that was my sister, he would have gotten a well deserved throat punch from me.
*led
-
Not the case. And I have first-hand experience with how accommodating and caring of a prof he is.
Me too 12. Dare I say decades before you were even born.
-
Me too 12. Dare I say decades before you were even born.
Sure, but your post said he's no longer that person. What I was saying is I have recent experience with him that speaks to the opposite.
-
Sure, but your post said he's no longer that person. What I was saying is I have recent experience with him that speaks to the opposite.
Perhaps so. But if he had outed one of my kids like this I would have personally taken care of business myself. So my opinion is ironclad.
-
Perhaps so. But if he had outed one of my kids like this I would have personally taken care of business myself. So my opinion is ironclad.
Glow gets it. Based in your username MUfan12 I'm gonna assume you don't have kids. I don't either but I would be dammed if I didn't take action for my sister.
-
When we look at effects I have to ask: What did Lovell hope to accomplish with this message? The university handed down its decision. McAdams chose to reply.
But what was gained by Lovell's message? Did he think he could alter McAdams' position or intended course of action?
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. A more learned leader would have known that nothing more needed to be said and that nothing good could have come from this communication.
Mike Lovell lessened himself tonight.
Keefe, I think you're a little out of touch with the student body. Attached on the screen shot is only a sample of current marquette students praising Dr. Lovell. The school is changing, things in general have changed, people aren't standing by McAdams.
-
Glow gets it. Based in your username MUfan12 I'm gonna assume you don't have kids. I don't either but I would be dammed if I didn't take action for my sister.
So my number from HS basketball tells you if I do or don't have children. Amazing!
I do find it funny that you and glow both "get it" after talking about inflicting physical harm on a professor. I wonder what President Lovell would think of that.
-
Keefe, I think you're a little out of touch with the student body. Attached on the screen shot is only a sample of current marquette students praising Dr. Lovell. The school is changing, things in general have changed, people aren't standing by McAdams.
Chitown
My comment has nothing to do with McAdams.
Lovell should have left this alone. As the representative of Marquette University he said all that needed to be said when he issued the official finding on the matter.
Jumping back into the debate does nothing and diminishes his stature as the leader. And it undermines the finality of that decision while lending effective authority to the McAdams retort.
My criticism of Lovell has nothing to do with solidarity with John McAdams. On the contrary, it has everything to do with Michael Lovell and his judgment in responding to McAdams.
-
So my number from HS basketball
NERS!!!
-
NERS!!!
Nah, I could never dunk.
-
Chitown
My comment has nothing to do with McAdams.
Lovell should have left this alone. As the representative of Marquette University he said all that needed to be said when he issued the official finding on the matter.
Jumping back into the debate does nothing and diminishes his stature as the leader. And it undermines the finality of that decision while lending effective authority to the McAdams retort.
My criticism of Lovell has nothing to do with solidarity with John McAdams. On the contrary, it has everything to do with Michael Lovell and his judgment in responding to McAdams.
I understand that. I do feel like though people appreciate a figurehead who takes action though rather than doing nothing. Keep in mind that these students started with Pilarz running the show who was non existent. Hell, Buzz was more of a president to them. I think they appreciate being heard which was needed after the previous regime.
-
I understand that. I do feel like though people appreciate a figurehead who takes action though rather than doing nothing.
The action was already taken.
Going to social media tonight to kvetch about McAdams is a move becoming of a student. Not a university president.
-
I understand that. I do feel like though people appreciate a figurehead who takes action though rather than doing nothing. Keep in mind that these students started with Pilarz running the show who was non existent. Hell, Buzz was more of a president to them. I think they appreciate being heard which was needed after the previous regime.
The problem is Lovell had already taken action. He announced the University's official position. He then proceeded to jump into the sewer in direct response to the McAdams retort.
Lovell's re-engagement on the subject diminished the effect of his official action. Responsible, enlightened leadership exercises judgment at all times. Mike Lovell embarrassed himself as a leader tonight.
-
The problem is Lovell had already taken action. He announced the University's official position. He then proceeded to jump into the sewer in direct response to the McAdams retort.
Lovell's re-engagement on the subject diminished the effect of his official action. Responsible, enlightened leadership exercises judgment at all times. Mike Lovell embarrassed himself as a leader tonight.
I disagree with you here Crash. I have no issue with Lovell's actions on twitter, he's advocating for the university and their viewpoint, which has often has been missing from Marquette. Additionally, it's twitter...the only people that are likely paying attention to Lovell on twitter are members of the MU community and so this is about communicating within the family as to why MU is taking the stance they are and responding to McAdams childish behavior. Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%. We might have a different discussion if he was blasting press releases to the world, but he's not.
Quite frankly I think you are practicing the type of hyperbole that landed McAdams in the position he's currently in. Even if I think Lovell could have handled this differently, it is far from embarrassing. Lovell has stepped into a power vacuum at Marquette and has had to address a number of issues within the university that were not of his making and I think he has done so with energy and a steady hand. There is a lot more good currently and in the future going on at Marquette then in the previous 4 or 5 years. McAdams has acted as a bully against the TA as well as the university, I have zero issue with calling a bully out on the carpet.
-
Nah, I could never dunk.
Perhaps you're Allie, Robb, Dwight, or Derrick, then, hey?
-
Two separate issues. It is possible to think he handled it poorly, and also think the punishment was excessive.
So, let's say a school district's official policy is for bus drivers to drop kids off at their front door and watch them until they are safely inside. A particular bus driver has been caught dropping kids off at the corner and driving away. He has been reminded of the policy and warned not to do that again. However, he thinks that the policy is stupid, so he chooses to ignore it. He drops another student off at the corner, who gets attacked while walking home.
Is he responsible for the behavior of the person who attacked the student? No.
Did his decision to disregard official policy and his past warnings result in harm to a student? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable to ask him to apologize for his reckless behavior as a condition of retaining his job? You betcha.
-
Keefe - Your comment "Lovell craves the spotlight and focuses on the flash" is surprising. I live in the MKE area so would think I'd be able to bear witness to something like that, but I cannot.
Can you give some examples as to when Lovell has craved the spotlight or focused on flash?
Admittedly, I'm part of the 77% of internet users who don't read twitter. -- Is that it? He tweets loudly?
-
"So, let's say a school district's official policy is for bus drivers to drop kids off at their front door and watch them until they are safely inside. A particular bus driver has been caught dropping kids off at the corner and driving away. He has been reminded of the policy and warned not to do that again. However, he thinks that the policy is stupid, so he chooses to ignore it."
kinda sounds like a certain politician being questioned about said use of emails, blackberries and servers-Eine'r?
-
"So, let's say a school district's official policy is for bus drivers to drop kids off at their front door and watch them until they are safely inside. A particular bus driver has been caught dropping kids off at the corner and driving away. He has been reminded of the policy and warned not to do that again. However, he thinks that the policy is stupid, so he chooses to ignore it."
kinda sounds like a certain politician being questioned about said use of emails, blackberries and servers-Eine'r?
Love you, Rocket, but leave politics in the appropriate board.
-
Chitown
My comment has nothing to do with McAdams.
Lovell should have left this alone. As the representative of Marquette University he said all that needed to be said when he issued the official finding on the matter.
Jumping back into the debate does nothing and diminishes his stature as the leader. And it undermines the finality of that decision while lending effective authority to the McAdams retort.
My criticism of Lovell has nothing to do with solidarity with John McAdams. On the contrary, it has everything to do with Michael Lovell and his judgment in responding to McAdams.
How a University chief executive responds to issues like this is much, much different than it was 10-20 years ago. Oftentimes you can't simply afford to be "above the fray." You are a leader of a community and oftentimes the time is right for leaders to speak out.
I have said this before, but Lovell is representative of a much more modern president. My guess is that his background as a public university dean and chancellor leads him to be much more open then the Marquette community is used to.
That being said, I have no idea if the time was right at this point. I don't know what is happening on-campus or in Milwaukee to prompt this response. Lovell has made sounds decisions to date as a campus leader. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is making the right one here.
-
I disagree with you here Crash. I have no issue with Lovell's actions on twitter, he's advocating for the university and their viewpoint, which has often has been missing from Marquette. Additionally, it's twitter...the only people that are likely paying attention to Lovell on twitter are members of the MU community and so this is about communicating within the family as to why MU is taking the stance they are and responding to McAdams childish behavior. Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%. We might have a different discussion if he was blasting press releases to the world, but he's not.
Quite frankly I think you are practicing the type of hyperbole that landed McAdams in the position he's currently in. Even if I think Lovell could have handled this differently, it is far from embarrassing. Lovell has stepped into a power vacuum at Marquette and has had to address a number of issues within the university that were not of his making and I think he has done so with energy and a steady hand. There is a lot more good currently and in the future going on at Marquette then in the previous 4 or 5 years. McAdams has acted as a bully against the TA as well as the university, I have zero issue with calling a bully out on the carpet.
Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%.
Which ones? Certainly not the student who was told to shut up in class. So who is bullying who here?
-
Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%.
Which ones? Certainly not the student who was told to shut up in class. So who is bullying who here?
I'm not going relegislate the whole affair, but the way you characterize the originating event is an exaggeration at best.
The TA's conduct was far from ideal but there were plenty of options to resolve that issue and I fully believe that Lovell would have supported the undergrad student in those options should it have come to that.
One can support the TA and support the undergrad at the same time....they aren't mutually exclusive actions.
-
Lovell is by pretty much any definition, "an accomplished scholar."
As long as it's not in poetry, a'ina?
-
I'm not going relegislate the whole affair, but the way you characterize the originating event is an exaggeration at best.
The TA's conduct was far from ideal but there were plenty of options to resolve that issue and I fully believe that Lovell would have supported the undergrad student in those options should it have come to that.
One can support the TA and support the undergrad at the same time....they aren't mutually exclusive actions.
Exactly. Supporting the TA for how she was bullied by McAdams does not mean that she was without fault in how she handled the undergraduate student.
Does anyone know who the undergraduate student was? Was he criticized in a blog written by a professor from another department? Was he mentioned negatively on local talk radio? Did he have to transfer due to the backlash?
For the undergraduate, the answers are maybe, no, no and no.
For Abatte the answers are yes, yes, yes and yes.
Easy to see why Abatte deserves support in this instance.
-
Exactly. Supporting the TA for how she was bullied by McAdams does not mean that she was without fault in how she handled the undergraduate student.
Does anyone know who the undergraduate student was? Was he criticized in a blog written by a professor from another department? Was he mentioned negatively on local talk radio? Did he have to transfer due to the backlash?
For the undergraduate, the answers are maybe, no, no and no.
For Abatte the answers are yes, yes, yes and yes.
Easy to see why Abatte deserves support in this instance.
Ironically the thing the original student did that provided the source material was akin to something that a certain Laker player is getting absolutely killed for right now. But that is not relevant to McAdams either.
-
Exactly. Supporting the TA for how she was bullied by McAdams does not mean that she was without fault in how she handled the undergraduate student.
Does anyone know who the undergraduate student was? Was he criticized in a blog written by a professor from another department? Was he mentioned negatively on local talk radio? Did he have to transfer due to the backlash?
For the undergraduate, the answers are maybe, no, no and no.
For Abatte the answers are yes, yes, yes and yes.
Easy to see why Abatte deserves support in this instance.
The AAUP would disagree with you assessment.
https://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
https://academeblog.org/2015/01/26/aaup-letter-to-marquette-on-john-mcadams/
-
I'm not going relegislate the whole affair, but the way you characterize the originating event is an exaggeration at best.
The TA's conduct was far from ideal but there were plenty of options to resolve that issue and I fully believe that Lovell would have supported the undergrad student in those options should it have come to that.
One can support the TA and support the undergrad at the same time....they aren't mutually exclusive actions.
How would he accomplish that?
-
Keefe, I think you're a little out of touch with the student body. Attached on the screen shot is only a sample of current marquette students praising Dr. Lovell. The school is changing, things in general have changed, people aren't standing by McAdams.
You should put up a screen shot of the MU alumni from Twitter that don't feel the same way.
-
I disagree with you here Crash. I have no issue with Lovell's actions on twitter, he's advocating for the university and their viewpoint, which has often has been missing from Marquette. Additionally, it's twitter...the only people that are likely paying attention to Lovell on twitter are members of the MU community and so this is about communicating within the family as to why MU is taking the stance they are and responding to McAdams childish behavior. Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%. We might have a different discussion if he was blasting press releases to the world, but he's not.
I don't understand this. By going to Twitter, you make it much more than the MU community. In fact, when you "blast press releases", you can contain who sees it by sending it to the outlets you want to. Only Milwaukee news, for example. On Twitter, open to all. Yes, you are targeting those that follow you, but that isn't just the Marquette community.
-
Also, the worst part is some of these people blindly follow McAdams like some of you here. They don't even know what the girl looks like (asking for a picture) and are still pursuing making her life a living hell.
What if this happened to your daughter. You'd be pretty pissed off and want an apology too, so no more with the BS excuses.
We live in such a divided, angry and selfish country, I'm just tired of it man, just honestly so tired. It's so hard to stay mad anymore, it's just exhausting.because I will bet you any damn amount of money, if that is your daughter you want that man fired. Guaranteed.
How do you feel about the student who was admonished and embarrassed by the instructor for having a different, Catholic, opinion? Would you want the instructor fired for doing that to your son or daughter?
As for "selfish" country, divided, angry.....do you feel that way because half the country doesn't agree with you? Would you like a place where everyone thinks and feels the same way? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'd also ask you, is this country really selfish? How do you define that? I'd call it the most generous country in the world, but I suppose we all look at things differently. Angry? Sure, there's plenty of anger, and this example illustrates it well. One student was embarrassed and admonished for having a Catholic opinion in class as a Catholic school. Seems that's ok. Well, to many of us it isn't. The follow-up by Dr. McAdams, isn't ok...to some of you. Again, we all have different opinions on how or what should have happened, and how excessive punishment should be. That may exhaust you, but that doesn't make you or me any more right on the situation.
-
The AAUP would disagree with you assessment.
https://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
https://academeblog.org/2015/01/26/aaup-letter-to-marquette-on-john-mcadams/
I know and I don't care.
-
I'm not going relegislate the whole affair, but the way you characterize the originating event is an exaggeration at best.
The TA's conduct was far from ideal but there were plenty of options to resolve that issue and I fully believe that Lovell would have supported the undergrad student in those options should it have come to that.
One can support the TA and support the undergrad at the same time....they aren't mutually exclusive actions.
True....and in the same vein, there are "plenty of options to resolve" this issue as well, without the path that Lovell is taking.
Let me ask a question of all of those here that are bashing McAdams, should Lovell demand the TA also publicly apologize for her role in all of this? How about the student that recorded the conversation?
-
MU is so so so bad at PR. Just brutal.
-
You should put up a screen shot of the MU alumni from Twitter that don't feel the same way.
Here is a link that some Professors and students feel threatened if they defend Catholic teaching at MU. Why doesn't MU apply for the Title IX exemption? What are they afraid of? After all they claim to be Catholic University.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-identity-vs.-catholic-identity-face-off-after-title-xi-expansions
-
You should put up a screen shot of the MU alumni from Twitter that don't feel the same way.
Well they don't attend marquette anymore, or had Lovell as a president do they?
-
MU is so so so bad at PR. Just brutal.
Actually on balance this seems to have been very well received by the reactions on social media, etc.
-
True....and in the same vein, there are "plenty of options to resolve" this issue as well, without the path that Lovell is taking.
Let me ask a question of all of those here that are bashing McAdams, should Lovell demand the TA also publicly apologize for her role in all of this? How about the student that recorded the conversation?
They don't need to publicly apologize because they didn't take this situation public.
Should all students who make mistakes in the course of their education make public apologies?
-
Drudge had da story up for all ta see a couple of daze ago, hey?
-
How would he accomplish that?
Well if the undergrad had chosen to follow the normal path of escalation within the university before running to McAdams on the first sign of resistance, Lovell might have had a chance to support the student without you even knowing about it.
And do you know that Lovell has not supported the undergrad in any way? Perhaps he worked with the undergrad in private because he was not outed in public unlike the TA.
-
I disagree with you here Crash. I have no issue with Lovell's actions on twitter, he's advocating for the university and their viewpoint, which has often has been missing from Marquette. Additionally, it's twitter...the only people that are likely paying attention to Lovell on twitter are members of the MU community and so this is about communicating within the family as to why MU is taking the stance they are and responding to McAdams childish behavior. Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%. We might have a different discussion if he was blasting press releases to the world, but he's not.
Quite frankly I think you are practicing the type of hyperbole that landed McAdams in the position he's currently in. Even if I think Lovell could have handled this differently, it is far from embarrassing. Lovell has stepped into a power vacuum at Marquette and has had to address a number of issues within the university that were not of his making and I think he has done so with energy and a steady hand. There is a lot more good currently and in the future going on at Marquette then in the previous 4 or 5 years. McAdams has acted as a bully against the TA as well as the university, I have zero issue with calling a bully out on the carpet.
We are in complete agreement that what McAdams did was not just wrong but, in certain ways, reprehensible. So that isn't the point of departure for us.
Authority is a damned important aspect of the running of a fair, just, safe, and efficient organization. A crucial lesson that is taught in the Air Force Command Course, the schoolhouse every USAF officer selected for squadron command must attend, is that authority is vested and absolute. And one ought not ever explain or justify authority or its use.
As a commander I held an NJP hearing. After passing judgment the Airman asked if I could explain my decision. I told him he could ask and that I while I could explain it I would not.
Mike Lovell rendered a decision. Stand by it and move on. He is the University President. He needn't have to justify his decisions. Responding to a bully only serves to legitimize the bully.
-
I honestly wonder how much outside of a few MU alums and particularly enthused political commentators that people are noticing this. I feel like it's dragged on for so long that nobody cares any more.
-
We are in complete agreement that what McAdams did was not just wrong but, in certain ways, reprehensible. So that isn't the point of departure for us.
Authority is a damned important aspect of the running of a fair, just, safe, and efficient organization. A crucial lesson that is taught in the Air Force Command Course, the schoolhouse every USAF officer selected for squadron command must attend, is that authority is vested and absolute. And one ought not ever explain or justify authority or its use.
As a commander I held an NJP hearing. After passing judgment the Airman asked if I could explain my decision. I told him he could ask and that I while I could explain it I would not.
Mike Lovell rendered a decision. Stand by it and move on. He is the University President. He needn't have to justify his decisions. Responding to a bully only serves to legitimize the bully.
Running a modern day University is much different than running an Air Force squadron. Just look at the news over the past year and you can see leadership failures born out of "it's my decision and I don't owe you an explanation" line of thinking.
The USAF has damn good reasons why it does what it does. It cannot be applied to a University which are much different organizations.
-
How a University chief executive responds to issues like this is much, much different than it was 10-20 years ago. Oftentimes you can't simply afford to be "above the fray." You are a leader of a community and oftentimes the time is right for leaders to speak out.
I have said this before, but Lovell is representative of a much more modern president. My guess is that his background as a public university dean and chancellor leads him to be much more open then the Marquette community is used to.
That being said, I have no idea if the time was right at this point. I don't know what is happening on-campus or in Milwaukee to prompt this response. Lovell has made sounds decisions to date as a campus leader. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is making the right one here.
At the end of the day this is about Marquette. My issue with Lovell is that by re-engaging on this subject only serves to keep the negative light on Marquette.
Lovell said all that needed to be said when he announced his decision on the matter.
My point is really quite simple: what did Lovell hope to accomplish by reopening the dialogue? If you can answer that question I would love to understand your view. Frankly, if one models out the derivative outcomes there is no positive end game in all of this for the only constituency that matters which is Marquette University.
-
We are in complete agreement that what McAdams did was not just wrong but, in certain ways, reprehensible. So that isn't the point of departure for us.
Authority is a damned important aspect of the running of a fair, just, safe, and efficient organization. A crucial lesson that is taught in the Air Force Command Course, the schoolhouse every USAF officer selected for squadron command must attend, is that authority is vested and absolute. And one ought not ever explain or justify authority or its use.
As a commander I held an NJP hearing. After passing judgment the Airman asked if I could explain my decision. I told him he could ask and that I while I could explain it I would not.
Mike Lovell rendered a decision. Stand by it and move on. He is the University President. He needn't have to justify his decisions. Responding to a bully only serves to legitimize the bully.
I understand your frame of reference, but respectfully disagree that the reference is valid for the circumstance. Marquette for too long has let others craft the narrative within the public space, what Lovell is doing is framing the narrative for Marquette. MU didn't pick the fight in public but I fully support them finishing the fight in public.
You're example involves individuals who are trained and educated to respect the chain of command and recognize the absolute authority of rank. Lovell is leading a bunch of coddled professors, students trying to find their way in the world, and an alumni base that is generally leery of MU's leadership in the last decade. Not to mention a public audience that is predisposed to assume MU is in the wrong. The situations simply aren't comparable. Apple vs FBI is a much more relevant frame of reference if we're looking for something to compare.
-
What I find somewhat interesting is that with a given set of actual facts that are pretty much universally accepted, folks have very different but largely set in stone positions on the matter. I also find it curious that there's some mixing of historical political viewpoints on both sides. As an example, chick and I more closely align with McAdams political views but we're here arguing on the side that assumed to be leftist. Anyway, back to the Markus surveillance for me. :)
-
At the end of the day this is about Marquette. My issue with Lovell is that by re-engaging on this subject only serves to keep the negative light on Marquette.
Lovell said all that needed to be said when he announced his decision on the matter.
My point is really quite simple: what did Lovell hope to accomplish by reopening the dialogue? If you can answer that question I would love to understand your view. Frankly, if one models out the derivative outcomes there is no positive end game in all of this for the only constituency that matters which is Marquette University.
My *guess,* and I have no idea if this is accurate, is that he was hearing from constituents (students, employees, trustees, et. al.) wondering about the addition of a letter of apology. When McAdams said "when hell freezes over," he decided it was best to address the "whys" of his decision.
And I understand this. You can't just sit back and let McAdams make all the public pronouncements and act above it all. That doesn't work these days because it can snowball on you. It makes you look tone deaf and indecisive. People by and large *want* to hear from the chief executive on issues like this.
This is exactly the situation that got Missouri's president fired in the BLM movement. Not getting into the politics of that, but his silence was ridiculed as lack of leadership. Not that this was going to rise to that level, but this is why leaders need to speak at times.
In looking over the initial, public reactions to it, I would judge that it was largely successful. Whether or not that will satisfy Marquette's constituents as a whole, I don't know. Time will tell.
-
Well if the undergrad had chosen to follow the normal path of escalation within the university before running to McAdams on the first sign of resistance, Lovell might have had a chance to support the student without you even knowing about it.
And do you know that Lovell has not supported the undergrad in any way? Perhaps he worked with the undergrad in private because he was not outed in public unlike the TA.
What is the normal path of escalation? How quickly would the issue be resolved? Would he actually have a face to face with Lovell? Are you telling me that Lovell would have allowed the student to discuss gay/vs traditional marriage in the classroom like he wanted to, or not? Of course this would all be done in private so we would never really know if a student's right to express a differing opinion than the one held by a Professor/TA/student in class is MU policy. I find it rather hard to believe that this issue would be resolved at the President level.
-
I honestly wonder how much outside of a few MU alums and particularly enthused political commentators that people are noticing this. I feel like it's dragged on for so long that nobody cares any more.
I have gotten several emails from my parents about this. If you watch Fox News (which I no longer do), you can't avoid it.
And I have seen comments on the parents board that all but said that they would have not sent their kid to Marquette if this incidence had taken place before they were enrolled. So who knows how this affected the decisions of incoming freshmen?
-
Running a modern day University is much different than running an Air Force squadron. Just look at the news over the past year and you can see leadership failures born out of "it's my decision and I don't owe you an explanation" line of thinking.
The USAF has damn good reasons why it does what it does. It cannot be applied to a University which are much different organizations.
In total I agree that the key drivers are different between a war fighting org and an educational enterprise. But that isn't the point here; this is about effects.
Lovell made a decision. Move on. Unless the decision was flawed. Or that he did not explain it properly in the first place. Or that he had some strange compulsion to continue the narrative?
Perhaps I was not clear in my NJP example: I explained my decision completely to the Airman in question. I articulated perfectly to the young man what the problem was, how it was counter to the USAF culture, and what the punishment would be. My decision was based in fact and was outlined clearly for him.
When he began to question the decision I had zero reason to engage in discussion any further. I had told him everything he needed to know. I did not need to justify my decision to that Airman. And he had no right to question the authority of an Air Force squadron commander because that authority is vested in a commander by the Congress of the United States.
Mike Lovell said all that needed to be said when he issued his decision. Why he felt the need to continue the narrative is the issue because, at the end of the day, he is not doing right by the institution and constituencies that vested authority in him to serve its interests to the best of his ability.
-
nm
-
What is the normal path of escalation? How quickly would the issue be resolved? Would he actually have a face to face with Lovell? Are you telling me that Lovell would have allowed the student to discuss gay/vs traditional marriage in the classroom like he wanted to, or not? Of course this would all be done in private so we would never really know if a student's right to express a differing opinion than the one held by a Professor/TA/student in class is MU policy. I find it rather hard to believe that this issue would be resolved at the President level.
I honestly can't say I know all the procedures and policies that MU has around resolving an issue such as this, but I do know that the escalation path was short circuited when the student went to McAdams early in the process and McAdams chose his action.
It is a possibility that this gets resolved successfully even if it doesn't get to the presidential level. And going to someone like McAdams to escalate is always an option latter after other choices were exhausted.
Lastly, the way the TA handled the discussion was not good, but there was no suppression of thought within the classroom. I'm comfortable with the decision that the topic was not appropriate for the discussion at the time, I am uncomfortable with how the TA handled expressing that decision.
IMO, those who decry this as a suppression of free speech are looking for a wedge issue, not a resolution.
-
In total I agree that the key drivers are different between a war fighting org and an educational enterprise. But that isn't the point here; this is about effects.
Lovell made a decision. Move on. Unless the decision was flawed. Or that he did not explain it properly in the first place. Or that he had some strange compulsion to continue the narrative?
Perhaps I was not clear in my NJP example: I explained my decision completely to the Airman in question. I articulated perfectly to the young man what the problem was, how it was counter to the USAF culture, and what the punishment would be. My decision was based in fact and was outlined clearly for him.
When he began to question the decision I had zero reason to engage in discussion any further. I had told him everything he needed to know. I did not need to justify my decision to that Airman. And he had no right to question the authority of an Air Force squadron commander because that authority is vested in a commander by the Congress of the United States.
Mike Lovell said all that needed to be said when he issued his decision. Why he felt the need to continue the narrative is the issue because, at the end of the day, he is not doing right by the institution and constituencies that vested authority in him to serve its interests to the best of his ability.
Was their a crowd of various people with lots of different opinions that can impact your squadron (withhold funding, defer maintenance, choose to not transfer in, etc) who were only hearing that airman's complaint regarding the unfairness of your decision?
-
My *guess,* and I have no idea if this is accurate, is that he was hearing from constituents (students, employees, trustees, et. al.) wondering about the addition of a letter of apology. When McAdams said "when hell freezes over," he decided it was best to address the "whys" of his decision.
And I understand this. You can't just sit back and let McAdams make all the public pronouncements and act above it all. That doesn't work these days because it can snowball on you. It makes you look tone deaf and indecisive. People by and large *want* to hear from the chief executive on issues like this.
This is exactly the situation that got Missouri's president fired in the BLM movement. Not getting into the politics of that, but his silence was ridiculed as lack of leadership. Not that this was going to rise to that level, but this is why leaders need to speak at times.
In looking over the initial, public reactions to it, I would judge that it was largely successful. Whether or not that will satisfy Marquette's constituents as a whole, I don't know. Time will tell.
I don't think we are that far apart. And I will admit that I might not have perfect optics on this as I am not back in Milwaukee.
As a principle, I think that decision-making is an imprecise science. In both the military and the corporate world I have been asked to make decisions and as much I would care to say that I had absolute empiricism the opposite is usually the case.
In the general I think Lovell should move on. What I can't say is that, in the particular, if there are extenuating circumstances requiring elaboration or amplification.
-
What I find somewhat interesting is that with a given set of actual facts that are pretty much universally accepted, folks have very different but largely set in stone positions on the matter. I also find it curious that there's some mixing of historical political viewpoints on both sides. As an example, chick and I more closely align with McAdams political views but we're here arguing on the side that assumed to be leftist. Anyway, back to the Markus surveillance for me. :)
I think this tends to break on whether you have historically sided with MU on controversial decisions or not. I think it's as simple as "Here MU goes again being ham handed and tone deaf" vs "MU is doing their best and is largely in the right here."
In my opinion anyway ;D
-
Sultan, I'm just going to let you type my responses for me in the rest of the thread. Say everything I want to say faster and better.
Now I can go back to my natural state of laziness. 8-)
-
Was their a crowd of various people with lots of different opinions that can impact your squadron (withhold funding, defer maintenance, choose to not transfer in, etc) who were only hearing that airman's complaint regarding the unfairness of your decision?
Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.
Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.
But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.
It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.
Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.
-
Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.
Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.
But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.
It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.
Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think Lovell is standing by his decision and the twitter activity was to manage the public perception of their decision after McAdams "go to hell" message that was sure to fire up the typical $h!t stirrers. I suspect Lovell has accomplished his goal and will indeed move on now.
If he doesn't, I would definitely start to slide over into your camp.
-
Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.
Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.
But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.
It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.
Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.
I have posted a link to Dr. Lovell's comments in a couple of places and gotten tremendous positive response for putting it out there. McAdams has had months to tell his side of the story, and MU has been muzzled because it was a personnel issue. Even friends of mine who consider themselves very conservative side with the Administration now that they have Marquette's version of the story.
Not everything can and should be run like a military tribunal.
-
It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.
I tend to agree with you, but it is a new world right? You should have seen how many responses were on facebook (pro & con) within minutes of the main MU site posting his response. This was a targeted message to alumni using social media illustrating the ugly outcome of taking this person's name public.
I don't know if it achieved its objective or not Keefe. Time will tell huh?
-
I have gotten several emails from my parents about this. If you watch Fox News (which I no longer do), you can't avoid it.
And I have seen comments on the parents board that all but said that they would have not sent their kid to Marquette if this incidence had taken place before they were enrolled. So who knows how this affected the decisions of incoming freshmen?
That's really why I asked. I live in MKE and it doesn't really feel like it has much legs here outside of the AM talk radio crowd. It feels to me to only have legs in the spaces where people can use it further the "Conservatives Silenced on Campus" narrative. But I definitely could be mistaken.
-
Well they don't attend marquette anymore, or had Lovell as a president do they?
So they aren't part of the Marquette community? They sure have no problem calling me every year asking for $$$$$.
-
They don't need to publicly apologize because they didn't take this situation public.
Should all students who make mistakes in the course of their education make public apologies?
Fair point....let me ask (I don't know)....Did she apologize in front of the class to the student she cut off and everyone that was there for his humiliation? God forbid he spoke of a Catholic perspective at a Catholic school (allegedly) and was cut off.
-
Fair point....let me ask (I don't know)....Did she apologize in front of the class to the student she cut off and everyone that was there for his humiliation? God forbid he spoke of a Catholic perspective at a Catholic school (allegedly) and was cut off.
The student was not cut off in front of class. The entire incident occurred after class.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
"The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class."
And I will state once again that Abatte was wrong in how she handled this situation.
-
Fair point....let me ask (I don't know)....Did she apologize in front of the class to the student she cut off and everyone that was there for his humiliation? God forbid he spoke of a Catholic perspective at a Catholic school (allegedly) and was cut off.
Is there any evidence he was humiliated, either in actuality or in his own mind?
My guess is that she would have been amenable to apologizing if this had gone through the proper channels and her advisor recommended it. Most certainly more amenable than McAdams has been.
As it was, she was probably too busy laying low. That is what I would do if I had discovered that on someone had publicly recommended for the Dean to blow my brains out.
-
What I find somewhat interesting is that with a given set of actual facts that are pretty much universally accepted, folks have very different but largely set in stone positions on the matter. I also find it curious that there's some mixing of historical political viewpoints on both sides. As an example, chick and I more closely align with McAdams political views but we're here arguing on the side that assumed to be leftist. Anyway, back to the Markus surveillance for me. :)
In my view there is plenty of blame here, including McAdams. I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Furthermore, I am continually amazed that when students, faculty, etc, promote Catholic teachings at a Catholic university, that is frowned upon or somehow marginalized. I'm sorry that people don't like that the Catholic church has positions that people disagree with, but that's the way it goes. They can work internally or externally to try and change those, but at the same time those that are following Catholic doctrine....at a Catholic university of all places...shouldn't be made out to be some leper either.
I marvel at the leeway that Dan McGuire got back in the day when I was there and SMH at some of the reverse nonsense going on now.
-
I have posted a link to Dr. Lovell's comments in a couple of places and gotten tremendous positive response for putting it out there. McAdams has had months to tell his side of the story, and MU has been muzzled because it was a personnel issue. Even friends of mine who consider themselves very conservative side with the Administration now that they have Marquette's version of the story.
Not everything can and should be run like a military tribunal.
How does keeping this issue in public view benefit Marquette University? That is the only issue.
A more discerning leader would appreciate that distinction and have moved forward. There is nothing to be gained by stoking the flames of this. Nothing.
Decision making is the same - whether for the USAF, GE Capital, or running Marquette University.
Mike Lovell put himself above Marquette by tweeting about this matter.
-
How does keeping this issue in public view benefit Marquette University? That is the only issue.
A more discerning leader would appreciate that distinction and have moved forward. There is nothing to be gained by stoking the flames of this. Nothing.
Decision making is the same - whether for the USAF, GE Capital, or running Marquette University.
Mike Lovell put himself above Marquette by tweeting about this matter.
Because your audience is oftentimes more than just the one in the "public view." There's a constituency of students, employees, donors, trustees, etc. You don't know what he has been hearing from those constituents that prompted him to make this statement.
You seem to be so convinced that Lovell is making this about Lovell that you don't have any room to understand why there might be very legitimate reasons why he released this statement. I have told you what can be gained by releasing it, but you are choosing to ignore it. Even though this is EXACTLY what I do for a living.
-
Because your audience is oftentimes more than just the one in the "public view." There's a constituency of students, employees, donors, trustees, etc. You don't know what he has been hearing from those constituents that prompted him to make this statement.
You seem to be so convinced that Lovell is making this about Lovell that you don't have any room to understand why there might be very legitimate reasons why he released this statement. I have told you what can be gained by releasing it, but you are choosing to ignore it. Even though this is EXACTLY what I do for a living.
As I wrote, if there are specific constituencies that require elaboration then meet with them. In private. That is expected.
Tweeting something is neither discrete nor judicious. It is a broadcast to the entire world.
I am not ignoring what you said. Perhaps you haven't read what I wrote.
-
As I wrote, if there are specific constituencies that require elaboration then meet with them. In private. That is expected.
Tweeting something is neither discrete nor judicious. It is a broadcast to the entire world.
I am not ignoring what you said. Perhaps you haven't read what I wrote.
How do you meet with students in private? Employees? Alumni?
Even putting it out in public isn't a bad thing at all. What harm did it cause?
-
Is there any evidence he was humiliated, either in actuality or in his own mind?
My guess is that she would have been amenable to apologizing if this had gone through the proper channels and her advisor recommended it. Most certainly more amenable than McAdams has been.
As it was, she was probably too busy laying low. That is what I would do if I had discovered that on someone had publicly recommended for the Dean blow my brains out.
Even if he went through the proper channels, it seems to me that he would not have gotten an apology, especially if your telling him to quit your course.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
Publically recommended by someone or not, I doubt that any Dean in their right mind would blow anyone's brains out.
-
Even if he went through the proper channels, it seems to me that he would not have gotten an apology, especially if your telling him to quit your course.
So the conversation was recorded, did that recording ever make it out anywhere?
The reason I ask, is McAdams uses quotes quite a lot to describe Abbate's conversation, but then states that she invited the student to drop the class. I guess I would be curious as to what exactly the invite was.
-
In my view there is plenty of blame here, including McAdams. I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Furthermore, I am continually amazed that when students, faculty, etc, promote Catholic teachings at a Catholic university, that is frowned upon or somehow marginalized. I'm sorry that people don't like that the Catholic church has positions that people disagree with, but that's the way it goes. They can work internally or externally to try and change those, but at the same time those that are following Catholic doctrine....at a Catholic university of all places...shouldn't be made out to be some leper either.
I marvel at the leeway that Dan McGuire got back in the day when I was there and SMH at some of the reverse nonsense going on now.
I agree. What were they thinking when they opened the Gender and Sexuality Center filled with LGBT advocates. Are there any at the center that foster Catholic understanding of Gender and Sexuality to give a different perspective? Why did they hire Russ Feingold as a visiting Law Professor, a pro choice advocate. It seems to me they go out of their way by bringing in people that are opposed to Catholic teaching and yet marginalize those who do. It's sad to see my alma mater losing it's soul.
-
I'm going to guess that our president airing this out on social media is getting tons of positive reaction as well as tons of negative reaction. I doubt it changed a single opinion. The issue is no closer to resolution, meaning Lovell's hanging the university's dirty laundry out served only to keep the flames burning.
A very poorly thought out decision, in my opinion, no matter what side you're on.
-
I agree. What were they thinking when they opened the Gender and Sexuality Center filled with LGBT advocates. Are there any at the center that foster Catholic understanding of Gender and Sexuality to give a different perspective? Why did they hire Russ Feingold as a visiting Law Professor, a pro choice advocate. It seems to me they go out of their way by bringing in people that are opposed to Catholic teaching and yet marginalize those who do. It's sad to see my alma mater losing it's soul.
nm
-
How do you meet with students in private? Employees? Alumni?
Even putting it out in public isn't a bad thing at all. What harm did it cause?
AT GE we called them Town Halls. Get everybody inside a big conference room and talk to them.
In fact, I would argue that Lovell should have done that at the time the University made the announcement. Gather the community and explain here is the problem, here is the solution, here is why we did it. End of story. Move on.
The fact that Lovell picked at the scab after the story was officially closed is the issue.
The harm is that he is keeping the issue alive. And for what?
Marquette has a penchant for shooting itself in the foot. This is just the latest episode in an ongoing saga of ineptitude.
-
Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.
Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.
But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.
It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.
Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Paris Hilton doesn't wear panties, doe, hey?
-
...
The fact that Lovell picked at the scab after the story was officially closed is the issue.
The harm is that he is keeping the issue alive. And for what?
...
I'm pretty sure it won't be over until a judge signs an order. If its going to court, and is already in the court of public opinion, why let McAdams be the only one controlling the narrative?
-
I'm going to guess that our president airing this out on social media is getting tons of positive reaction as well as tons of negative reaction. I doubt it changed a single opinion. The issue is no closer to resolution, meaning Lovell's hanging the university's dirty laundry out served only to keep the flames burning.
A very poorly thought out decision, in my opinion, no matter what side you're on.
Concur.
This has nothing to do with the merits of McAdams vs the University.
Lovell issued the University position and that should have been the end of it for Marquette. Instead, he not only reacted to McAdams but did so on social media. Just a terrible decision and one beneath a university president.
-
why let McAdams be the only one controlling the narrative?
Marquette already weighed in.
Does one enter into a dialogue with the religious freak who knocks on one's door?
Besides, tweeting out is hardly "controlling the narrative"
-
Concur.
This has nothing to do with the merits of McAdams vs the University.
Lovell issued the University position and that should have been the end of it for Marquette. Instead, he not only reacted to McAdams but did so on social media. Just a terrible decision and one beneath a university president.
Maybe 20 years ago. Times have changed.
-
Maybe 20 years ago. Times have changed. Try to keep up.
This is beyond laughable.
-
This is beyond laughable.
I know right?
-
The student was not cut off in front of class. The entire incident occurred after class.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
But he was. The student tried to talk about same sex marriage and the instructor cut him off, said he was not to talk about it. THEN, after class the student went to talk to the instructor.
The whole point of him going to her was because she discredited his opinion in class, causing him embarrassment and humiliation, and he voiced that opinion to her after class. She made the comment (recorded) that some opinions are not appropriate....despite the fact they are exactly the opinions of the Catholic church. She cut him off in class and discredited him.
After class....."Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions." Abbate responded by saying: "There are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful -- such as racist opinions, sexist opinions and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?"
-
I know right?
He's laughing at you, man
-
He's laughing at you, man
No kidding. PRN laughing at me is like a badge of honor.
-
I'm deeply disappointed that Lovell is taking to Twitter and crapty Medium/Tumblr blogs to bully this professor. It's unbecoming of Marquette and the office of President of the University.
It would have been so easy to keep his mouth shut after the press release. Instead he's airing dirty laundry on the internet like a teenage girl.
Really disappointing.
-
I'm deeply disappointed that Lovell is taking to Twitter and crapty Medium/Tumblr blogs to bully this professor. It's unbecoming of Marquette and the office of President of the University.
It would have been so easy to keep his mouth shut after the press release. Instead he's airing dirty laundry on the internet like a teenage girl.
Really disappointing.
Ironic considering the professor we're talking about and how we got here in the first place.
-
Ironic considering the professor we're talking about and how we got here in the first place.
How is it ironic? Are we comparing a blog with limited readership to the official twitter and tumblr accounts and the viewership tied to the second largest Jesuit university in the United States as equal?
-
How is it ironic? Are we comparing a blog with limited readership to the official twitter and tumblr accounts and the viewership tied to the second largest Jesuit university in the United States as equal?
LOL.
Now McAdams is a victim who was bullied.
Man the conservative victimization machine is in full gear I see.
-
How is it ironic? Are we comparing a blog with limited readership to the official twitter and tumblr accounts and the viewership tied to the second largest Jesuit university in the United States as equal?
Don't be obtuse.
McAdams has been airing his dirty laundry on the internet "like a teenage girl" for years.
-
Don't be obtuse.
McAdams has been airing his dirty laundry on the internet "like a teenage girl" for years.
So that justifies Lovell doing the same???
Now that is obtuse!
-
So that justifies Lovell doing the same???
Who said that?
-
LOL.
Now McAdams is a victim who was bullied.
Man the conservative victimization machine is in full gear I see.
Where am I claiming that? In fact, where is anyone claiming that? All I see is people not thrilled the Lovell lowered himself to going this route as a poor reflection on his position in the university.
Maybe I'm missing the other part you are talking about.
-
Don't be obtuse.
McAdams has been airing his dirty laundry on the internet "like a teenage girl" for years.
Hmm, I seem to mention that he has a blog and has been posting on it. Where did I ever say he hasn't taken shots at MU, many of them richly deserved? I don't think I ever have, so that makes me obtuse? Or does that make you seeking something that isn't there....again?
-
Who said that?
Ironic
-
Who said that?
Quote from: Pakuni on Today at 11:01:45 AM
Don't be obtuse.
McAdams has been airing his dirty laundry on the internet "like a teenage girl" for years.
Not trying to pick at a scab but you justified Lovell's tweeting against McAdams in the context of McAdams doing the same for years.
I don't agree with what McAdams and I am glad Marquette finally made a final statement on the matter.
I think that Lovell diminished himself and his position as our President by tweeting out against McAdams after having closed the matter officially.
-
Quote from: Pakuni on Today at 11:01:45 AM
Don't be obtuse.
McAdams has been airing his dirty laundry on the internet "like a teenage girl" for years.
Not trying to pick at a scab but you justified Lovell's tweeting against McAdams in the context of McAdams doing the same for years.
I don't agree with what McAdams and I am glad Marquette finally made a final statement on the matter.
I think that Lovell diminished himself and his position as our President by tweeting out against McAdams after having closed the matter officially.
That's not what I did. It's an assumption you made, and you know what they say about assumptions.
I think Lovell is foolish to engage in some sort of social media feud with anyone, including McAdams. But I find it ironic that some of those criticizing Lovell are the same people who've defended the same behavior (and worse) from McAdams.
-
That's not what I did. It's an assumption you made, and you know what they say about assumptions.
I think Lovell is foolish to engage in some sort of social media feud with anyone, including McAdams. But I find it ironic that some of those criticizing Lovell are the same people who've defended the same behavior (and worse) from McAdams.
Lovell is the president of a university.
Having a blog is a lot different than an official social media account like Twitter in terms of reach, etc.
I'm sorry this is too nuanced for you.
-
Lovell is the president of a university.
Having a blog is a lot different than an official social media account like Twitter in terms of reach, etc.
I'm sorry this is too nuanced for you.
Got it. So the appropriateness of airing dirty laundry on the internet like a teenage girl is dependent upon the size of one's audience.
That's a mighty principled stance and not at all inconsistent.
-
Got it. So the appropriateness of airing dirty laundry on the internet like a teenage girl is dependent upon the size of one's audience.
That's a mighty principled stance and not at all inconsistent.
Nope, clearly you still don't get it.
Again....Lovell = President of the university. Official Twitter account of university vs some professors blog.
Try...again.
-
That's not what I did. It's an assumption you made, and you know what they say about assumptions.
I think Lovell is foolish to engage in some sort of social media feud with anyone, including McAdams. But I find it ironic that some of those criticizing Lovell are the same people who've defended the same behavior (and worse) from McAdams.
I am not making an assumption. You crafted a syllogism that is flawed.
McAdams can do whatever he wishes on a personal blog. That is his right.
A GE Cap employee can do whatever he wishes on a personal blog. That is his right. And by policy GE Cap should not and will not take an adverse personnel action for what he does in his free time so long as it does not cause the enterprise harm or if the communication betrays an NDA.
McAdams or Mr GE Cap doing the same on a Marquette or GE messaging platform falls within the scrutiny of the employer.
Lovell is not tweeting as Mike Lovell - husband, father, son, and baseball fan. He is tweeting as the President of a national university.
I don't like what McAdams did but he has that right. Marquette believes it has the right to punish him for it but that is a matter for the courts to decide.
I don't like what Mike Lovell is doing because he is not doing it as a private citizen but as the President of Marquette University. And in that capacity he is speaking for me.
There is a huge difference between the actions of McAdams and Lovell.
-
I am not making an assumption. You crafted a syllogism that is flawed.
McAdams can do whatever he wishes on a personal blog. That is his right.
A GE Cap employee can do whatever he wishes on a personal blog. That is his right. And by policy GE Cap should not and will not take an adverse personnel action for what he does in his free time so long as it does not cause the enterprise harm or if the communication betrays an NDA.
McAdams or Mr GE Cap doing the same on a Marquette or GE messaging platform falls within the scrutiny of the employer.
Lovell is not tweeting as Mike Lovell - husband, father, son, and baseball fan. He is tweeting as the President of a national university.
I don't like what McAdams did but he has that right. Marquette believes it has the right to punish him for it but that is a matter for the courts to decide.
I don't like what Mike Lovell is doing because he is not doing it as a private citizen but as the President of Marquette University. And in that capacity he is speaking for me.
There is a huge difference between the actions of McAdams and Lovell.
wait, one more time, only slow down ;D
if i could find a picture for them, i'd post it
-
I don't like what Mike Lovell is doing because he is not doing it as a private citizen but as the President of Marquette University. And in that capacity he is speaking for me.
There is a huge difference between the actions of McAdams and Lovell.
Right. Lovell's was awesome. McAdams' was foolish.
Maybe someday you will judge your Marquette diploma worthy of wiping your ass again. Excuse me for not caring when that day occurs.
-
Right. Lovell's was awesome. McAdams' was foolish.
Maybe someday you will judge your Marquette diploma worthy of wiping your ass again. Excuse me for not caring when that day occurs.
I saw that you suggested I was somehow behind the times for not embracing Twitter.
Let me put it this way: we are hosted by MSFT for driving innovative applications in alt fuel through Big Data. We are creating something through the merge of advances in high performance computing power, cutting edge controls systems, and state of the art innovation in thermodynamics.
You issue press releases.
I would submit that you are the one stuck in the last century and are rather well behind the power curve of tech innovation.
You see Twitter as an essential means of communication. I see it as a plaything for the self-absorbed.
Who is the real laggard, Sultan?
-
You are.
Twitter these days is an means of communication to get the word out to your constituents quickly and efficiently. Is it "essential?" Well show me a college or university that doesn't have a twitter account. And many college presidents do the for the same reason.
Earlier this thread you seriously suggested using an employee only meeting for Lovell to express his views to that constituency. That is laughable.
(And I love the fact that you went down the road that you usually do. Throw in a bunch of sentences that sound impressive, but are ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand.)
-
You are.
Twitter these days is an means of communication to get the word out to your constituents quickly and efficiently. Is it "essential?" Well show me a college or university that doesn't have a twitter account. And many college presidents do the for the same reason.
Earlier this thread you seriously suggested using an employee only meeting for Lovell to express his views to that constituency. That is laughable.
(And I love the fact that you went down the road that you usually do. Throw in a bunch of sentences that sound impressive, but are ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand.)
There are two issues:
1. Lovell used Twitter to bring up McAdams after he had promulgated the official position of the University.
You think that was acceptable. I do not. We disagree and neither of us is wrong.
2. You made a personal attack, suggesting I was a social or technological anachronism.
I submitted evidence that your assertion is false.
I love the fact that your patented 'go-to' tactic when confounded by logic is to attack the messenger. These statements are almost always punctuated by a claim that, in fact, you really don't care.
What I find telling is that you dismiss my suggestion that Lovell hold a Town Hall for the Marquette community in favor of the man sending out a Twitter.
You said I was a technological anachronism. In fact, we have offices at Microsoft and are involved in advanced research in alternative energy in which we employ the most powerful cloud computing solutions to derive sophisticated algorithms that drive state of art controls systems.
We use technology to drive innovation to bring real change to the way people generate electrical power and thermal energy. A quick survey of our team confirms that not only does no one have a Twitter account but that we all view it as an insipid and meaningless toy. None of us think that anything significant can be broadcast in 148 characters. But then we are scientists.
And my Marquette diploma? It is the most valuable and cherished document I have on a wall. None of the work I mentioned here would have been possible if not for the education I received at Marquette. My wife had a terminal degree from an ivy but she always valued the education she received at Marquette as her most formative.
Don't ever think I minimize Marquette. I disagree with Mike Lovell's recent actions. In fact, that means I am defending my Marquette University. In fact, I would submit that I am employing that education in a way that would make Fr Davitt proud.
-
You are.
Twitter these days is an means of communication to get the word out to your constituents quickly and efficiently. Is it "essential?" Well show me a college or university that doesn't have a twitter account. And many college presidents do the for the same reason.
Earlier this thread you seriously suggested using an employee only meeting for Lovell to express his views to that constituency. That is laughable.
(And I love the fact that you went down the road that you usually do. Throw in a bunch of sentences that sound impressive, but are ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand.)
I was asked to lead one of the break out groups today at iConic Seattle, the CNBC and inc. -sponsored seminar on entrepreneuership.
In two separate sessions both Robin Chase, CEO and founder of ZipCar, and Fred Kerrest, co-founder and COO of Okta said they held weekly Q&A's with global staff either in person or via HiDef VTC.
I actually asked Robin if one should use Twitter for important communications and she laughed. As if the thought was absurd.
Now, I would say that three C-Level executives with impeccable MBAs, significant corporate leadership experience and who have started private enterprises know something about how to lead, motivate, inspire, and inform their employees.
What you consider "laughable" Robin Chase deems essential. And what you consider "essential, efficient, or quick" Robin Chase finds absurd.
I asked Fred Kerrest to elaborate on why he held a weekly town hall and he said they were able to maintain the energy and spirit of the 20 man shop of their beginning even though they now employed more than 500 people. He said the weekly Town Hall was his most effective way to stay in touch with everyone in his enterprise.
So, while you find my suggestion "laughable" seasoned successful business professionals offer evidence to the contrary. I think since you have little or no experience running a company you ought to confine your laughter to issuing college press releases.
-
looks to me like twitter is the poor mans town hall meeting. as much as some want to make twitter the "now" or "hip" mode of communication, i liken it to putting some maybelline on a pig. it's the trailer park way or alternative to a video webcast of one's thoughts of the moment.
on another note-ya know what drives me nuts is seeing a group of people around a table all staring and pecking away at their iphones with nary a conversation being held. hell, for all i know, they may be talking to each other. or the incessant need to tell people what they are doing at every moment of the day...driving my electric car to work today, eating gluten free krispy kremes-yum, picking up my new dog from the animal shelter.....beneath it all is usually some miserable person crying out for help...yeah, like the duggers or the kardashians or something
-
looks to me like twitter is the poor mans town hall meeting. as much as some want to make twitter the "now" or "hip" mode of communication, i liken it to putting some maybelline on a pig. it's the trailer park way or alternative to a video webcast of one's thoughts of the moment.
on another note-ya know what drives me nuts is seeing a group of people around a table all staring and pecking away at their iphones with nary a conversation being held. hell, for all i know, they may be talking to each other. or the incessant need to tell people what they are doing at every moment of the day...driving my electric car to work today, eating gluten free krispy kremes-yum, picking up my new dog from the animal shelter.....beneath it all is usually some miserable person crying out for help...yeah, like the duggers or the kardashians or something
Those who use twitter probably are poor spellers too.
-
I was asked to lead one of the break out groups today at iConic Seattle, the CNBC and inc. -sponsored seminar on entrepreneuership.
In two separate sessions both Robin Chase, CEO and founder of ZipCar, and Fred Kerrest, co-founder and COO of Okta said they held weekly Q&A's with global staff either in person or via HiDef VTC.
I actually asked Robin if one should use Twitter for important communications and she laughed. As if the thought was absurd.
Now, I would say that three C-Level executives with impeccable MBAs, significant corporate leadership experience and who have started private enterprises know something about how to lead, motivate, inspire, and inform their employees.
What you consider "laughable" Robin Chase deems essential. And what you consider "essential, efficient, or quick" Robin Chase finds absurd.
I asked Fred Kerrest to elaborate on why he held a weekly town hall and he said they were able to maintain the energy and spirit of the 20 man shop of their beginning even though they now employed more than 500 people. He said the weekly Town Hall was his most effective way to stay in touch with everyone in his enterprise.
So, while you find my suggestion "laughable" seasoned successful business professionals offer evidence to the contrary. I think since you have little or no experience running a company you ought to confine your laughter to issuing college press releases.
Anyone who thinks you run a modern college university like you do Zipcar is wrong. Much different places with much different constituencies. That has been my point all along. There is a need for openness at a place like Marquette that doesn't exist at places like Zipcar.
-
Anyone who thinks you run a modern college university like you do Zipcar is wrong. Much different places with much different constituencies. That has been my point all along. There is a need for openness at a place like Marquette that doesn't exist at places like Zipcar.
+1
A university is not a business and shouldn't necessarily be run like one.
Anyone who has more than a passing interest in Marquette's affairs most likely follows the University using at least one of the outlets that posted Dr. Lovell's comments. It was a very efficient way to get his message out.
-
BTW, it is not just me saying that. I know people who have moved from corporate communications to university communications (and vice versa) and have found that transition to be difficult and challenging.
-
The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page Weighs In On This Issue
Punished for Blogging at Marquette
A tenured professor faces dismissal after a blog went viral.
April 7, 2016 7:17 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punished-for-blogging-at-marquette-1460071026
Blogging can be dangerous to your livelihood—or at least it can at Marquette University, where a professor may lose his job for expressing the wrong political views.
In November 2014 an undergraduate approached philosophy instructor and PhD candidate Cheryl Abbate, after a class on John Rawls’ theory of equal liberty. The student said he objected to her suggestions during the class that same-sex marriage isn’t open for debate and that “everyone agrees on this.”
Unknown to Ms. Abbate, the student recorded the exchange on his cell phone. During the conversation, she told him “there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and if someone in the class was homosexual, “don’t you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”
When the student replied that he has a right to argue his opinion, Ms. Abbate responded that “you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don’t like that you are more than free to drop this class.” The student reported the exchange to Marquette professor John McAdams, who teaches political science. Mr. McAdams also writes a blog called the Marquette Warrior, which often criticizes the Milwaukee school for failing to act in accordance with its Catholic mission.
Mr. McAdams wrote on his blog that Ms. Abbate was “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.” His blog went viral, and Ms. Abbate received vicious emails. She has since left Marquette.
But now Marquette is going after Mr. McAdams. In December 2014, the school sent him a letter suspending his teaching duties and banning him from campus while it reviewed his “conduct” related to the blog post. “You are to remain off campus during this time, and should you need to come to campus, you are to contact me in writing beforehand to explain the purpose of your visit, to obtain my consent and to make appropriate arrangements for that visit,” Dean Richard Holz wrote.
Marquette President Michael Lovell told the tenured professor that he would be suspended without pay and would not be reinstated unless he admitted his conduct was “reckless” and apologized for the unpleasant emails Ms. Abbate received.
All of this seems contrary to Marquette’s Faculty Handbook section 306.03, which says professors may be terminated by the university’s discretion only for “serious instances of illegal, immoral, dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct.” The handbook says that “in no case” may just cause for dismissal be interpreted “to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”
Mr. McAdams told Mr. Lovell this week that he won’t participate in the “compelled speech” demanded by the university by April 14 in exchange for reinstatement. This is more a test of Marquette and its ostensible free-speech principles than it is Mr. McAdams.
-
It is too bad the op-ed didn't also quote Marquette's code of conduct regarding behavior towards students that McAdams clearly violated.
-
It is too bad the op-ed didn't also quote Marquette's code of conduct regarding that McAdams clearly violated.
Cause ya know, op-ed pieces. Seriously some of the worst written stuff out there.
-
It is too bad the op-ed didn't also quote Marquette's code of conduct regarding that McAdams clearly violated.
Thank God I worked for an enlightened enterprise such as GE which understands that I could not be subject to adverse action for something innocuous as writing a letter to the editor expressing a personal view.
Military members are subject to the UCMJ and certain personal liberties are circumscribed because the framers of the Constitution wished to prevent any possibility of military control of the government. I understand that completely.
But working for a private employer? What one does and says on their own time, however distasteful or offensive, is their business and not the employers.
I don't agree with what McAdams said but I believe he had the right to do it.
The biggest disappointment is with Mike Lovell. Broadcasting comments on personnel matters on Twitter is stupid.
I would be shocked if Dr. Schlissel or Dr. Faust did such a bone headed thing. Lovell needs to comport himself with the dignity demanded of the leader of a prestigious 135 year old academic pillar. Engaging in a pissing contest with a disgruntled employee is beneath him. Or at least it should be.
-
::) :P ::) :P ::) :P ::) :P ::) :P
-
The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page Weighs In On This Issue
Punished for Blogging at Marquette
A tenured professor faces dismissal after a blog went viral.
April 7, 2016 7:17 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punished-for-blogging-at-marquette-1460071026
Was this unsigned?
-
The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page Weighs In On This Issue
Punished for Blogging at Marquette
A tenured professor faces dismissal after a blog went viral.
April 7, 2016 7:17 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punished-for-blogging-at-marquette-1460071026
Blogging can be dangerous to your livelihood—or at least it can at Marquette University, where a professor may lose his job for expressing the wrong political views.
In November 2014 an undergraduate approached philosophy instructor and PhD candidate Cheryl Abbate, after a class on John Rawls’ theory of equal liberty. The student said he objected to her suggestions during the class that same-sex marriage isn’t open for debate and that “everyone agrees on this.”
Unknown to Ms. Abbate, the student recorded the exchange on his cell phone. During the conversation, she told him “there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and if someone in the class was homosexual, “don’t you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”
When the student replied that he has a right to argue his opinion, Ms. Abbate responded that “you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don’t like that you are more than free to drop this class.” The student reported the exchange to Marquette professor John McAdams, who teaches political science. Mr. McAdams also writes a blog called the Marquette Warrior, which often criticizes the Milwaukee school for failing to act in accordance with its Catholic mission.
Mr. McAdams wrote on his blog that Ms. Abbate was “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.” His blog went viral, and Ms. Abbate received vicious emails. She has since left Marquette.
But now Marquette is going after Mr. McAdams. In December 2014, the school sent him a letter suspending his teaching duties and banning him from campus while it reviewed his “conduct” related to the blog post. “You are to remain off campus during this time, and should you need to come to campus, you are to contact me in writing beforehand to explain the purpose of your visit, to obtain my consent and to make appropriate arrangements for that visit,” Dean Richard Holz wrote.
Marquette President Michael Lovell told the tenured professor that he would be suspended without pay and would not be reinstated unless he admitted his conduct was “reckless” and apologized for the unpleasant emails Ms. Abbate received.
All of this seems contrary to Marquette’s Faculty Handbook section 306.03, which says professors may be terminated by the university’s discretion only for “serious instances of illegal, immoral, dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct.” The handbook says that “in no case” may just cause for dismissal be interpreted “to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”
Mr. McAdams told Mr. Lovell this week that he won’t participate in the “compelled speech” demanded by the university by April 14 in exchange for reinstatement. This is more a test of Marquette and its ostensible free-speech principles than it is Mr. McAdams.
This is so disingenuous as to the real reason McAdams got in trouble.
-
Thank God I worked for an enlightened enterprise such as GE which understands that I could not be subject to adverse action for something innocuous as writing a letter to the editor expressing a personal view.
Again, maybe that's true at GE but it is not true at many other private sector companies, including where I work.
If I talked crap about a coworker or the company on a private blog you can bet your a$$ I'd be in some hot water. People get canned all the time for this type of stuff.
In the private sector, the company doesn't need a reason to get rid of you. As long as it is not because you are a member of a protected class (gender, age, disability, etc.) they can fire you for not liking the chip on your front tooth, even more so because they don't like your blog.
-
This is so disingenuous as to the real reason McAdams got in trouble.
Yes. And so is keefe' assertion that it was roughly akin to writing a letter to the editor.
Very disingenuous.
-
Thank God I worked for an enlightened enterprise such as GE which understands that I could not be subject to adverse action for something innocuous as writing a letter to the editor expressing a personal view.
I am going to challenge this a little. Do you really believe that GE would allow you to publicly blog about an intern in another organization and not be challenged? Do you think you would keep your job if they told you not to do once before?
If McAdams lamented the restriction of free dialog in the class on a no-names basis, my guess is he would be in a different position today. Naming names at the top (those that set the policies) is a lot different from what occurred.
-
Go one more step Frenns.
McAdams repeatedly called out Marquette in his blog and wasnt disciplined at all. Can keefe honestly say that if someone did the same at GE that they wouldn't be disciplined?
The only times he was disciplined is when he named students in the blog.
-
McAdams repeatedly called out Marquette in his blog and wasnt disciplined at all. Can keefe honestly say that if someone did the same at GE that they wouldn't be disciplined?
The only times he was disciplined is when he named students in the blog.
I don't disagree but I think that part is irrelevant. Some companies would likely take pride in allowing people to express this type of opinion. I also though think this is where universities differ from corporations. Corporations are in place for the customers and shareholders and can be more restrictive in their control of employees and public dialog (so their rights to shut this down are in my opinion greater) than a university with a public mission. However, their rights to control how their employees are treated and apply discipline of said employees within a protocol are the same.
-
Go one more step Frenns.
McAdams repeatedly called out Marquette in his blog and wasnt disciplined at all. Can keefe honestly say that if someone did the same at GE that they wouldn't be disciplined?
The only times he was disciplined is when he named students in the blog.
Tenure, academic freedom.
That may be true it was the only time he was disciplined, but the university called him to the carpet on at least two other occasions for his writings in his blog.....terribly wrong on Marquette's part. He was threatened with disciplinary action, McAdams pushed back and MU backed down.
-
I'm going to start a Go Fund me for McAdams, and based on the reactions to Lovell on MU's twitter from fellow MU alumni, there are going to be plenty of donations.
I think the pitch will be....that money you were going to donate to MU this year, instead donate it to a MU professor's legal defense
-
So someone who is a well known employee at GE could repeatedly criticize executive decisions in a blog without repercussions? I would be surprised if that were the case.
-
This is so disingenuous as to the real reason McAdams got in trouble.
I'm sure MU's crack PR squad will get it squared away and not step in it, only to make it worse. I have much confidence in this.....
-
Tenure, academic freedom.
That may be true it was the only time he was disciplined, but the university called him to the carpet on at least two other occasions for his writings in his blog.....terribly wrong on Marquette's part. He was threatened with disciplinary action, McAdams pushed back and MU backed down.
Wrong on many levels. Not an academic freedom issue. Marquette didn't back down.
But other than that, spot on per usual.
-
Wrong on many levels. Not an academic freedom issue. Marquette didn't back down.
But other than that, spot on per usual.
Marquette did back down. I believe the incident was 2011, but I'll look it up again and post. Off to work
-
So someone who is a well known employee at GE could repeatedly criticize executive decisions in a blog without repercussions? I would be surprised if that were the case.
That is correct. GE would NOT take an adverse action against an employee for blogging, writing letters to the editor, etc...unless they disclose GE trade secrets, competitive advantage, or the activity is done on company time using company assets.
I have said this all along: GE is far too clever. An institution like GE has many levers that can be employed that will achieve the same effect.
Start with the effect and build out your COAs that will achieve that effect with least cost. damage, and repercussion.
Effect: terminate employee
Risk factors: wrongful termination suit
COAs:
1. reassignment to Arctic Slope Science Center
2. reassignment to Kalimantan Power Grid Project (Local terms vice expat)
And let's make this clear: This has nothing to do with John McAdams. My issue is the ham fisted, amateurish manner in which every level of Marquette University handled this whole matter. Anyone who denies that the reaction was mismanaged is an idiot.
The latest stupidity is the University President Tweeting to the world about an adverse personnel action that has already been adjudicated.
And let's agree that McAdams is only "well known" because of the publicity surrounding this matter.
I can't understand how a Marquette grad can read an op ed in internationally respected news source as the WSJ and not feel embarrassed. You don't have to agree with the opinion being expressed. The real issue is that the value of your Marquette diploma has lost luster in the eyes of the world because that is the audience that just heard the nae Marquette and it was not in any way positive.
People either get that or they don't. I don't give a sh1t about the politics of what McAdams or Abbatte said or did. The real issue for me, as a Marquette alum, is how the idiots who run our university diminished its reputation in the eyes of the world.
-
I'm going to start a Go Fund me for McAdams, and based on the reactions to Lovell on MU's twitter from fellow MU alumni, there are going to be plenty of donations.
I think the pitch will be....that money you were going to donate to MU this year, instead donate it to a MU professor's legal defense
Cool. Have fun. Count me out.
-
Alright I will take your word for it keefe re GE.
-
I'm going to start a Go Fund me for McAdams, and based on the reactions to Lovell on MU's twitter from fellow MU alumni, there are going to be plenty of donations.
I think the pitch will be....that money you were going to donate to MU this year, instead donate it to a MU professor's legal defense
You're hilarious. An authoritarian who breaks ranks based on politics and tries to pass it off as principle.
I actually agree with your conclusion on this but I don't like the way you had to twist yourself into a pretzel to get there. Squirmy.
-
Arrrrrrrrrr. I'm so peaved at the downright shoddy reporting on this. Look. I agree with everything Johnny Mac said. Abate is a flaming lefty who should have been harshly rebuked by her boss. Too bad flaming lefties also run the Philosophy Department. After that it would have been the job of the Dean and then Provost.
But unfortunately John decided to step out first and in clear violation of his contractual duty. And that was the mortal sin. Oh and btw, his personnel file was thick with repeated similar transgressions. MU decided this was the last straw.
-
Arrrrrrrrrr. I'm so peaved at the downright shoddy reporting on this. Look. I agree with everything Johnny Mac said. Abate is a flaming lefty who should have been harshly rebuked by her boss. Too bad flaming lefties also run the Philosophy Department. After that it would have been the job of the Dean and then Provost.
But unfortunately John decided to step out first and in clear violation of his contractual duty. And that was the mortal sin. Oh and btw, his personnel file was thick with repeated similar transgressions. MU decided this was the last straw.
That is not the point, glow. The real issue is how Marquette managed this whole affair. The last, and in many ways worst, transgression was Lovell's tweeting about an internal personnel matter.
I don't know what the man's contract said but I do know that Marquette has been cast negatively in the eyes of the world entirely because of how they handled this.
What makes this particularly egregious is that this isn't the first major PR f#ck up but, rather, the latest in a series of very bad decisions.
You and Chick defend Marquette at every opportunity. I take that as passionate support for your alma mater.
I find fault with how Mike Lovell has chosen to engage on this matter. I submit that is equally passionate support for my alma mater.
Sultan suggested I did not see the value in my Marquette diploma. Quite the contrary, I believe that credential has served me well over the years. My concern is that the brutally bad decisions made by the Administration only serve to diminish the value of that academic background.
-
That is not the point, glow. The real issue is how Marquette managed this whole affair. The last, and in many ways worst, transgression was Lovell's tweeting about an internal personnel matter.
It is exactly the point. I am not going to reread this entire thread, but IIRC, you are the only one who thinks Dr. Lovell's tweet was the worst transgression. The rest of this thread is a rehash of the same issues. And I don't think anyone has dug up any internet articles blasting Dr. Lovell for using Twitter.
-
That is not the point, glow. The real issue is how Marquette managed this whole affair. The last, and in many ways worst, transgression was Lovell's tweeting about an internal personnel matter.
I don't know what the man's contract said but I do know that Marquette has been cast negatively in the eyes of the world entirely because of how they handled this.
What makes this particularly egregious is that this isn't the first major PR f#ck up but, rather, the latest in a series of very bad decisions.
You and Chick defend Marquette at every opportunity. I take that as passionate support for your alma mater.
I find fault with how Mike Lovell has chosen to engage on this matter. I submit that is equally passionate support for my alma mater.
Sultan suggested I did not see the value in my Marquette diploma. Quite the contrary, I believe that credential has served me well over the years. My concern is that the brutally bad decisions made by the Administration only serve to diminish the value of that academic background.
keefe, I don't really have a dog in the fight on the PR issue in this particular case. I will say that historically MU has been below average on that front.
-
It is exactly the point. I am not going to reread this entire thread, but IIRC, you are the only one who thinks Dr. Lovell's tweet was the worst transgression. The rest of this thread is a rehash of the same issues. And I don't think anyone has dug up any internet articles blasting Dr. Lovell for using Twitter.
Lovell's tweet caused the WSJ to publish an oped piece that slams Marquette. Lovell keeps his mouth shut, as he should have since he had already made clear Marquette's position in the official announcement, and the WSJ doesn't publish the editorial.
Here is how Marquette University has appeared recently in the WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punished-for-blogging-at-marquette-1460071026
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704324304575306812634791910
Maybe you are ok with that. As an alum of the university that had a greater impact on my life than anything else I am disgusted.
-
Lovell's tweet caused the WSJ to publish an oped piece that slams Marquette. Lovell keeps his mouth shut, as he should have since he had already made clear Marquette's position in the official announcement, and the WSJ doesn't publish the editorial.
Here is how Marquette University has appeared recently in the WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punished-for-blogging-at-marquette-1460071026
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704324304575306812634791910
Maybe you are ok with that. As an alum of the university that had a greater impact on my life than anything else I am disgusted.
I guess you missed the dozens of other articles that were printed before Lovell's statement, which gave only McAdam's side of the story.
I know tons of people whose opinion of the issue changed once they read Lovell's post.
And at least now people in the University's camp have something to direct people to when their friends and acquaintances go off on Marquette based on incomplete information.
-
I guess you missed the dozens of other articles that were printed before Lovell's statement, which gave only McAdam's side of the story.
I know tons of people whose opinion of the issue changed once they read Lovell's post.
And at least now people in the University's camp have something to direct people to when their friends and acquaintances go off on Marquette based on incomplete information.
This.
McAdams was already winning the PR spin game.
Lovell responded in a way to get the most eyeballs he could. I commend his use of social media.
-
Marquette handled this the way they handle any potentially embarrassing item that goes public.
They threw gas on it.
IIRC Abbate was initially correct. I believe what she meant to convey to the student was "You're concern is not addressed in this class. It's not a part of the discussion. There may be another class at MU that will be more interesting to you".
Instead, what she said was "F * ck You. Your opinion has no right to be thought in America in 2015, even though it has been the teaching of the Catholic Church since Christ was an embryo."
The student escalates by going to McAdams (immature). McAdams escalates by blogging (wrong, but far from a fire able offense). MU PR throws gas on it. Lovell sees an opportunity to get rid of McAdams, throwing a nuke into the mix.
Why does Marquette insist upon handing talk radio hosts a script for days on end. To bad there were no adults available. Where the hell was the BOT? Ideally, the BOT lets the Administration handle this, but obviously this got way out of hand. I know carping about what has happened doesn't fix anything, but maybe MU PR can finally yank their head out of their collective arses.
We should never have known about this.
-
The student escalates by going to McAdams (immature). McAdams escalates by blogging (wrong, but far from a fire able offense).
If it was an isolated incident, maybe.
It wasn't. McAdams had been warned countless times about his antagonistic blog.
Even if it was isolated, he attacked a student.
-
"It wasn't. McAdams had been warned countless times about his antagonistic blog. "
really? why? maybe in china, but here? re-read keefe's posts
and btw-i agree 110% with keefe on this. i will also admit however, part of my angst comes from the bad taste left in my mouth from how they've handled situations in the past including but not limited to WARRIORS. imho, twitter is kinda "trailer" for major universities to get out the word. the kardashians use it quite effectively though
-
"It wasn't. McAdams had been warned countless times about his antagonistic blog. "
really? why? maybe in china, but here? re-read keefe's posts
and btw-i agree 110% with keefe on this. i will also admit however, part of my angst comes from the bad taste left in my mouth from how they've handled situations in the past including but not limited to WARRIORS. imho, twitter is kinda "trailer" for major universities to get out the word. the kardashians use it quite effectively though
For sh!t talking the people who sign his checks. That's why. That is frowned upon in more countries than China.
-
It is too bad the op-ed didn't also quote Marquette's code of conduct regarding behavior towards students that McAdams clearly violated.
I read the Code of conduct for students online. Is there one for faculty, tenured or not?
-
For sh!t talking the people who sign his checks. That's why. That is frowned upon in more countries than China.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQgH9gcC9cSlBcimz8FlaP_URsm3AwQyzBMSCwzqHp_kNhSrni2Q)
-
This.
McAdams was already winning the PR spin game.
Lovell responded in a way to get the most eyeballs he could. I commend his use of social media.
Do you think Lovell's response on Twitter somehow trumps out the ink (digital or otherwise) that the WSJ brings? Or all the links to the WSJ article will bring?
I don't think it comes close. Keefe has a good point that at some point you just can't win against the media. Now, if the university can get a bunch of left wing publications to counter the WSJ with their own version, then maybe that does the trick, or maybe it doesn't.
End of the day, a lot of Catholic alumni remain curious why Catholic teachings are so frowned upon at MU, and why those teachings can't be expressed at the university without being blunted, or shut down.
-
Arrrrrrrrrr. I'm so peaved at the downright shoddy reporting on this. Look. I agree with everything Johnny Mac said. Abate is a flaming lefty who should have been harshly rebuked by her boss. Too bad flaming lefties also run the Philosophy Department. After that it would have been the job of the Dean and then Provost.
But unfortunately John decided to step out first and in clear violation of his contractual duty. And that was the mortal sin. Oh and btw, his personnel file was thick with repeated similar transgressions. MU decided this was the last straw.
Do you really think she would have been rebuked by her boss in a Department run by "flaming lefties"? Do you really think the student would have been able to discuss "gay marriage" in class? If McAdams kept quiet would the student's complaint been addressed to his (i.e. the student's) satisfaction or told to drop the class? Please give me insight into McAdams' other transgressions as I'm not familiar with those.
-
Do you really think she would have been rebuked by her boss in a Department run by "flaming lefties"? Do you really think the student would have been able to discuss "gay marriage" in class? If McAdams kept quiet would the student's complaint been addressed to his (i.e. the student's) satisfaction or told to drop the class? Please give me insight into McAdams' other transgressions as I'm not familiar with those.
2011 there was this incident where MU threatened McAdams, and then they backed off. http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/387/marquette-prof-threatened-about-blog-reporting-on-student-activities.aspx
Also mentioned here http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-10/free-speech-and-marquette-s-ivory-tower
-
Do you really think she would have been rebuked by her boss in a Department run by "flaming lefties"? Do you really think the student would have been able to discuss "gay marriage" in class? If McAdams kept quiet would the student's complaint been addressed to his (i.e. the student's) satisfaction or told to drop the class? Please give me insight into McAdams' other transgressions as I'm not familiar with those.
To answer your question, no, the Philosophy Department would not have addressed the issue in my opinion. But I sincerely believe that the Dean would have if given the chance. As an example, recall how quickly the mural was dealt with.
-
To answer your question, no, the Philosophy Department would not have addressed the issue in my opinion. But I sincerely believe that the Dean would have if given the chance. As an example, recall how quickly the mural was dealt with.
....again after McAdams made it public knowledge in his blog. Would it have come down otherwise?
-
I'm simply not willing to replace an approved process with a self-appointed defacto omsbudman. Perhaps we disagree. That's fine.
-
I guess you missed the dozens of other articles that were printed before Lovell's statement, which gave only McAdam's side of the story.
I know tons of people whose opinion of the issue changed once they read Lovell's post.
And at least now people in the University's camp have something to direct people to when their friends and acquaintances go off on Marquette based on incomplete information.
Didn't Lovell accomplish that when he announced the University's "official position" on the matter? Or were they "just kidding...here's what we really meant"?
Let McAdams spout off in public; Marquette should not debate a disgruntled employee.
Again, I go back to effects: What did Marquette really gain by having Lovell Tweet out a statement on an internal personnel matter?
From my vantage point he earned Marquette a nasty oped in the WSJ.
Frankly, I am not just unimpressed but disgusted that Mike Lovell lowered himself in the cesspool of public opinion.
-
I'm simply not willing to replace an approved process with a self-appointed defacto omsbudman. Perhaps we disagree. That's fine.
glow
Is the University President tweeting out about an internal personnel matter an "approved process?"
Because, like McAdams, Lovell made himself a de facto ombudsman by employing social media to comment publicly on an adverse personnel action.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "if you are given command, command!"
-
glow
Is the University President tweeting out about an internal personnel matter an "approved process?"
Because, like McAdams, Lovell made himself a de facto ombudsman by employing social media to comment publicly on an adverse personnel action.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "if you are given command, command!"
Keefe, somehow you keep thinking I have an opinion on the PR aspect. I simply have an opinion on the legitimacy of MU's disciplinary action.
-
Keefe, somehow you keep thinking I have an opinion on the PR aspect. I simply have an opinion on the legitimacy of MU's disciplinary action.
Roger that
-
....again after McAdams made it public knowledge in his blog. Would it have come down otherwise?
Not a chance
-
To answer your question, no, the Philosophy Department would not have addressed the issue in my opinion. But I sincerely believe that the Dean would have if given the chance. As an example, recall how quickly the mural was dealt with.
Wasn't the mural there for years?
And the crackpot running that Gender program was a lunatic. One of the "textbooks" was a coloring book of vaginas...
"Wisconsin’s Marquette University will host a 12-week workshop on sex, feminism and masturbation, despite concerns that the workshop’s themes and activities clash with the school’s Catholic identity.
The workshop is produced by FemSex, a student-led group with a presence on many college campuses, and will be hosted in university buildings by the University Honors Program for its 12-week run. Each week will feature a different topic, such as “Masturbation, Orgasm, and Pleasure,” “Power and Privilege,” and “Gender and Identity.”
Participating students will complete raunchy homework assignments, like coloring anatomical pictures in “The aunt Coloring Book” and writing about their sexually pleasurable experiences, according to Campus Reform."
http://collegeinsurrection.com/2013/09/catholic-college-hosts-sex-workshop-featuring-ct-coloring-book/
-
Wasn't the mural there for years?
About 10 weeks.
http://m.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-university-vows-to-remove-mural-of-fbi-fugitive-who-killed-trooper-b99502206z1-304102841.html
-
Again, I go back to effects: What did Marquette really gain by having Lovell Tweet out a statement on an internal personnel matter?
I have answered the question repeatedly. You choose to ignore it. (Except for telling me what the CEO of Zipcar would do. ::) ) If you disagree with my response, that's fine. However don't act like it hasn't been addressed.
From my vantage point he earned Marquette a nasty oped in the WSJ.
THE HORROR!!!! This will have little impact on MU overall. Only will serve to reinforce people who are "outraged."
Frankly, I am not just unimpressed but disgusted that Mike Lovell lowered himself in the cesspool of public opinion.
LOL. I hope he finds a way to sleep at night.
He did great. Hope he does it again. Just hope that the likes of Chicos and yourself have a fainting couch handy.
-
I have answered the question repeatedly. You choose to ignore it. (Except for telling me what the CEO of Zipcar would do. ::) ) If you disagree with my response, that's fine. However don't act like it hasn't been addressed.
THE HORROR!!!! This will have little impact on MU overall. Only will serve to reinforce people who are "outraged."
LOL. I hope he finds a way to sleep at night.
He did great. Hope he does it again. Just hope that the likes of Chicos and yourself have a fainting couch handy.
We disagree and that's fine. No one is is incorrect. We all will act accordingly. I wrote a check earlier this year to another alma mater with a second's hesitation.
-
Wasn't the mural there for years?
Nope, but it would have been. Thanks to McAdams bringing it to the attention of the public, it didn't live long.
-
He did great. Hope he does it again. Just hope that the likes of Chicos and yourself have a fainting couch handy.
And I hope that the Catholic university I went to will actually allow students and faculty to express Catholic teachings and thoughts without being threatened, cut off, etc.
Wouldn't that be nice.
I, too, have donated to other alma maters of late. MU calls on the phone, a ton, and I just don't answer. Still love the school, but the lack of a principled back bone when it comes to Catholic dogma, teachings, etc, and cutting off people of faith, is just sickening.
-
And I hope that the Catholic university I went to will actually allow students and faculty to express Catholic teachings and thoughts without being threatened, cut off, etc.
Holy sh*t. Talk about ignoring the major issues...
I can't even begin to address this.
-
MU alumni group criticizes Lovell
http://marquettewire.org/3947299/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-officially-rejects-punishment-determined-by-president-lovell/
If folks want more information on the Louis Joliet Society, which is attempting to bring back Catholicism at Catholic universities, I invite to click here.
http://www.louisjolietsociety.com/
-
"It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic,’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."
Saint Pope John Paul II
-
MU alumni group criticizes Lovell
http://marquettewire.org/3947299/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-officially-rejects-punishment-determined-by-president-lovell/
If folks want more information on the Louis Joliet Society, which is attempting to bring back Catholicism at Catholic universities, I invite to click here.
http://www.louisjolietsociety.com/
Oh here we go again. Chicos the victim parrots talking points that aren't really even the issue.
Abbate handled it wrong. It was how McAdams' handled it after that which is the problem. It's not about "political correctness." It's not about rejection of Catholic teaching.
-
Oh here we go again. Chicos the victim parrots talking points that aren't really even the issue.
Abbate handled it wrong. It was how McAdams' handled it after that which is the problem. It's not about "political correctness." It's not about rejection of Catholic teaching.
....but if they somehow get rid of McAdams they can continue the canard that Marquette is a Catholic University, because there will be no one who will speak to the hypocrisy, which I believe is their ultimate goal.
http://www.louisjolietsociety.com/secularization/signs-and-symptoms/
Thanks, Chico. I'll contribute to these folks rather than MU this time around. I find it curious that all the higher ups at MU have "Protected e-mail" I guess we the unwashed have no direct access to these folks.
-
....but if they somehow get rid of McAdams they can continue the canard that Marquette is a Catholic University, because there will be no one who will speak to the hypocrisy, which I believe is their ultimate goal.
Right. Marquette wants to no longer be Catholic and is getting rid of the ONE person that would speak toward that hypocrisy.
There is no limit to people's warping of logic to excuse someone's sh*tty workplace behavior...
-
Right. Marquette wants to no longer be Catholic and is getting rid of the ONE person that would speak toward that hypocrisy.
There is no limit to people's warping of logic to excuse someone's sh*tty workplace behavior...
Next step...getting rid of all those pain-in-the-ass Jesuits...
-
Next step...getting rid of all those pain-in-the-ass Jesuits...
oh, we still have those? interesting since not a word about this incident from any of them that i've heard anyway. i'll bet they're holed up in the man cave of their new digs watching the exorcist in HD and surround sound or something
-
oh, we still have those? interesting since not a word about this incident from any of them that i've heard anyway. i'll bet they're holed up in the man cave of their new digs watching the exorcist in HD and surround sound or something
I don't know. ..maybe they support the school's position and took keefe's advice to keep their yappers shut.
And I really don't get the snark about the new Jes Res. It was financed 100% by a single donor and their old residence was literally falling down around them. I'm sure some of y'all would prefer to move the basketball team in there instead (It would be great for recruiting) But unfortunately the donor was shortsighted enough to make it a restricted gift, so that is all the university could spend it on.
-
I don't know. ..maybe they support the school's position and took keefe's advice to keep their yappers shut.
And I really don't get the snark about the new Jes Res. It was financed 100% by a single donor and their old residence was literally falling down around them. I'm sure some of y'all would prefer to move the basketball team in there instead (It would be great for recruiting) But unfortunately the donor was shortsighted enough to make it a restricted gift, so that is all the university could spend it on.
you call it snark, i call it havin a little fun-sorry, i should have tealed it. i'm sure there are some mixed feelings. that's why they brought in lovell-to handle the hot stuff-Ein'a
-
There is no limit to people's warping of logic to excuse someone's sh*tty workplace behavior...
Was it "workplace behavior?"
Seems to me McAdams did his blog on his own platform in his own time.
What I don't know is if he violated something contractual.
-
MU alumni group criticizes Lovell
http://marquettewire.org/3947299/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-officially-rejects-punishment-determined-by-president-lovell/
If folks want more information on the Louis Joliet Society, which is attempting to bring back Catholicism at Catholic universities, I invite to click here.
http://www.louisjolietsociety.com/
It's good to know that this Catholic cause is cool for you to defend. I'll look for you to defend them all
-
It's good to know that this Catholic cause is cool for you to defend. I'll look for you to defend them all
You couldn't have missed this one if you had all day to think about it. MU is a Catholic institution, the "support" I'm giving is to allow Catholic teachings and issues to be discussed, taught, etc....wait for it....at a Catholic institution without threats, stifling of speech, etc. Does this mean I support or defend all Catholic positions? Absolutely not...which is why you are so wrong here. I'm trying to support the ability to have the dialogue at a supposedly Catholic institution where Catholics, today, are cut off from having Catholic positions....the irony.
-
You couldn't have missed this one if you had all day to think about it. MU is a Catholic institution, the "support" I'm giving is to allow Catholic teachings and issues to be discussed, taught, etc....wait for it....at a Catholic institution without threats, stifling of speech, etc. Does this mean I support or defend all Catholic positions? Absolutely not...which is why you are so wrong here. I'm trying to support the ability to have the dialogue at a supposedly Catholic institution where Catholics, today, are cut off from having Catholic positions....the irony.
From what I have read from sox he is neither that bright nor is he terribly open-minded. He does make a lot of noise, though.
-
I have answered the question repeatedly. You choose to ignore it. (Except for telling me what the CEO of Zipcar would do. ::) ) If you disagree with my response, that's fine. However don't act like it hasn't been addressed.
THE HORROR!!!! This will have little impact on MU overall. Only will serve to reinforce people who are "outraged."
LOL. I hope he finds a way to sleep at night.
He did great. Hope he does it again. Just hope that the likes of Chicos and yourself have a fainting couch handy.
We had leadership offsite last week and one of our guests was Danae Ringelmann, a founder of indiegogo. Like Robin Chase of Zipcar, Danae has superb academic credentials and has built a billion dollar tech enterprise from scratch.
And while her focus with us was on detailing the culture that she and her co-founders wanted and have implemented at Indiegogoshe did speak to the absolute necessity for responsible, informed communication - especially from leadership.
I am a fairly intelligent and actually rather discerning guy and from what I heard business leaders like Robin, Danae, Fred Kerrest, Phil Libin of Evernote, and Spence Rascoff of Zillow tell me personally in the past week confirms my view on just how terribly Marquette and Lovell have handled all of this.
You dismiss Robin Chase but I see a woman who isn't just well educated and has incredible success in business but who has a singularly compelling mind which redefines the paradigm of opportunity, risk, and culture.
In advance of meeting her I got a copy of her latest book, Peers Inc and found it to be an essential addition to the library on engineered change through disruptive, transformative technology.
I can try to get you to see this but I hear in your words a stunningly simple grasp of technology and its actual inherent value. You see Twitter as a broadcast medium. I see it as a tool. Either you get that distinction or you do not.
So while you claim to have answered the question, and while I do not disagree that you believe you have, I challenge you to think through what the real real question is.
You can dismiss Robin Chase but I see in her a visionary who has a genuine understanding of technology and how to harness its real value.
http://www.robinchase.org/#every-day-create-the-world-you-want-to-live-in
I have never, ever been an advocate of the whole business of self-help business writing. But genuine thinkers like Robin and Danae have something to say and a great way to say it. Moreover, they have actually done something.
Perhaps the academic world is different than the tech vertical. But I would hasten to point out that my two other alma maters never, ever are the focus of such unwanted attention as is Marquette.
Again, before you claim to have answered the question make sure you, in fact, actually know what the real question is.
-
From what I have read from sox he is neither that bright nor is he terribly open-minded. He does make a lot of noise, though.
in other words, a long ways to go before he can charge $500/hour hey...na?
-
You dismiss Robin Chase but I see a woman who isn't just well educated and has incredible success in business but who has a singularly compelling mind which redefines the paradigm of opportunity, risk, and culture.
I'm not dismissing Robin Chase one bit. I am dismissing the notion that how she approaches leadership and communications at her company can be exactly applied to Marquette or a higher education institution.
-
I'm not dismissing Robin Chase one bit. I am dismissing the notion that how she approaches leadership and communications at her company can be exactly applied to Marquette or a higher education institution.
I will agree that a tech enterprise has different imperatives than Marquette or any other university.
But the question remains the how, what, and why of communications. That is constant across verticals.
-
I agree. Lovell had a brand to protect and he did not.
-
....but if they somehow get rid of McAdams they can continue the canard that Marquette is a Catholic University, because there will be no one who will speak to the hypocrisy, which I believe is their ultimate goal.
http://www.louisjolietsociety.com/secularization/signs-and-symptoms/
Thanks, Chico. I'll contribute to these folks rather than MU this time around. I find it curious that all the higher ups at MU have "Protected e-mail" I guess we the unwashed have no direct access to these folks.
You are welcome.
-
in other words, a long ways to go before he can charge $500/hour hey...na?
Speaking of which, our esteemed litigator has vacated the premises. Now that the Marquette season has ended he can go back to following the happenings of his beloved Badger football.
Mutaman: Enlightened, Compassionate Defense
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/lenkachinsky.jpg)
-
Man, I stepped out of this thread 5 days ago think it was all wrapped up and nobody was going to budge........good call on my part ;) 8-)
-
I do have a reasonable amount of PR experience and Lovell's tweet is like me yelling NOOOOO when a guest at a party knocks something to the floor and it seems to take 10 minutes to fall.
Nothing good ever comes from Twitter. It just invites emotional outbursts and poorly crafted thoughts. It extends issues past their natural shelf-life. Because of its immediacy and inability to place a message in context, Twitter messaging requires a higher degree of communications planning and strategy than any other form, but it never happens that way.
Needlessly getting a negative editorial in the nation's most subscribed newspaper because of a Twitter post is stupid on stilts. Some here may not like the WSJ's editorial take, but it is a page that legitimizes an issue for debate and consideration to a broad swath of the public. Most of that public won't care, but it doesn't put a positive thought regarding Marquette in the back of their minds. Is that the worst thing ever...probably not, but it takes a lot of positive messaging to overcome a bad first impression.
Lovell needed to be the bigger person and leave McAdams to rot on his blog with his 15 readers.
-
I do have a reasonable amount of PR experience and Lovell's tweet is like me yelling NOOOOO when a guest at a party knocks something to the floor and it seems to take 10 minutes to fall.
Nothing good ever comes from Twitter. It just invites emotional outbursts and poorly crafted thoughts. It extends issues past their natural shelf-life. Because of its immediacy and inability to place a message in context, Twitter messaging requires a higher degree of communications planning and strategy than any other form, but it never happens that way.
Needlessly getting a negative editorial in the nation's most subscribed newspaper because of a Twitter post is stupid on stilts. Some here may not like the WSJ's editorial take, but it is a page that legitimizes an issue for debate and consideration to a broad swath of the public. Most of that public won't care, but it doesn't put a positive thought regarding Marquette in the back of their minds. Is that the worst thing ever...probably not, but it takes a lot of positive messaging to overcome a bad first impression.
Lovell needed to be the bigger person and leave McAdams to rot on his blog with his 15 readers.
Couldn't give you a bigger Amen, but the defenders will tell you how smart MU and Lovell are on this. How using this medium is genius.
-
I do have a reasonable amount of PR experience and Lovell's tweet is like me yelling NOOOOO when a guest at a party knocks something to the floor and it seems to take 10 minutes to fall.
Nothing good ever comes from Twitter. It just invites emotional outbursts and poorly crafted thoughts. It extends issues past their natural shelf-life. Because of its immediacy and inability to place a message in context, Twitter messaging requires a higher degree of communications planning and strategy than any other form, but it never happens that way.
Needlessly getting a negative editorial in the nation's most subscribed newspaper because of a Twitter post is stupid on stilts. Some here may not like the WSJ's editorial take, but it is a page that legitimizes an issue for debate and consideration to a broad swath of the public. Most of that public won't care, but it doesn't put a positive thought regarding Marquette in the back of their minds. Is that the worst thing ever...probably not, but it takes a lot of positive messaging to overcome a bad first impression.
Lovell needed to be the bigger person and leave McAdams to rot on his blog with his 15 readers.
Actually, very well said...especially for a knuckle dragging 11B
-
Lovells job is to raise money for the school. People with big money to donate are tired of the PC crap and want to see someone with a nutsack who will stand up to it.
Opportunity Lost in my book.
-
Lovells job is to raise money for the school. People with big money to donate are tired of the PC crap and want to see someone with a nutsack who will stand up to it.
Opportunity Lost in my book.
That is part of his job. Not all of it.
Leadership is about more than bending to the person who writes the biggest check. Maybe not in Washington DC, but it should be at MU.
You can argue about the merits of Lovell's actions. There are some compelling arguments that have been made against what he did, including what BadgerHater wrote above. However, fundraising is not one of them. Someone with a nutsack doesn't bend because of fear of losing money.
-
That is part of his job. Not all of it.
Leadership is about more than bending to the person who writes the biggest check. Maybe not in Washington DC, but it should be at MU.
You can argue about the merits of Lovell's actions. There are some compelling arguments that have been made against what he did, including what BadgerHater wrote above. However, fundraising is not one of them. Someone with a nutsack doesn't bend because of fear of losing money.
I wonder how much MU will be paying in attorney fees when MsAdams' goes to court.
-
I wonder how much MU will be paying in attorney fees when MsAdams' goes to court.
Shouldn't enter Lovell's decision-making process.
-
Lovell's Tweet was not the cause of the WSJ editorial. It would have occurred anyway because McAdams' friends in the right leaning media (and he has many) want to use this case as a cause celebre because it fits into the narrative about the suppression of free speech on campuses nationwide. As Lovell has stated many times, this case has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with a faculty member that abused his authority. We're only 4 years removed from the University rescinding the Deanship of Arts & Sciences for the polar opposite reason of this situation. I know it's not the same administration now but the notion that Lovell, who attends Mass almost every day from what I understand, is actively suppressing conservative speech on campus is ludicrous so I take him at his word. Any reporter that does the slightest big of research on our institution would recognize that immediately, but the right leaning press isn't going to let the facts get in the way of this fitting into their narrative unfortunately. Yes this is a PR Fiasco of the first order, but I'm absolutely certain that MU could have retained the best crisis communications executives in the country to see them through this and it would have made virtually no difference. I say all this as a very right leaning person politically (although not on social issues) but to the extent that I think tenure is BS, public sector unions should be illegal and that Academia should function like the private sector as much as possible, this will not go away until 1 of two things happen. McAdams is fired, or the University re-instates him effective immediately. At this point, I'm comfortable with either outcome.
-
Odds that "Disco Hippie" is Robert A. Wild SJ?
-
Shouldn't enter Lovell's decision-making process.
i think it better, somewhat, because i don't think he has a blank check and it's not his money. what if this were to cost $10 million? $20 million? many companies weigh out the risk/rewards before choosing how aggressive they may or may not get. i would hope he does the same
-
Odds that "Disco Hippie" is Robert A. Wild SJ?
MU82 was the Disco Hippie
(http://www.looklike.gr/image/cache/data/rsz_342462-600x600.jpg)
-
Odds that "Disco Hippie" is Robert A. Wild SJ?
Disco Hippie graduated the same year I did, definitely not Father Wild.
-
Disco Hippie graduated the same year I did, definitely not Father Wild.
A man can dream
-
Disco Hippie graduated the same year I did, definitely not Father Wild.
Was he? I mean, was he a disco hippie dude?
-
Disco Hippie graduated the same year I did, definitely not Father Wild.
we had a guy in my class referred to as "disco neck" had a neck like a giraffe and wore those silky(disco) shirts with pictures on them. chili-you'll have to ask tom about him-harmless, but someone couldn't resist(not me)
-
Perhaps it's time to unchain The Zizzo Group to sort out this PR mess...
OMG! By all that is holy, do NOT unchain the Z Beast!! Please!
-
OMG! By all that is holy, do NOT unchain the Z Beast!! Please!
I think that when McAdams hears that Lovell is taking Anne Zizzo off the leash he will know that not only are the gloves coming off but that he is well and truly f#cked.
God help him...
-
I think that when McAdams hears that Lovell is taking Anne Zizzo off the leash he will know that not only are the gloves coming off but that he is well and truly f#cked.
God help him...
Lovell really has to take the time with his decision on the Zizzo Group....that is a genie that you can't put back in the bottle, who knows who goes down in flames with McAdams after that.
-
Lovell really has to take the time with his decision on the Zizzo Group....that is a genie that you can't put back in the bottle, who knows who goes down in flames with McAdams after that.
Frankly, once they launch the Zizzo Group into the wind life as we know it will never be the same...
God have mercy on us all
-
One fact that most people are overlooking is that even if MU wins in lower court and prevails in appeals court, they will get slapped every which way but sideways when the case gets to the WI Supreme Court.
McAdams and Essenberg know this, which is why there will be no backing down.
-
One fact that most people are overlooking is that even if MU wins in lower court and prevails in appeals court, they will get slapped every which way but sideways when the case gets to the WI Supreme Court.
McAdams and Essenberg know this, which is why there will be no backing down.
All kidding aside, this entire episode is an unmitigated disaster for Marquette University.
What grieves me most is that the people charged with managing that enterprise failed completely in the discharge of their duties.
-
All kidding aside, this entire episode is an unmitigated disaster for Marquette University.
What grieves me most is that the people charged with managing that enterprise failed completely in the discharge of their duties.
the longer they keep dabbling and tickling this thing, the more free PR they keep getting too
-
Man, I stepped out of this thread 5 days ago think it was all wrapped up and nobody was going to budge........good call on my part ;) 8-)
8-)
-
the longer they keep dabbling and tickling this thing, the more free PR they keep getting too
If you keep picking at a scab the wound will never heal.
(which is markedly different than Shakespeare's 'wound that never heals...')